A Challenge For Andrew

[Devils Advocaat]

Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
occur in an abiotic environment.

[R. Dean]

On 3/25/2013 6:14 AM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
> occur in an abiotic environment.
>

You are challenging Andrew to prove a negative. The burden of proof
is upon those taking the positive position. It's impossible to prove a
negative. It's impossible to prove there's no life elsewhere in the
universe. It's impossible there are no other universes, and finally
it's impossible to prove the non-existence of god(s).

[August Rode]

On Mar 25, 12:32 pm, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/25/2013 6:14 AM, Devils Advocaat wrote:> Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
> > occur in an abiotic environment.
>
> You are challenging Andrew to prove a negative.

If Andrew has stated that such a thing is impossible (which I believe
he may have done), then he has made a positive claim.

> The burden of proof
> is upon those taking the positive position. It's impossible to prove a
> negative.

Correct in the general sense.

> It's impossible to prove there's no life elsewhere in the
> universe. It's impossible there are no other universes, and finally
> it's impossible to prove the non-existence of god(s).

Correct. That's one of the reasons why people are searching for
extraterrestrial life. I don't know what's being done with regard to
other universes, but I do know that those who care about gods are
perfectly happy in defining them into existence.

[Christopher A. Lee]

He can't - because it's been done.

I haven't mentioned Reza Ghadiri's group in a long time, who have done
this with peptides as part of their research into the manufacture of
nanomachines (nanites).

How else are these going to be made? There isn't another way to make
them at a molecular level.

NB: They stress that this isn't abiogenesis research, just part of
their work in nanomachine research..

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:32:41 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Except that Devil's Advocaat was demanding that Andrew either put up
or shut up about it when he denied something that has been
demonstrated.

Google on "Reza Ghadiri replicating peptides" (without the quotes).

Andrew has claimed this didn't happen. So he has shouldered the burden
of proving that the Ghadiri group were wrong.

Why are you still incapable of understanding the methodology for
dealing with unsupported (and unsupportable) claims?

Whether they are for gods or 30 ton Chihuahuas? They are phrased in
such a way that they are falsifiable - and stand until they are
falsified by providing the absent evidence.

So we don't have to prove there are no gods. Those who claim there are
have to show there are - which falsifies the default.

But instead of doing that they reinforce the default that there aren't
any with every copout, every fallacy, etc.

[Jope]

On Mar 25, 1:11 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 03:14:24 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>

> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
> >occur in an abiotic environment.
>
> He can't - because it's been done.
>
> I haven't mentioned Reza Ghadiri's group in a long time, who have done
> this with peptides as part of their research into the manufacture of
> nanomachines (nanites).
>
> How else are these going to be made? There isn't another way to make
> them at a molecular level.
>
> NB: They stress that this isn't abiogenesis research, just part of
> their work in nanomachine research..

Despite countless efforts,no one has yet accomplished abiogenesis in
the lab.Scientists need first need to define life itself.There is a
difference between the so called building blocks of living organisms
and life itself.
If you put a life form ,let say a roach,together ,it will not budge,If
you put a human together with every part in perfect condition,he will
not move.
Therein lies the mystery of life.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:42:00 GMT, "August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>And lo, on Mar 25, 2013 did Jope spake unto the multitudes, saying:

>> On Mar 25, 1:11�pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 03:14:24 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>> >
>> > <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
>> > >occur in an abiotic environment.
>> >
>> > He can't - because it's been done.
>> >
>> > I haven't mentioned Reza Ghadiri's group in a long time, who have done
>> > this with peptides as part of their research into the manufacture of
>> > nanomachines (nanites).
>> >
>> > How else are these going to be made? There isn't another way to make
>> > them at a molecular level.
>> >
>> > NB: They stress that this isn't abiogenesis research, just part of
>> > their work in nanomachine research..
>>
>> Despite countless efforts,no one has yet accomplished abiogenesis in
>> the lab.Scientists need first need to define life itself.There is a
>> difference between the so called building blocks of living organisms
>> and life itself.

Three dishonesties.

1. Moving the goalposts.

2. How many times do we have to give these morons the late Sidney
Fox's work that resulted in the formation of proto cells using natural
processes.

3. They're not "so-called" outside the deliberate ignorance of
religious fundamentalists.

>> If you put a life form ,let say a roach,together ,it will not budge,If
>> you put a human together with every part in perfect condition,he will
>> not move.

How does the moron know?

Sidney Fox's proto cells self-organised, took in nutrition and
reproduced. Eventually they died when their environment could no
longer support them.

>That's because you're looking at an incomplete recipe. Once you've got all
>of the bits together in the right place, you've got to initiate the trillion
>or so simultaneous chemical reactions that life depends on. It's already
>beyond our current means to bootstrap a single cell. Let's solve that
>problem before moving on to multicellular organisms.

Like I said, Sidney Fox.

[Andrew]

"August Rode" wrote in message news:a48fb0e7-dcf7-4ab4...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> "R. Dean" wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>
>> Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
>> occur in an abiotic environment.

They may occur, but they are not alive, are they? No.
Does that have anything to do with abiogesesis? No.
Also, did I ever specifically state that? No.
Therefore, is the DA challenge a "straw man"? Yes.

>> You are challenging Andrew to prove a negative.
>
> If Andrew has stated that such a thing is impossible (which I believe
> he may have done), then he has made a positive claim.

Here is the claim..

All living things, plants and animals, are made up of proteins which
consist of one or more chains of *specifically folded* amino acids....
These amino acids do not/will not naturally link to form a biological
protein apart from the specified instructions to do so that is within
the mechanism called "protein synthesis" that occurs in the nucleus
of cells that are *already* alive. This established fact of molecular
biology points to the truth that apart from a purposeful creation,
there is no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make
up life. This is clear and positive evidence for -->creation<-- by
an awesome and all powerful Creator.


Andrew

[Smiler]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:32:41 -0400, R. Dean wrote:

> On 3/25/2013 6:14 AM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not occur
>> in an abiotic environment.
>>
> You are challenging Andrew to prove a negative. The burden of proof is
> upon those taking the positive position. It's impossible to prove a
> negative.

Nope. It's impossible to prove a _global_ negative, but not impossible for
me to prove I don't have three legs or that there is no elephant in my
attic.

> It's impossible to prove there's no life elsewhere in the
> universe.

But it's a reasonable assumption, until we find some evidence of life
elsewhere.

> It's impossible [to prove] there are no other universes,

But it's a reasonable assumption, until we find evidence of one.

> and finally it's impossible to prove the non-existence of god(s).

But, again, it's a reasonable assumption, until we find evidence of one.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Andrew]

"ZeroPoint" wrote in message news:579e9461-c117-4687...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Jope wrote:

>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> > Devils Advocaat
>> > <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
>> > >occur in an abiotic environment.
>>
>> > He can't - because it's been done.
>>
>> > I haven't mentioned Reza Ghadiri's group in a long time, who have done
>> > this with peptides as part of their research into the manufacture of
>> > nanomachines (nanites).
>>
>> > How else are these going to be made? There isn't another way to make
>> > them at a molecular level.
>>
>> > NB: They stress that this isn't abiogenesis research, just part of
>> > their work in nanomachine research..
>>
>> Despite countless efforts,no one has yet accomplished abiogenesis in
>> the lab.Scientists need first need to define life itself.There is a
>> difference between the so called building blocks of living organisms
>> and life itself.
>>
>> If you put a life form ,let say a roach,together ,it will not budge,If
>> you put a human together with every part in perfect condition,he will
>> not move. Therein lies the mystery of life.
>

> Pretty near all of the basic steps required for abiogenesis have been
> demonstrated.

Then can you please - without using any fantasy - demonstrate
those steps for us?

If not, then that is evidence that your origins model is based
upon fantasy.

We will be waiting.

Remember --> NO fantasy!

[Budikka666]

Here's another chance for you to RUN and admit you'e a liar and a
fraud.

You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
first.

So far, you've run out without posting a single thing every time I've
made this offer, thereby proving that even you have no fatih at all in
this fraudulent god you're trying to sell us.

I'm sure your fans will delight in seeing you do it yet again. No one
has a cleaner pair of heels than you do, Blank Boi

Go ahead. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait....

Budikka

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 25, 5:26 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:11 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 03:14:24 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> > <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
> > >occur in an abiotic environment.
>
> > He can't - because it's been done.
>
> > I haven't mentioned Reza Ghadiri's group in a long time, who have done
> > this with peptides as part of their research into the manufacture of
> > nanomachines (nanites).
>
> > How else are these going to be made? There isn't another way to make
> > them at a molecular level.
>
> > NB: They stress that this isn't abiogenesis research, just part of
> > their work in nanomachine research..
>
> Despite countless efforts,no one has yet accomplished abiogenesis in
> the lab.

So??? We've only been working the problem for about 50 years, and
we've only had our major tool, computers, for about the last 25. In
the 50 years we've been working this rather major biochemical problem,
we've come *awfully* damn close, managing to generate self-replicating
molecules and primitive cell membranes. Keep your eye on the evening
news: I fully believe they'll accomplish abiogenesis in my lifetime.
And I'm 63.

Meanwhile, there's no reason to suppose that a magic being did it,
especially since there's *zero* evidence that such a being exists.

> Scientists need first need to define life itself.There is a
> difference between the so called building blocks of living organisms
> and life itself.
> If you put a life form ,let say a roach,together ,it will not budge,If
> you put a human together with every part in perfect condition,he will
> not move.
> Therein lies the mystery of life.

Life is an emergent property of biochemistry, not a magical property.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Andrew]

"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:88299a5e-5f83-4396...@la7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> Jope wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>> > Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> > >Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
>> > >occur in an abiotic environment.
>>
>> > He can't - because it's been done.
>>
>> > I haven't mentioned Reza Ghadiri's group in a long time, who have done
>> > this with peptides as part of their research into the manufacture of
>> > nanomachines (nanites).
>>
>> > How else are these going to be made? There isn't another way to make
>> > them at a molecular level.
>>
>> > NB: They stress that this isn't abiogenesis research, just part of
>> > their work in nanomachine research..
>>
>> Despite countless efforts,no one has yet accomplished abiogenesis in
>> the lab.
>
> So??? We've only been working the problem for about 50 years, and
> we've only had our major tool, computers, for about the last 25. In
> the 50 years we've been working this rather major biochemical problem,
> we've come *awfully* damn close, managing to generate self-replicating
> molecules and primitive cell membranes. Keep your eye on the evening
> news: I fully believe they'll accomplish abiogenesis in my lifetime.
> And I'm 63.

What do you mean, "they'll accomplish abiogenesis"?

Creating life from non life?

No.

But 'if' they did, it would merely show the necessity
of life's origin to have had an intelligent origination,
.... and that there really was a Creator.

[jope]

On Mar 25, 8:46 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:42:00 GMT, "August Rode" <aug.r...@gmail.com>

Abiogenesis, is about starting from scratch, Sidney Fox's proto cells
are essentially self-replicating chemicals .

>That's because you're looking at an incomplete recipe. Once you've got all
>of the bits together in the right place, you've got to initiate the trillion
>or so simultaneous chemical reactions that life depends on. It's already
>beyond our current means to bootstrap a single cell. Let's solve that
>problem before moving on to multicellular organisms.

That's vagueness multiplied by one trillion.Maybe you should seek
advice from dr Frankeinstein.He used electricity to start up the body
once everything is in place.He appeared to have had a better
understanding of life.

If you want to place your faith into the unseen,I have a better
suggestion:
The theory of evolution is based on:"Must have beens".
We have on the other hand the testimonies of eyewitnesses that have
testified to the veracity of Jesus Christ.

"That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we have
SEEN with our eyes, which we have LOOKED at and our hands have TOUCHED—
this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we
have SEEN it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal
life, which was with the Father and has APPEARED to us. We proclaim
to you what we have SEEN and HEARD, so that you also may have
fellowship with us."
1 John 1v1-3

[Andrew]

"jope" wrote in message news:5f6fb39b-3208-42e5...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

Scientists respond to S. Fox & C. Lee (his lone adherent):

"Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite
the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using
very special heating techniques under conditions which in
fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth.

Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins
present in living things. They are nothing but useless,
irregular chemical stains. It was explained that even if
such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would
definitely be destroyed."
"Chemical Origin of Cells,"
Chemical Engineering News
June 22, 1970, p. 80

[Devils Advocaat]

On 26 Mar, 02:42, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "August Rode" wrote in messagenews:a48fb0e7-dcf7-4ab4...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> > "R. Dean" wrote:
> >> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>
> >> Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
> >> occur in an abiotic environment.
>
> They may occur, but they are not alive, are they? No.

Nor are any of the self-replicating molecules in your body.

> Does that have anything to do with abiogesesis? No.

Actually without self-replicating molecules, you cannot have
abiogenesis.

> Also, did I ever specifically state that? No.

But you do insist that DNA only exists in living things.

But you've now admitted self-replicating molecules may exist in an
abiotic environment.DNA

is a self-replicating molecule.

> Therefore, is the DA challenge a "straw man"? Yes.

Evasion noted.

>
> >> You are challenging Andrew to prove a negative.
>
> > If Andrew has stated that such a thing is impossible (which I believe
> > he may have done), then he has made a positive claim.
>
> Here is the claim..
>
> All living things, plants and animals, are made up of proteins which
> consist of one or more chains of *specifically folded* amino acids....
> These amino acids do not/will not naturally link to form a biological
> protein apart from the specified instructions to do so that is within
> the mechanism called "protein synthesis" that occurs in the nucleus
> of cells that are *already* alive.  This established fact of molecular
> biology points to the truth that apart from a purposeful creation,
> there is no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make
> up life. This is clear and positive evidence for -->creation<-- by
> an awesome and all powerful Creator.
>
>  Andrew

Proteins are not the only molecules in living things.

[jope]

>Pretty near all of the basic steps required for abiogenesis have been
demonstrated.
>Then can you please - without using any fantasy - demonstrate
those steps for us?

The specific request was to show where those basic steps were
demonstrated .The reply is pretty psychotic.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <X9mdnZ4tGcHto8zM...@earthlink.com>,

Do you promise your head will explode when it happens?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <C8CdnYI6ndwe3szM...@earthlink.com>,

And you don't have a clue why that's irrelevant.

[Christopher A. Lee]

This lie has been posted previously by pathologically lying, dishonest
creationists.

Andrew got it from one of the most blatantly, ignorantly stupid and
transparently dishonest creationist lie-sites out there.

It cited a paper they never bothered to read completely, by Fox
himself and Haruda, one of his co-researchers.

And the web-site's author was too stupid to realise this.

he responders weren't scientists - otherwise they would not have
needed such obvious lies that showed they never read the article.

The quotes are taken from a fundamentalist web site that quote mined A
PAPER BY FOX HIMSELF AND MEMBERS OF HIS OWN TEAM THAT PRODUCED THE
VERY RESULTS THE QUOTE MINER LIED ABOUT.

>> "Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite
>> the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using
>> very special heating techniques under conditions which in
>> fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth.

That lie was by the web-site's author not the "scientists responding
to Sidney Fox" the author lied about.

Because the paper the web page cites as its source and misrepresents
WAS WRITTEN BY FOX AND HARUDA (A CO-RESEARCHER) THEMSELVES.

Would he really dismiss his own work like that?

And in the third person ?

But even if it were true that the conditions did not match the
primordial ones, so what?

It showed that natural processes were all that were needed.

And as we now know, amino acids are formed naturally in a wide variety
of situations.

However, he was referring to the conditions in the Miller/Urey
experiment not those of his (and Herrera's research before WW2) which
used silica and he considered more likely.

From his presentation at
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
which the Liar For God has been given many times, but instead of
reading it himself he looked for something by somebody else he hoped
refuted it....

The right kind of matter to organize itself is known now as thermal
protein, protein made from amino acids on Earth by heat. This was
first suggested from the work of Alfonso Herrera of Mexico City in
his laboratory of Plasmogeny, where he showed in 1924 to 1942 how to
make amino acids and sulfobes, a kind of cell, under terrestrial
conditions. This synthesis has much more geological plausibility
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
than that of the amino acids of Harold Urey and Stanley Miller,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which are produced in assumed atmospheres in closed flasks, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which are much better known due to publicity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The thermal amino acids
also fit into a single thermal continuity. The second step toward a
cell after amino acids is the formation of protein. This is where we
came in, in a context of protein, not thinking at that time of this
as a stage of life's origin. As a young professor of protein
chemistry, I wanted to know if it were possible that amino acids
such as had been produced by Herrera, and later by Miller, could
yield proteins on the primitive Earth even before there were living
cells to make protein. So we tried heating amino acids, even though
heat was known to decompose amino acids.

He produced protocells, and photographs of them were in the article.

>> Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins
>> present in living things. They are nothing but useless,
>> irregular chemical stains. It was explained that even if
>> such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would
>> definitely be destroyed."

Another outright lie.

We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the mixture to be heated a sufficient proportion of one or both of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid. The results of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
indiscriminate heating is seen as a dark tarry mass in Figure 3.
[that's the bit the author lies that was the only result]
When only a small proportion of these two amino acids in included we
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
get an amber-colored product.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[in other words the stuff the liars lied that didn't happen]
For years we thought the amber
component contaminated the kind of white product that professional
polymer chemists obtain, such as in styrofoam. In 1979, Dr. Klaus
Dose and associates of Mainz, Germany, showed that the amber color
was due to flavin, formed by heating amino acids together. We then
remembered that flavins are significant in energy metabolism of all
cells; indeed riboflavin is standard in the human diet and even in
supplements in the drugstore. The experiments indicate that flavin
was there from the beginning.

The main product of heating the amino acids is protein, so listed
under protein, subheading thermal, by Chemical Abstracts since 1972.
The nomenclature came into existence a year after a special report
on existence of characteristics common to protein and to thermal
proteins was published in Chemical and Engineering News.

The expectation of protein chemists, which we shared, is that
thermal protein, then called proteinoid, would be randomly
disordered. What the experiments and analyses showed is almost the
opposite.

:
:

When brought into contact with water, all tested thermal polymers of
amino acids, without exception, have been found to organize
themselves into cells, as described in the 1984 meeting.

Neither Lie-a-Line Andrew nor Jope-a-Dope bothered to red this, even
though the link is posted almost every time one of them pulls the same
old bullshit.

>> "Chemical Origin of Cells,"

None of the stuff the liars "quoted" came from that paper, which was
authored by Fox himself.

>> Chemical Engineering News
>> June 22, 1970, p. 80

If you google for this article, you see it was by Fox and Haruda (who
was one of his co-researchers).

>And you don't have a clue why that's irrelevant.

He is utterly and shamelessly dishonest.

Even more so than most creationists.

[Don Martin]

jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 8:46 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> wrote:

<snip>

>> That's because you're looking at an incomplete recipe. Once you've got all
>> of the bits together in the right place, you've got to initiate the trillion
>> or so simultaneous chemical reactions that life depends on. It's already
>> beyond our current means to bootstrap a single cell. Let's solve that
>> problem before moving on to multicellular organisms.
>
> That's vagueness multiplied by one trillion.Maybe you should seek
> advice from dr Frankeinstein.He used electricity to start up the body
> once everything is in place.He appeared to have had a better
> understanding of life.

trust you to counter the present state of the art with a fictional
scientist from around 1830. Our understanding of life has changed
considerably in the past 180 years or so.

Pious bullshit snipped.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-0893D2...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

The Sydney Fox research produced nothing similar to
a biological protein, and is therefore irrelevant to any
serious work in abiogenesis.

Except to show the impossibility thereof apart from a
fiat creation by a Creator.

[August Rode]

On Mar 26, 10:02 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hlwdjsd2-0893D2...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <C8CdnYI6ndwe3szMnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@earthlink.com>,

Assuming for a moment that the first half of the sentence is true, it
requires an a priori belief that biological proteins have to appear
all at once and can't be formed from precursors. Do you have such a
belief?

> Except to show the impossibility thereof apart from a
> fiat creation by a Creator.

A single experiment does not prove impossibility, nor does the
putative failure of an experiment show that some other hypothetical
mechanism with no supporting evidence must be the correct one. It is
silliness to suggest that it does.

[Uncle Vic]

jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote in news:5f6fb39b-3208-42e5-9fe0-038c768b7e6f@
7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

> If you want to place your faith into the unseen,I have a better
> suggestion:
> The theory of evolution is based on:"Must have beens".
> We have on the other hand the testimonies of eyewitnesses that have
> testified to the veracity of Jesus Christ.

Eyewitnesses that were built into the story, you mean? Another dumb
christer that can't understand that the bible doesn't prove itself.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:11:33 GMT, Don Martin <drdon...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 8:46 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>> That's because you're looking at an incomplete recipe. Once you've got all
>>> of the bits together in the right place, you've got to initiate the trillion
>>> or so simultaneous chemical reactions that life depends on. It's already
>>> beyond our current means to bootstrap a single cell. Let's solve that
>>> problem before moving on to multicellular organisms.
>>
>> That's vagueness multiplied by one trillion.Maybe you should seek
>> advice from dr Frankeinstein.He used electricity to start up the body
>> once everything is in place.He appeared to have had a better
>> understanding of life.
>
>trust you to counter the present state of the art with a fictional
>scientist from around 1830. Our understanding of life has changed
>considerably in the past 180 years or so.

It's a creationist. It is impossible for them to be honest,
intelligent or truthful.

>Pious bullshit snipped.

They can't stop preaching even where it is just plain rude.

[casey]

On Mar 26, 9:32 pm, "August Rode" <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And lo, on Mar 26, 2013 did  spake unto the multitudes, saying:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 8:46 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:

> > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:42:00 GMT, "August Rode" <aug.r...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >And lo, on Mar 25, 2013 did Jope spake unto the multitudes, saying:

> > > >> On Mar 25, 1:11 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>

> > > >That's because you're looking at an incomplete recipe. Once you've got
> > > >all
> > > >of the bits together in the right place, you've got to initiate the
> > > >trillion
> > > >or so simultaneous chemical reactions that life depends on. It's
> > > >already
> > > >beyond our current means to bootstrap a single cell. Let's solve that
> > > >problem before moving on to multicellular organisms.
>

> > > Like I said, Sidney Fox.
>

> > > >> Therein lies the mystery of life.
>
> > Abiogenesis, is about starting from scratch, Sidney Fox's proto cells
> > are essentially self-replicating chemicals .
>

> Life *is* self-replicating chemistry.

>
> > >That's because you're looking at an incomplete recipe. Once you've got
> > >all
> > >of the bits together in the right place, you've got to initiate the
> > >trillion
> > >or so simultaneous chemical reactions that life depends on. It's already
> > >beyond our current means to bootstrap a single cell. Let's solve that
> > >problem before moving on to multicellular organisms.
>
> > That's vagueness multiplied by one trillion.Maybe you should seek
> > advice from dr Frankeinstein.He used electricity to start up the body
> > once everything is in place.He appeared to have had a better
> > understanding of life.
>

> You do know that story was fiction, right?


"The two combined cells with were then given an
electric shock, and to the scientist surprise,
the combined cells acted like a fertilized egg
cell and starting to divide and grow, "

http://www.bioinformatics.nl/webportal/background/dollyinfo.html

[casey]

On Mar 27, 12:11 am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 8:46 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> That's because you're looking at an incomplete recipe. Once you've got all
> >> of the bits together in the right place, you've got to initiate the trillion
> >> or so simultaneous chemical reactions that life depends on. It's already
> >> beyond our current means to bootstrap a single cell. Let's solve that
> >> problem before moving on to multicellular organisms.
>
> > That's vagueness multiplied by one trillion.Maybe you should seek
> > advice from dr Frankeinstein.He used electricity to start up the body
> > once everything is in place.He appeared to have had a better
> > understanding of life.
>
> trust you to counter the present state of the art with a fictional
> scientist from around 1830.  Our understanding of life has changed
> considerably in the past 180 years or so.

"The two combined cells with were then given an
electric shock, and to the scientist surprise,
the combined cells acted like a fertilized egg
cell and starting to divide and grow, "

http://www.bioinformatics.nl/webportal/background/dollyinfo.html


>

[casey]

On Mar 27, 1:47 am, August Rode <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:02 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> [...]

> Assuming for a moment that the first half of the sentence is true, it
> requires an a priori belief that biological proteins have to appear
> all at once and can't be formed from precursors. Do you have such a
> belief?
>
> > Except to show the impossibility thereof apart from a
> > fiat creation by a Creator.
>
> A single experiment does not prove impossibility, nor does the
> putative failure of an experiment show that some other hypothetical
> mechanism with no supporting evidence must be the correct one. It is
> silliness to suggest that it does.

Are you trying to confuse Andrew with logical reasoning :)

As one person replied when I indicated they weren't being
logical, "Why would I be logical if it doesn't get me what I want?"

[Jope]

On Mar 26, 7:02 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 02:41:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <C8CdnYI6ndwe3szMnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@earthlink.com>,

> From his presentation athttp://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Since you have an a priori belief that life is series of chemical
processes,you are essentially arguing with yourself.The concept of
life is deducted from intelligent behavior.
Chemical reactions can display a level of complexity.But,can that
complexity be defined as life?The answer is no.
Of course ,if you accept that intelligent behaviors exist in the
universe,you would set yourself on a collision course with your own
atheistic thinking.
I do not know what life is at the bacterial level.There is a big
difference between cellular life and human life whose basic elements
are self awareness and intelligence.
As a pure materialist ,you can be expected to attribute the difference
solely to chemical complexity.But unless,you are able to define life
and self awareness in the first place ,it all comes down to a matter
of faith.
It is amazing how much materialists are trying to simplify the
infinite diversity of the universe into just a few numbers.
There appears to be among atheists an inability to perceive that
dimension of existence which triggers idealism and an innate sense
that there has to be something more than the immediate.In order to
properly understand atheists ,one needs to acknowledge that state of
"sentientlessness".
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that
they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of
Christ, who is the image of God."
2 Corinthians 4:4

[casey]

On Mar 27, 7:07 am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> There appears to be among atheists an  inability to perceive that
> dimension of existence which  triggers idealism and an innate sense
> that there has to be something more than the immediate.In order to
> properly understand atheists ,one needs to acknowledge that state of
> "sentientlessness".

And science does indeed acknowledge sentience as something
the brain does. Indeed there is something more than we have
explained so far but religion doesn't have any track record on
explaining anything the way science has.

Science does not have a handle of sentience. It may as well not
exist when it comes to explaining how the brain works. However
it does exist and it is only observed in working brains.

Even though theists claim god talks to them they have provided
no new knowledge about the world to show they are in contact
with some creator who likes to hide him/herself (how convenient).
Science however has come up with new knowledge and thus at
least has a track record of being able to answer questions. One
day it may answer the question of how the brain does mind.

[Jope]

If you can show instances where intelligent and complex processes can
arise without an intelligent causality,then I would understand
something about your way of thinking.
If not, then why are you an atheist?
If you believe that the world is the product of natural laws.Then can
you explain why are those laws so purposeful and intelligent.
If not, then why are you an atheist?
Thaikosvky once wrote:
"Music is not illusion but reality.It triumphs because it reveals an
inaccessible reality."
That sense, of an inaccessible reality, is itself inaccessible to
atheists.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <-tydncHhvrZVNMzM...@earthlink.com>,

Nonsense. The first baby steps of doing something new are always

[Father Haskell]

On Mar 26, 2:25 am, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Abiogenesis, is about starting from scratch, Sidney Fox's proto cells
> are essentially self-replicating chemicals .

So is DNA.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:42:36 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"August Rode" wrote in message news:a48fb0e7-dcf7-4ab4...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>> "R. Dean" wrote:

>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>
>>> Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
>>> occur in an abiotic environment.
>

>They may occur, but they are not alive, are they? No.

Like so many things in biology and chemistry, there is no clear line
that any fool can see. That applies to the concept of 'life'.

>Does that have anything to do with abiogesesis? No.

>Also, did I ever specifically state that? No.

>Therefore, is the DA challenge a "straw man"? Yes.

Andrew preaches religiously motivated lies without ever dealing with
evidence.

[Christopher A. Lee]

These "quotes" are an outright lie.

They come from a creationist web site, which made them up while
"referencing" a paper actually authored by Fox himself.

He is hardly going to disparage own his work in the third person, is
he?

>> >> "Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite
>> >> the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using
>> >> very special heating techniques under conditions which in
>> >> fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth.

Fox did not say this in the paper referenced.

>> >> Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins
>> >> present in living things. They are nothing but useless,
>> >> irregular chemical stains. It was explained that even if
>> >> such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would
>> >> definitely be destroyed."

Nor this - it is a paraphrase of a case that failed.

Other cases worked.

>> >> "Chemical Origin of Cells,"

>> >> Chemical Engineering News
>> >> June 22, 1970, p. 80
>> >
>> > And you don't have a clue why that's irrelevant.
>>
>> The Sydney Fox research produced nothing similar to
>> a biological protein, and is therefore irrelevant to any
>> serious work in abiogenesis.

Once again Andrew was lying through his teeth.

Fox wasn't even the first. As far as I can tell, that honour goes to
Herrera just before WW2.

Fox was researching protein formation, not abiogenesis and was
surprised by the unexpected result of simple proto-cells.

>Nonsense. The first baby steps of doing something new are always
>relevant.

Don't expect any honesty from Andrew or Jope.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:42:36 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"August Rode" wrote in message news:a48fb0e7-dcf7-4ab4...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>> "R. Dean" wrote:

>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>
>>> Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
>>> occur in an abiotic environment.
>

>They may occur, but they are not alive, are they? No.

>Does that have anything to do with abiogesesis? No.
>Also, did I ever specifically state that? No.
>Therefore, is the DA challenge a "straw man"? Yes.
>

>>> You are challenging Andrew to prove a negative.
>>
>> If Andrew has stated that such a thing is impossible (which I believe
>> he may have done), then he has made a positive claim.
>
>Here is the claim..
>
>All living things, plants and animals, are made up of proteins which
>consist of one or more chains of *specifically folded* amino acids....

What is the scientific definition of "specifically folded"?

>These amino acids do not/will not naturally link to form a biological
>protein apart from the specified instructions to do so that is within
>the mechanism called "protein synthesis" that occurs in the nucleus
>of cells that are *already* alive. This established fact of molecular
>biology points to the truth that apart from a purposeful creation,
>there is no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make
>up life. This is clear and positive evidence for -->creation<-- by
>an awesome and all powerful Creator.
>

Nothing in your claim supports your conclusion.
>
> Andrew
>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:43:44 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:42:36 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>"August Rode" wrote in message news:a48fb0e7-dcf7-4ab4...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>> "R. Dean" wrote:
>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Present evidence that self-replicating molecules cannot and do not
>>>> occur in an abiotic environment.
>>
>>They may occur, but they are not alive, are they? No.
>>Does that have anything to do with abiogesesis? No.
>>Also, did I ever specifically state that? No.
>>Therefore, is the DA challenge a "straw man"? Yes.
>>
>>>> You are challenging Andrew to prove a negative.
>>>
>>> If Andrew has stated that such a thing is impossible (which I believe
>>> he may have done), then he has made a positive claim.
>>
>>Here is the claim..
>>
>>All living things, plants and animals, are made up of proteins which
>>consist of one or more chains of *specifically folded* amino acids....
>
>What is the scientific definition of "specifically folded"?

It's a standard creationist dishonesty.

They add "specified" because they imagine their pretend friend
specified it.

If you ignore that bit and give examples they dismiss them because
they weren't specified.

Anybody remember a loonie called Titchy who used this particular
cheat?

>>These amino acids do not/will not naturally link to form a biological
>>protein apart from the specified instructions to do so that is within
>>the mechanism called "protein synthesis" that occurs in the nucleus
>>of cells that are *already* alive. This established fact of molecular
>>biology points to the truth that apart from a purposeful creation,
>>there is no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make
>>up life. This is clear and positive evidence for -->creation<-- by
>>an awesome and all powerful Creator.
>>
>Nothing in your claim supports your conclusion.

He knows, because this gets pointed out every time he pulls the same
bullshit.

His grasp of logic is as abysmal as his grasp of everything else.

>> Andrew
>>

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:00:33 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew's religion appears to require lies and demand that he never learn
science. It's sad for him.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:45:33 GMT, "August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>And lo, on Mar 26, 2013 did Free Lunch spake unto the multitudes, saying:

>If God needs to be defended by people (dubious at best), then why is it that
>the people who step up to the task tend to be the mendacious and the
>ignorant?

As well as examples of the Dunning Kruger effect.

[casey]

On Mar 27, 8:08 am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 4:23 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> [...]

>> Even though theists claim god talks to them they have provided
>> no new knowledge about the world to show they are in contact
>> with some creator who likes to hide him/herself (how convenient).
>> Science however has come up with new knowledge and thus at
>> least has a track record of being able to answer questions. One
>> day it may answer the question of how the brain does mind.
>
>
> If you can show instances where intelligent and complex
> processes can arise without an intelligent causality, then
> I would understand something about your way of thinking.

We are an instance of an intelligent and complex process
that has arisen over time you just don't believe it when
it is shown to you.

> If you believe that the world is the product of natural

> laws. Then can you explain why are those laws so
> purposeful and intelligent.

The laws are not purposeful or intelligent that is your
false assumption.

[Jope]

Which is a pretty circular statement which underscores the absurdity
of having a discussion about life without a basic definition of life.
What is life? DNA coding is not life .It maybe used in conjunction
with life ,but it is not life.A chemical reaction is obviously not
life.
An electronic circuit is not life.A talking robot is not life.A virus
is not life.A photo cell is not life.
What is life?
According to the Merriam-Webster:
"The quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a
dead body"How about that ??
According to Wikipedia:
"It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in
unequivocal terms"
What makes it so difficult to define life ,is that it cannot be done
without concluding that there must have a been an intelligent creator.
Try all you can.It cannot be done.

[Budikka666]

Here's another chance for you to RUN and admit you'e a liar and a
fraud.

You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
first.

So far, you've run out without posting a single thing every time I've
made this offer, thereby proving that even you have no fatih at all in
this fraudulent god you're trying to sell us.

I'm sure your fans will delight in seeing you do it yet again. No one
has a cleaner pair of heels than you do, Blank Boi

Go ahead. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait....

Budikka

[Budikka666]

You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
first.

[jope]

We have God you have nothing.No way at all of explaining the manifest
intelligence and complexities of the universe.
The earth was created by the Eternal God.Whatever age it has ,was also
part of that creation.Since the earth did not originate from current
natural processes,its age can only be a created property.
If you suddenly find that your bed was made,when you did not make
it,that your fridgde got well sotcked with food while you were
out.Would it not be logical to assume that someone did all that.What
other proofs would you need?
If you believe that the universe produced man's intelligence and
consciousness,do you need any additional proofs in order to conlude
that the universe must have possessed consciousness and intelligence
before hand.
Does a wall have to fall on you?
Science can only study processes,and from those processes attempt to
deductwhat must have been.
In order for those conclusions to be valid,observable conditions must
be similar with those that were present at the beginning of the
world ,which by itself is such an enormous assertion that it requires
a considerable leap of faith.
Currently ,scientists cannot even get recent history right.
Like Mark Twain once said :"History is part facts ,part fictions but
mostly speculations."But when it comes to cosmogonic theories,history
is simply outrageous speculations.
Maybe you should try to listen to classical music to try to develop a
senseof transcendal beauty ,which appears to be so terribly lacking
with atheists.

"Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom."
Isaiah 40v28

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<1bee8b13-9364-4b72...@vh9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

No, it is knowledge based on evidence.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<e533257d-bce4-405a...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 11:05 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
> > for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
> > for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
> > continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
> > first.
> >
> > Go ahead.  I'll wait.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait....
> >
> > Budikka
>
> We have God you have nothing.No way at all of explaining the manifest
> intelligence and complexities of the universe.

What manifest intelligence and complexities are we unable to explain
that your god does?

> The earth was created by the Eternal God.

Whoa! Don't you think you need to provide some evidence of the existence
of this "Eternal God" thingie before continuing?

[casey]

On Mar 27, 4:44 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <1bee8b13-9364-4b72-bfda-0d3dd16d5...@vh9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 8:08 am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 4:23 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > >> Even though theists claim god talks to them they have provided
> > >> no new knowledge about the world to show they are in contact
> > >> with some creator who likes to hide him/herself  (how convenient).
> > >> Science however has come up with new knowledge and thus at
> > >> least has a track record of being able to answer questions. One
> > >> day it may answer the question of how the brain does mind.
>
> > > If you can show instances where intelligent and complex
> > > processes can arise without an intelligent causality, then
> > > I would understand something about your way of thinking.
>
> > We are an instance of an intelligent and complex process
> > that has arisen over time you just don't believe it when
> > it is shown to you.
>
> > > If you believe that the world is the product of natural
> > > laws.  Then can you explain why are those laws so
> > > purposeful and intelligent.
>
> > The laws are not purposeful or intelligent that is your
> > false assumption.
>
> No, it is knowledge based on evidence.

What evidence are you talking about? Do you imagine
the Earth orbits the Sun with a purpose? That a stone
rolls down a hill for a purpose?

Purpose and intelligence is how we describe a subset
of behaviors that emerge from the interaction of parts
that themselves do not show purpose or intelligence.

[jope]

Purpose is demonstrated when a process is repeatedly acting toward a
specific goal.When extreme precision and complex calculations are
involved .,intelligence is necessarity inferred.There are millions of
houses on this planet,every single one of them is built by
someone.Because a house is so complex,it cannot happen by accident.
The movement of the earth around the sun ,plays a purposeful role in
maintaining life.The complex timings involved in regulating
temperature displays a know how that we call intelligence.
And by the way,chance is a subjective concept.It is a simple
definition of our inability to measure all the parameters involved.
If you know the position ,the velocity,the density of the ground,the
accelaration and other parameters,you can calculate exactly where a
coin will land,thereby completely eliminating the notion of chance.

If you could know all the parameters in the universe,you could
predict with exactitude ,the behavior of everything in the
universe.The only alternative to chance is purpose.

[casey]

And the same would apply to any creator. You are a machine
that follows a fixed set of actions in order to build your house
or a clock. A creator would also have to be a machine that
follows a fixed set of actions in order to build the Universe.
Thus you need another creator to create the creator and so on.

[Yap]

When I shake a glass of water and oil together, they later become two
layer liquid.
For you, it must the work of your pixie because the water and oil do
not have intelligence, right?

Of course you are right....in that your pixie wants you to be become
old and sick as years gone by.

> If not, then why are you an atheist?
> If you believe that the world is the product of natural laws.Then can
> you explain why are those laws so purposeful and intelligent.

[Yap]

On Mar 27, 1:26 pm, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:05 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
> > for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
> > for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
> > continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
> > first.
>
> > Go ahead.  I'll wait.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait....
>
> > Budikka
>
> We have God you have nothing.No way at all of explaining the manifest

Well, if your leg gets crushed during a car accident, try calling for
a regrowth by your pixie.
Ya, you have your pixie....

[jope]

Following the same logic, a creator would also be able to talk and
communicate with people.
Time is an artificial notion based on specific events,I personally
believe that time is the measure of an internal clock.
One unit of time equals one event.Since that event determines time,
it cannot itself be measured in terms of time.
Basically ,one million years can potentially pass by within a few
minutes,and you would have no way of knowing that.
Any way ,that is my conclusion after many years of efforts trying to
understand the subject of time.
If you can accept that the laws of nature always existed,you can also
accept the idea of a creator that always existed.
And by the way, if you can grab the concept of a determinator vs a
determined ,you will cease to be an atheist,because you would come to
realize, for instance, that the pre-universe must necessarily possess
additional properties ,that cannot be deducted from observation.I
call that :The cosmogonic disparity principle.Oh well.

[casey]

On Mar 27, 8:52 pm, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> [...]

> > > If you could know all the parameters in the universe,you could
> > > predict with exactitude ,the behavior of everything in the
> > > universe.The only alternative to chance is purpose.
>
> > And the same would apply to any creator. You are a machine
> > that follows a fixed set of actions in order to build your house
> > or a clock. A creator would also have to be a machine that
> > follows a fixed set of actions in order to build the Universe.
> > Thus you need another creator to create the creator and so on.
>
> >A creator would also have to be a machine that
> > follows a fixed set of actions in order to build the Universe.
>
> Following the same logic, a creator would also be able to talk and
> communicate with people.

Yeah well that hasn't happened.

> Time is an artificial notion based on specific events,I personally
> believe that time is the measure of an internal clock.

The mystery to me is the now. Why is now, now?
If time is a dimension then what is special about now?

> One unit of time equals one event.Since that event determines time,
> it cannot itself be measured in terms of time.
> Basically ,one million years can potentially pass by within a few
> minutes,and you would have no way of knowing that.

True. Time dilation is an example where you would be happy
to have a drink of water in your time while someone watching
you orbit the black hole would see you as taking a lifetime
to perform that single act.

> Any way ,that is my conclusion after many years of efforts trying to
> understand the subject of time.
> If you can accept that the laws of nature always existed,you can also
> accept the idea of a creator that always existed.

Except there is no need for a creator if the Universe has always
existed in some way.

> And by the way, if you can grab the concept of a determinator vs a

> determined ,you will cease to be an atheist, because you would come to

> realize, for instance, that the pre-universe must necessarily possess
> additional properties ,that cannot be deducted from observation.

Your error is you anthropomorphize the natural world.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/01/why-do-we-anthropomorphize/11766.html

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:56:15 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 27, 1:26 pm, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 11:05 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> > You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
>> > for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
>> > for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
>> > continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
>> > first.
>>
>> > Go ahead.  I'll wait.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait....
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> We have God you have nothing.No way at all of explaining the manifest

The moron only imagines he does.

If he ad demonstrated that it is anything more than his deluded
fantasy he might have had a point.

But he hasn't. So it remains just that.

A tacit admission that he has worse than nothing.

Because if he only had nothing he would h kept his trap shut.

>Well, if your leg gets crushed during a car accident, try calling for
>a regrowth by your pixie.
>Ya, you have your pixie....

And his mind-numbing stupidity.

Because that's what it takes to insist his pretend did anything at
all, to an involuntary audience he knows doesn't believe it in the
first place.

Which is why he should have provided the absent evidence for it before
doing that.

>> intelligence and complexities of the universe.
>> The earth was created by the Eternal God.Whatever age it has ,was also

What "the Eternal God" was he bullshitting about?

>> part of that creation.Since the earth did not originate from current
>> natural processes,its age can only be a created property.
>> If you suddenly find that your bed was made,when you did not make
>> it,that your fridgde got well sotcked with food while you were
>> out.Would it not be logical to assume that someone did all that.What
>> other proofs would you need?

What makes so many theists so mind-bogglingly stupid?

>> If you believe that the universe produced man's intelligence and
>> consciousness,do you need any additional proofs in order to conlude
>> that the universe must have possessed consciousness and intelligence
>> before hand.

Why "must" we?

It sounds like a typically stupid, ignorant, in-your-face theist's
argument from personal ignorance to me.

>> Does a wall have to fall on you?

Was this particular bit of stupidity meant to mean anything?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:52:15 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article
><e533257d-bce4-405a...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 26, 11:05 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> > You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
>> > for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
>> > for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
>> > continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
>> > first.
>> >
>> > Go ahead.  I'll wait.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait....
>> >
>> > Budikka
>>
>> We have God you have nothing.No way at all of explaining the manifest
>> intelligence and complexities of the universe.
>
>What manifest intelligence and complexities are we unable to explain
>that your god does?

Jope-a-Dope's God explains nothing.

He might just as well have claimed Krishna did it.

Face it, these morons know they're talking outside their religion to
people who don't believe Christianity for pretty much the same reason
he doesn't believe Hinduism.

Which is why we conclude they're mindlessly stupid.

>> The earth was created by the Eternal God.
>
>Whoa! Don't you think you need to provide some evidence of the existence
>of this "Eternal God" thingie before continuing?

The morons imagine they're exempt from this - but that's only in what
passes for their own minds.

[Jope]

On Mar 27, 9:28 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:52:15 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><e533257d-bce4-405a-9034-3f36ea464...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Using insults is a poor substitute for reasoning.It shows that you are
unable to come up with a valid reply ,therefore you are resorting to
throwing .rocks,just like your adopted ancestors.

It is not the will of God that man is able to see him,rather they
should seek and find him.
Therefore, let me summarize it for you:
1-God is evidenced beyond doubts through observable circumstances.
2-Complex and intelligent structures per our experience can only be
constructed by an intelligent entity.
3-Random chance is only a definition of our inability to calculate all
the parameters involved.It is not a cause.
4-The intelligent and powerful Originator of the universe is also able
to communicate with people and he has done just that.

[Jope]

> http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/01/why-do-we-anthropomorphize/11...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I call that :The cosmogonic disparity principle.Oh well.

>Except there is no need for a creator if the Universe has always
existed in some way.

Except that the Universe has to possess attributes such as
intelligence and consciousness.
There is no way of escaping that.

>Your error is you anthropomorphize the natural world.

We do not have the ability to become an outside observer.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle happens to be a universal
philosophical concept.

[casey]

On Mar 28, 6:09 am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]
> ... the Universe has to possess attributes such as

> intelligence and consciousness.
> There is no way of escaping that.

Intelligence and consciousness is something that emerges
from a working brain. Before the brain is formed there is
no intelligent or conscious behavior to be seen. This is an
observable fact. The parts that make up the brain do not
show intelligent or conscious behaviors. The behavior of
the whole is not simply due to the behavior of the parts
it is also due to how the parts are connected. When the
parts are connected in a certain way the connected
whole can show intelligent and conscious behavior.

> >Your error is you anthropomorphize the natural world.
>
> We do not have the ability to become an outside observer.
> Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle happens to be a universal
> philosophical concept.

Well I don't understand the physics but if an observer is
required for something to happen then god would also
need an observer to make god happen and so on ...

I think you are imagining a mind without a brain which
has never been observed. Imagining something doesn't
make it true.

[Jope]

You cannot objectivize your inner self.Intelligence and consciousness
are the basic elements of existence.Everything else is defined by
them.
The brain is itself an objective concept.You need to grasp the
dichotomy between existence and experience.

[casey]

Well I think you need to grasp that intelligence and consciousness
is something objective brains do. There is no evidence that a
mind can exist without the objective concept we call a brain.
We have illusions about how the world is from a subjective point
of view which can be shown to be illusions by an objective view
of both what is being viewed and more telling what is actually
taking place in a physical brain. The brain is there to control the
body and just like man made control systems it can suffer from
a mismatch between how it seems to be with what actually is.

Intelligence and consciousness is not a basic element of reality
and the dichotomy you talk about is an illusion. There is nothing
else there except for a brain.

[Jope]

It should not be so hard to convey a simple reality.You sure have a
lot of faith in materialism.Let me put it even more simply:The brain
cannot study itself.
Before experience, there has to be existence.Do you actually realize
that you are denying your own existence.
We use models in order to explain our diverse
experiences .However ,before the first model can exist ,there had to
be an existence that objective models cannot fully represent.
Philosophers throughout the centuries have tried to tackle the
existence experience dichotomy.
From Plato's ontological dualism which postulates that the sensible
realm is possible only because of the original attributes of our
intelligent self.
To Leibnitz' noumena ,which is a posited object or event that is known
without the use of the senses.
There is also Kant's synthetic a priori judgment .
One the by products of the technological era, is the slow death of
philosophical thinking.
It can be stated like this:Human science already knows it all or is
just about to.There is no point in racking our brain anymore .We only
need to sit and wait.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:52:24 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

Nonsense.

[Jope]

I also need to add that true faith is not based on human philosophy
but rather on the experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ
who quenches the thirst of the soul and provides evidence to those
that trust in him.

"My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words,
but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith
might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power."
1 Corinthians 2v4,5

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:56:38 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

Does anything else offer a testable explanation? The concept that you
dismiss as "materialism" works.

>Let me put it even more simply:The brain cannot study itself.

Why not?

>Before experience, there has to be existence.Do you actually realize
>that you are denying your own existence.

More metaphysical nonsense.

>We use models in order to explain our diverse
>experiences .However ,before the first model can exist ,there had to
>be an existence that objective models cannot fully represent.

So?

>Philosophers throughout the centuries have tried to tackle the
>existence experience dichotomy.

What dichotomy?

>From Plato's ontological dualism which postulates that the sensible
>realm is possible only because of the original attributes of our
>intelligent self.

More nonsense.

>To Leibnitz' noumena ,which is a posited object or event that is known
>without the use of the senses.
>There is also Kant's synthetic a priori judgment .

None of these have anything to do with physics or any other science.

>One the by products of the technological era, is the slow death of
>philosophical thinking.

When people like you do such a horrible job of understanding what prior
philosophers have said, I can see why most don't bother.

>It can be stated like this:Human science already knows it all or is
>just about to.There is no point in racking our brain anymore .We only
>need to sit and wait.

Scientists are far more careful about such assumptions than they were a
century ago, but that has nothing to do with why you are hopelessly
wrong about science, philosophy and religion.

[casey]

A brain can study itself it is called neuroscience.

> Before experience, there has to be existence.Do you actually realize
> that you are denying your own existence.

Of course something has to exist before there is an experience.
The thing that exists is called a brain.
It DOES subjective experiences.

Rain may not look like a rainbow but it plus the sun DOES rainbows.

> We use models in order to explain our diverse
> experiences .However ,before the first model can exist ,there had to
> be an existence that objective models cannot fully represent.
> Philosophers throughout the centuries have tried to tackle the
> existence experience dichotomy.

Some problems are solved by showing they are wrongly
conceived or based on erroneous assumptions.

The methods used by science to make new discoveries
and construct working models has been very successful
and that includes explaining how the brain as a physical
entity is able to think. We call this the computational
theory of mind. Science has yet to get a handle as to
why things feel the way they do but that is no reason
to conjure Kantian philosophizing as being real.

[Smiler]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:19:47 -0700, Jope wrote:

> On Mar 26, 5:46�pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2:25�am, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Abiogenesis, is about starting from scratch, Sidney Fox's proto cells
>> > are essentially self-replicating chemicals .
>>
>> So is DNA.
>
>
> Which is a pretty circular statement which underscores the absurdity of
> having a discussion about life without a basic definition of life. What is
> life? DNA coding is not life .It maybe used in conjunction with life ,but
> it is not life.A chemical reaction is obviously not life.

Life _is_ a chemical reaction. If all the chemical reactions in your body
stopped, you'd be dead.

> An electronic circuit is not life.A talking robot is not life.A virus is
> not life.

Then how can we be injected with _dead_ virii to protect us from viral
infections?

How can virii reproduce if they're not alive?

> A photo cell is not life. What is life?
> According to the Merriam-Webster:
> "The quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead
> body"How about that ??
> According to Wikipedia:
> "It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in
> unequivocal terms"
> What makes it so difficult to define life ,is that it cannot be done
> without concluding that there must have a been an intelligent creator. Try
> all you can.It cannot be done.

You first have to show evidence that this supposed 'intelligent creator'
exists to have created anything. Then you'll have to provide evidence that
the being you've evidenced is the same being that did the supposed
creating. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:59:05 -0700, Jope wrote:

> On Mar 27, 9:28�am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:52:15 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article
>> ><e533257d-bce4-405a-9034-3f36ea464...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> > jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 26, 11:05�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> > You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth
>> >> > or for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of
>> >> > my own for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and
>> >> > we will continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of
>> >> > us runs out first.
>>
>> >> > Go ahead. �I'll wait. �And wait. �And wait. �And wait....
>>
>> >> > Budikka
>>
>> >> We have God

Nope. All you have is unevidenced belief.

>> >> you have nothing.No way at all of explaining the manifest
>> >> intelligence and complexities of the universe.

Science does a pretty good job of that.

>> >What manifest intelligence and complexities are we unable to explain
>> >that your god does?
>>
>> Jope-a-Dope's God explains nothing.
>>
>> He might just as well have claimed Krishna did it.
>>
>> Face it, these morons know they're talking outside their religion to
>> people who don't believe Christianity for pretty much the same reason he
>> doesn't believe Hinduism.
>>
>> Which is why we conclude they're mindlessly stupid.
>>
>> >> The earth was created by the Eternal God.
>>
>> >Whoa! Don't you think you need to provide some evidence of the
>> >existence of this "Eternal God" thingie before continuing?
>>
>> The morons imagine they're exempt from this - but that's only in what
>> passes for their own minds.
>
> Using insults is a poor substitute for reasoning.

Then try using some. We don't believe in your supposed god for exactly the
same reasons that you don't believe in all the other 20,000+ other
supposed gods.

> It shows that you are unable to come up with a valid reply ,therefore

> you are resorting to throwing rocks,just like your adopted ancestors.

Nope It's YOU who is unble to come up with a valid, evidenced argument.

> It is not the will of God that man is able to see him,rather they should
> seek and find him.

Try this experiment. Seek and find leprechauns for 5 minutes (without
laughing) and then come back and tell us how many leprechauns you saw.

> Therefore, let me summarize it for you:
> 1-God is evidenced beyond doubts through observable circumstances.

Then provide evidence of this supposed god of yours. Beliefs, opinions and

'holy' books are NOT evidence.

> 2-Complex and intelligent structures per our experience can only be
> constructed by an intelligent entity.

Since when has a rock been 'intelligent'?

> 3-Random chance is only a

a clueless description used by clueless theists.

> definition of our inability to calculate all the parameters involved.It
> is not a cause.

So who/what caused your supposed god character?

> 4-The intelligent and powerful Originator of the universe

Unevidenced entity.

> is also able to communicate with people and he has done just that.

Unevidenced assertion.

[Don Martin]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:26:37 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@juno.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 26, 11:05 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
>> for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
>> for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
>> continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
>> first.
>>
>> Go ahead.  I'll wait.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait....
>>
>> Budikka
>
>We have God you have nothing.

Until you have some slight evidence of the existence of the god you
pretend to have, you have a dishonest nothing.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:46:37 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
wrote:

It wasn't an insult, but the truth hurts.

>Then try using some. We don't believe in your supposed god for exactly the
>same reasons that you don't believe in all the other 20,000+ other
>supposed gods.

They can't grasp this even though it should be remarkably obvious even
to them.

Which is one of the reasons he's a moron.

>> It shows that you are unable to come up with a valid reply ,therefore
>> you are resorting to throwing rocks,just like your adopted ancestors.
>
>Nope It's YOU who is unble to come up with a valid, evidenced argument.

Why is another reason he's a moron.

>> It is not the will of God that man is able to see him,rather they should
>> seek and find him.

And another.

These morons rudely and stupidly talk own at us as if we were closet
Christians.

Even though they know we're not.

And the moron even expects us to do his work us when we only demand he
prove it to get him to shut the fuck up when he can't.

He's too stupid to understand what all this does is tell us he has
nothing otherwise he world have given it.

>Try this experiment. Seek and find leprechauns for 5 minutes (without
>laughing) and then come back and tell us how many leprechauns you saw.

The morons can't understand that there's no difference.

>> Therefore, let me summarize it for you:
>> 1-God is evidenced beyond doubts through observable circumstances.

An outright lie, because if it were everybody would believe it.

>Then provide evidence of this supposed god of yours. Beliefs, opinions and
>'holy' books are NOT evidence.

In what passes for his "mind", he "thinks" it is.

Because he's been brainwashed since childhood that the Bible proves
it.

>> 2-Complex and intelligent structures per our experience can only be
>> constructed by an intelligent entity.

A baseless claim amounting to nothing more than the arguments from
personal ignorance and incredulity.

>Since when has a rock been 'intelligent'?
>
>> 3-Random chance is only a
>
>a clueless description used by clueless theists.
>
>> definition of our inability to calculate all the parameters involved.It
>> is not a cause.

The only people who say it is are lying fundamentalists putting words
in other people's mouths.

>So who/what caused your supposed god character?

He'll claim it was always there, even though there is zip, zilch, nada
evidence for it in the first place.

>> 4-The intelligent and powerful Originator of the universe
>
>Unevidenced entity.

Which dishonestly presumes the very thing he is supposed to be
proving.

>> is also able to communicate with people and he has done just that.
>
>Unevidenced assertion.

Is it any wonder he gets treated like a moron?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:16:15 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

He was lying again - vey few people are philosophical naturalists. Any
naturalism is incidental and consequential, simply because (as you
say) it works.

>>Let me put it even more simply:The brain cannot study itself.
>
>Why not?
>
>>Before experience, there has to be existence.Do you actually realize
>>that you are denying your own existence.
>
>More metaphysical nonsense.

The morons think it's profound. The even bigger morons imagine it
trumps reality.

>>We use models in order to explain our diverse
>>experiences .However ,before the first model can exist ,there had to
>>be an existence that objective models cannot fully represent.
>
>So?
>
>>Philosophers throughout the centuries have tried to tackle the
>>existence experience dichotomy.
>
>What dichotomy?

Philosopy, at least as described by the cross-pposteing trolls, is
mental masturbation used to try and generate infpormation where there
is none.

>>From Plato's ontological dualism which postulates that the sensible
>>realm is possible only because of the original attributes of our
>>intelligent self.
>
>More nonsense.

Yep.

>>To Leibnitz' noumena ,which is a posited object or event that is known
>>without the use of the senses.
>>There is also Kant's synthetic a priori judgment .
>
>None of these have anything to do with physics or any other science.

Occasionally you get a philosopher who can argue honestly and show the
problems with what the others try to argue, eg their so-called
"proofs" of God.

>>One the by products of the technological era, is the slow death of
>>philosophical thinking.
>
>When people like you do such a horrible job of understanding what prior
>philosophers have said, I can see why most don't bother.

Something I've always wondered - do philosophy students understand the
problems eg with Aquinas or any of the other Christian philosophers
who claim to have proven God?

Something else I've also wondered - we don't get as many these days
(or perhaps they're killfiled) ut once upon a time we were inundated
with philosophy students who thought they were better than they
actually were, who chose their own meanings for the words we used and
when you finally cornered then they resorted to solipsism. Do their
teachers encourage this as part of the course so they realise that it
is all about mutual communication instead?

>>It can be stated like this:Human science already knows it all or is
>>just about to.There is no point in racking our brain anymore .We only
>>need to sit and wait.
>
>Scientists are far more careful about such assumptions than they were a
>century ago, but that has nothing to do with why you are hopelessly
>wrong about science, philosophy and religion.

Is it any wonder he earns the contempt he doesn't like?

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:12:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

Why do you quote from a book that has been shown to be unreliable and
sometimes completely false?

[Dreamer In Colore]

[blather snipped]

>
>I also need to add that true faith is not based on human philosophy
>but rather on the experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ
>who quenches the thirst of the soul and provides evidence to those
>that trust in him.
>

Kinda hard to quiz Jesus Christ when he's been dead for 2000 years.

While it's a pretty poetic metaphor to indicate that the soul is
thirsty, it's truly awful logic to say that "experiential knowledge...
provides evidence". Period. It doesn't matter if it's for those who
trust in him, or those who don't.

>"My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words,
>but with a demonstration of the Spirit�s power, so that your faith
>might not rest on human wisdom, but on God�s power."
>1 Corinthians 2v4,5

Well, we had faith in a flat earth once.

If you're going to cherry-pick for quotations that support your point,
you should also be honest enough to come up with

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

and

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this
world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

1 Corinthians (1:19 and 1:20)

Well, this is all rather circular since God is supposed to have
created the world, then God by extension would have been the
originator of wisdom in this world... so for him to destroy his own
wisdom and then brag about it is essentially stupid.

There's more, of course. More of this unbelievable crazy babble.

Don't believe me?

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the
wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the
things which are mighty;"
1 Corinthians (1:27)

Because, obviously, an omniscient omnipotent deity has need of such
subterfuge and mystery.

Cheers,
Dreamer

[%]

hi boner

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:56:38 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No, it can't. YOU can state it like that, but it doesn't make it true.

No scientist would dare to put a limit like that on knowledge, because
knowledge is ever-increasing. It's the height of arrogance for you to
make that baseless claim.

Scientists rack their brains and perform repeated experiments to prove
things, because waiting for divine inspiration is too hit-and-miss.

Tell you what. YOU sit and wait. Let me know how you work out string
theory, or the biology behind cancer.

By bringing up Kant and Plato and Liebniz, you're essentially
conceding the point that your religion is a philosophy, which is a
human endeavor.

Cheers,
Dreamer

[Dreamer In Colore]

Here's a hypothesis, easily testable.

Jope's a masochist, and enjoys the punishment.

Cheers,
Dreamer

[casey]

And you can't see that has all the hallmarks of a self-delusion?

If Jesus was real he could just manifest and talk to everyone
instead of playing all these childish hide and seek games although
that is what you would expect from an imaginary Jesus for such
a Jesus couldn't actually exist to talk to anyone except someone
who was suffering from a self-delusion.

> "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words,
> but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,  so that your faith
> might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power."
> 1 Corinthians 2v4,5

What demonstration of the Spirit's power? A fuzzy feeling you get?
An epileptic turn you may have on the way to Damascus?
Can't you see the writer of the above couldn't demonstrate anything
so he is hoping you will have "an experience" and assign that as
proof of god? Apart from the "experience" what power is actually
shown? Do you float in the air. Have a amputated limb restored?

[Yap]

Without a brain, you throw bigger rocks than Lee.
At least Lee's rock is aimed at fools like you while you throw
mindlessly.

>
> It is not the will of God that man is able to see him,rather they
> should seek and find him.

Now you have stupidly put your words into the pixie's mouth.
I thought those goat herders said differently?

>   Therefore, let me summarize it for you:

Therefore, you try to invent something that does not exist?

> 1-God is evidenced beyond doubts through observable circumstances.

Name them and back them up.

> 2-Complex and intelligent structures per our experience can only be
> constructed by  an intelligent entity.

Let me just ask you this: "Why don't your pixie create Moonlings on
the moon and Martians on Mars?"

> 3-Random chance is only a definition of our inability to calculate all
> the parameters involved.It is not a cause.

What are you mumbling about?

> 4-The intelligent and powerful Originator of the universe is also able
> to communicate with people and he has done just that.

So, you spoke from experience? I am sure your creator or originator
spoke in English to you, right?

When we see a liar, his body odor stings for kilometers.....

[Yap]

An idiot as well as a fool.
You have not demonstrated the god power of the ancient dead zombie,
let alone its existence.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:38:04 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The kind of stupid, rude question-begging that earns the person doing
the well-deserved soubriquet of "moron".

Stupid because they know we don't believe it and rude because they
don't care, they're going to talk at us as if we did.

If they don't like it, they should at least try to show some
commonsense and courtesy.

>> > >Whoa! Don't you think you need to provide some evidence of the existence
>> > >of this "Eternal God" thingie before continuing?
>>
>> > The morons imagine they're exempt from this - but that's only in what
>> > passes for their own minds.
>>
>> Using insults is a poor substitute for reasoning.It shows that you are
>> unable to come up with a valid  reply ,therefore you are resorting to
>> throwing  .rocks,just like your adopted ancestors.
>
>Without a brain, you throw bigger rocks than Lee.
>At least Lee's rock is aimed at fools like you while you throw
>mindlessly.

When we're dealing with these morons, the fact that they're morons is
never far from the surface.

Eventually it reaches a point it floats to the surface and it's not
even worth trying to treat them with the very courtesy they expect but
refuse to show us.

>> It is not the will of God that man is able to see him,rather they
>> should seek and find him.

More of the same stupid, rude presumption of what the moron knows we
don't believe.

>Now you have stupidly put your words into the pixie's mouth.
>I thought those goat herders said differently?


>>   Therefore, let me summarize it for you:
>
>Therefore, you try to invent something that does not exist?
>
>> 1-God is evidenced beyond doubts through observable circumstances.

An outright lie.

>Name them and back them up.

He can't.

>> 2-Complex and intelligent structures per our experience can only be
>> constructed by  an intelligent entity.

Argument from personal ignorance and incredulity.

>Let me just ask you this: "Why don't your pixie create Moonlings on
>the moon and Martians on Mars?"

Careful, you might make him think.

>> 3-Random chance is only a definition of our inability to calculate all
>> the parameters involved.It is not a cause.
>
>What are you mumbling about?

"Random chance" is a standard fundamentalist falsehood.

>> 4-The intelligent and powerful Originator of the universe is also able
>> to communicate with people and he has done just that.

Once again he rudely and stupidly presumes what he is meant to be
proving.

>So, you spoke from experience? I am sure your creator or originator
>spoke in English to you, right?
>
>When we see a liar, his body odor stings for kilometers.....

The problem is that narcissists like him don't even think they're
lying - it's just something to say.

But being narcissists it never occurs to them that all anybody could
see is the lie.

[%]

body odor doesn't sting

[%]

neither have you

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT), casey
<jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>On Mar 28, 6:09 am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> ... the Universe has to possess attributes such as
>> intelligence and consciousness.
>> There is no way of escaping that.
>
>Intelligence and consciousness is something that emerges
>from a working brain. Before the brain is formed there is
>no intelligent or conscious behavior to be seen. This is an
>observable fact. The parts that make up the brain do not
>show intelligent or conscious behaviors. The behavior of
>the whole is not simply due to the behavior of the parts
>it is also due to how the parts are connected. When the
>parts are connected in a certain way the connected
>whole can show intelligent and conscious behavior.
>
>> >Your error is you anthropomorphize the natural world.
>>
>> We do not have the ability to become an outside observer.
>> Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle happens to be a universal
>> philosophical concept.
>
>Well I don't understand the physics but if an observer is
>required for something to happen then god would also
>need an observer to make god happen and so on ...

Where did he get this from?

It's hardly a philosophical concept but simply a consequence of
quantum physics.

The math shows you can know either the position of a particle or its
momentum but not both.

The more accurately you know one, the less accurately you know the
other.

[Jope]

On Mar 27, 11:09 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle relates to how we affect a particle
we're attempting to measure.

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 27, 6:59 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:14:52 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:46:37 +0000, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com>

As are *all* christian fundamentalists. And, I suspect,
fundamentalists of *any* religious stripe.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Budikka666]

On Mar 27, 12:26 am, jope <jop...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:05 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > You post one item of positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth or
> > for a creator and I will both refute that and post one item of my own
> > for an ancient Earth or for abiogensis or for evolution, and we will
> > continue in that alternating fashion, and see which one of us runs out
> > first.
>
> > Go ahead.  I'll wait.  And wait.  And wait.  And wait....
>
> > Budikka
>

> We have God you have nothing.No way at all of explaining the manifest

> intelligence and complexities of the universe.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence there. You lose.

> The earth was created by the Eternal God.Whatever age it has ,was also
> part of that creation.Since the earth did not originate from current
> natural processes,its age can only be a created property.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence there. You lose.

> If you suddenly find that your bed was made,when you did not make
> it,that your fridgde got well sotcked with food while you were
> out.Would it not be logical to assume that someone did all that.What
> other proofs would you need?

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence there. You lose.

> If you believe that the universe produced man's intelligence and
> consciousness,do you need any additional proofs in order to conlude
> that the universe must have possessed consciousness and intelligence
> before hand.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence there. You lose.

> Does a wall have to fall on you?

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence there. You lose.

> Science can only study processes,and from those processes attempt to
> deductwhat must have been.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence there. You lose.

> In order for those conclusions to be valid,observable conditions must
> be similar with those that were present at the beginning of the
> world ,which by itself is such an enormous assertion that it requires
> a considerable leap of faith.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence there. You lose.

> Currently ,scientists cannot even get recent history right.
> Like Mark Twain once said :"History is part facts ,part fictions but
> mostly speculations."But when it comes to cosmogonic theories,history
> is simply outrageous speculations.

Not a shred of positive scientific evidence there. You lose.

Thanks for openly admitting, as *all* you useless, vacuous, lying
creationists *inevitably* do that you have ZERO evidence for your
bullshit piece of trash god.

Now fuck off, clown.

Budikka

[Smiler]

Thanks for pointing out that your supposed god character is now reduced to
a particle.

[Jope]

Unable to do it by arguments, you are doing your level best to
demonstrate by your trashy language that man actually descended from
lower primates.Still, I keep thinking that there has got to be a soul
somewhere in there.But only because the Bible said so.

[Virgil]

In article
<790924c2-5ec5-44e4...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unable to do it by arguments, you are doing your level best to
> demonstrate by your trashy language that man actually descended from
> lower primates.Still, I keep thinking that there has got to be a soul
> somewhere in there.But only because the Bible said so.

It is the massive amounts of physical evidence supporting that
hypothesis of descent from more apelike ancestors and the total lack of
any objective physical evidence opposing it that make that theory
scientific and make your contrary hypotheses anti-scientific and
untenable.
--

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:45:31 -0600, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>In article
><790924c2-5ec5-44e4...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unable to do it by arguments, you are doing your level best to
>> demonstrate by your trashy language that man actually descended from
>> lower primates.Still, I keep thinking that there has got to be a soul
>> somewhere in there.But only because the Bible said so.

Yet another lying theist.

It's as if the explanations we give vanish before their eyes as if
they were never there.

>It is the massive amounts of physical evidence supporting that
>hypothesis of descent from more apelike ancestors and the total lack of
>any objective physical evidence opposing it that make that theory
>scientific and make your contrary hypotheses anti-scientific and
>untenable.

You'll never get any honesty from this one.

They're too stupid to understand why they earn such contempt.

[Jope]

On Mar 29, 6:00 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:45:31 -0600, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> >In article

> ><790924c2-5ec5-44e4-a1d9-51cb50e5b...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

> > Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Unable to do it by arguments, you are doing your level best to
> >> demonstrate by your trashy language  that man actually descended from
> >> lower primates.Still, I keep thinking that there has got to be a soul
> >> somewhere in there.But only because the Bible said so.
>
> Yet another lying theist.
>
> It's as if the explanations we give vanish before their eyes as if
> they were never there.
>
> >It is the massive amounts of physical evidence supporting that
> >hypothesis of descent from more apelike ancestors and the total lack of
> >any objective physical evidence  opposing it that make that theory
> >scientific and make your contrary hypotheses anti-scientific and
> >untenable.
>
> You'll never get any honesty from this one.
>
> They're too stupid to understand why they earn such contempt.

When I say to the atheist that he has a soul ,he calls me stupid.
When I say to him that man descended from God,he calls me a moron.
You atheists, have chosen to attach yourself to the most revolting
expressions of the body humanity.
The words "noble" and "pure" are only chemicals to you.
You are like uprooted trees whose saps have completely dried out.
May God have mercy on you!

[August Rode]

On Mar 29, 6:31 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:00 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:45:31 -0600, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > >In article
> > ><790924c2-5ec5-44e4-a1d9-51cb50e5b...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Unable to do it by arguments, you are doing your level best to
> > >> demonstrate by your trashy language  that man actually descended from
> > >> lower primates.Still, I keep thinking that there has got to be a soul
> > >> somewhere in there.But only because the Bible said so.
>
> > Yet another lying theist.
>
> > It's as if the explanations we give vanish before their eyes as if
> > they were never there.
>
> > >It is the massive amounts of physical evidence supporting that
> > >hypothesis of descent from more apelike ancestors and the total lack of
> > >any objective physical evidence  opposing it that make that theory
> > >scientific and make your contrary hypotheses anti-scientific and
> > >untenable.
>
> > You'll never get any honesty from this one.
>
> > They're too stupid to understand why they earn such contempt.
>
> When I say to the atheist that he has a soul  ,he calls me stupid.

If by "asks me to define 'soul'," you mean "calls me stupid," then...
yes.

> When I say to him that man descended from God,he calls me a moron.

There is no generally accepted meaning of "descended" that makes man
"descended" from God, so... yes.

> You atheists,  have  chosen to attach yourself to the most revolting
> expressions of the body humanity.

I have no idea what you think that means.

> The words "noble" and "pure" are only chemicals to you.

No, they're words, not chemicals.

> You are like uprooted trees whose saps have completely dried out.
> May God have mercy on you!

Thanks!