Disproving atheists in 82 seconds

[jem]

Quote from piezoe:

This is key: "were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally."

Which I quote from Jem's post above, although, curiously, Jem doesn't seem to understand what this means.

A very satisfactory and rigorous proof that entropy is the driving force for evolution has already been published by Vogel. Therefore both organisms and virus must evolve. They have no other choice. Furthermore, Orgel's experiments proved unequivocally the evolution of organisms. Left to be yet determined are the details of the transition from inanimate components to simple lifeforms. Though viruses are not organisms, they may hold the key to understanding this transition. Some think that earliest lifeforms were based on RNA rather than DNA, and the NIH is funding research aimed at finding RNA catalysts, which may have early on in evolutionary time served the roles later played by protein enzymes. Quite a number of RNA catalysts have already been found.

There is good evidence for the existence of multiple, parallel evolutionary pathways, and the number of these may be, or have been, astronomically high. At this point in our knowledge, there is no reason to suppose that new life forms, most of which would be virtually identical to those already existing, are not currently, spontaneously arising on Earth .

It is virtually certain that life very similar to that on Earth exists on other planets in other solar systems and that all lifeforms are carbon based. Dewar showed in his paper provocatively entitled "Why Life Exists" that life based on elements other than carbon is unlikely.

One must bear in mind that the combining of chemical elements is not haphazard, but rather highly organized and specific, so that the laws of Chemistry and Physics are obeyed. Recognition of this takes us full circle back to the Quote, originally quoted by Jem, that began this post.

Things are not nearly so complex and unfathomable as supposed by those 21st Century believers in the supernatural, that is to say those with irrational faith in religious concepts.

1. I respect your contribution... it was the first real one I have seen from the otherside in a few years.

2. In many of my comments to the band of et atheists I explained that Crick the founder of DNA suggested Panspermia as the way life got started on earth.

3. were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally."

When I read that I see that as an argument for directed evolution.
Then the question becomes who set up the matter to evolve into life.

 

[stu]

Quote from piezoe:

This is key: "were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally."

Which I quote from Jem's post above, although, curiously, Jem doesn't seem to understand what this means.

A very satisfactory and rigorous proof that entropy is the driving force for evolution has already been published by Vogel. Therefore both organisms and virus must evolve. They have no other choice. Furthermore, Orgel's experiments proved unequivocally the evolution of organisms. Left to be yet determined are the details of the transition from inanimate components to simple lifeforms. Though viruses are not organisms, they may hold the key to understanding this transition. Some think that earliest lifeforms were based on RNA rather than DNA, and the NIH is funding research aimed at finding RNA catalysts, which may have early on in evolutionary time served the roles later played by protein enzymes. Quite a number of RNA catalysts have already been found.

There is good evidence for the existence of multiple, parallel evolutionary pathways, and the number of these may be, or have been, astronomically high. At this point in our knowledge, there is no reason to suppose that new life forms, most of which would be virtually identical to those already existing, are not currently, spontaneously arising on Earth .

It is virtually certain that life very similar to that on Earth exists on other planets in other solar systems and that all lifeforms are carbon based. Dewar showed in his paper provocatively entitled "Why Life Exists" that life based on elements other than carbon is unlikely.

One must bear in mind that the combining of chemical elements is not haphazard, but rather highly organized and specific, so that the laws of Chemistry and Physics are obeyed. Recognition of this takes us full circle back to the Quote, originally quoted by Jem, that began this post.

Things are not nearly so complex and unfathomable as supposed by those 21st Century believers in the supernatural, that is to say those with irrational faith in religious concepts.

Good points, only I would take issue with this


"One must bear in mind that the combining of chemical elements is not haphazard, but rather highly organized and specific, so that the laws of Chemistry and Physics are obeyed. Recognition of this takes us full circle back to the Quote, originally quoted by Jem, that began this post.


I suggest that "the combining of chemical elements is not haphazard, but rather highly organized and specific", hardly need be born in mind at all.
One surely need keep in mind the combining of those elements would only be as "highly organized and specific" as the process of evolution requires, which in essence is not really all that organized or as specific as you say is necessary.

In a very basic way, where only certain chemical or molecular reaction can take place, then it will , or may not, for equal reasons. Where they do and the result is favorable to the existence of a new and usually more complex arrangement within the conditions those chemicals are situated, then they will survive and continue, or not, as the case may be.
The survivors go on to evolve again and so on...until, well, here we all are. (although I’m not sure about Jem being all here, but that's a different thing altogether).

Calling that evolutionary procedure 'highly organized' is I think, if not specifically incorrect, far too generous in description and expectation.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from stu:

Good points, only I would take issue with this


"One must bear in mind that the combining of chemical elements is not haphazard, but rather highly organized and specific, so that the laws of Chemistry and Physics are obeyed. Recognition of this takes us full circle back to the Quote, originally quoted by Jem, that began this post.


I suggest that "the combining of chemical elements is not haphazard, but rather highly organized and specific", hardly need be born in mind at all.
One surely need keep in mind the combining of those elements would only be as "highly organized and specific" as the process of evolution requires, which in essence is not really all that organized or as specific as you say is necessary.

In a very basic way, where only certain chemical or molecular reaction can take place, then it will , or may not, for equal reasons. Where they do and the result is favorable to the existence of a new and usually more complex arrangement within the conditions those chemicals are situated, then they will survive and continue, or not, as the case may be.
The survivors go on to evolve again and so on...until, well, here we all are. (although I’m not sure about Jem being all here, but that's a different thing altogether).

Calling that evolutionary procedure 'highly organized' is I think, if not specifically incorrect, far too generous in description and expectation.

Nice work, stu.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7L7VTdzuY7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[jem]

Its nice work if you prefer haphazard guesses but science has evolved way beyond Stus 1950s understanding.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from jem:

Its nice work if you prefer haphazard guesses but science has evolved way beyond Stus 1950s understanding.

I expected you to respond first Jem.

You and stu have been arguing heaven and hell for many years, lol.

I respect what you have to say about the subject, and by no means would I call you stupid. But the God of the Bible has fucked up some shit down here. That cannot be denied. Bad things happen to good people all the time, and vice versa. Being in Allied Health and witnessing far more than I should have, I have to say, bruh, if this is best that God can do, he knows I got some questions if I get my day in court with him.

 

[Trader666]

This from the STUpid ignoranus who got the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513

Quote from stu:

Good points, only I would take issue with this


"One must bear in mind that the combining of chemical elements is not haphazard, but rather highly organized and specific, so that the laws of Chemistry and Physics are obeyed. Recognition of this takes us full circle back to the Quote, originally quoted by Jem, that began this post.


I suggest that "the combining of chemical elements is not haphazard, but rather highly organized and specific", hardly need be born in mind at all.
One surely need keep in mind the combining of those elements would only be as "highly organized and specific" as the process of evolution requires, which in essence is not really all that organized or as specific as you say is necessary.

In a very basic way, where only certain chemical or molecular reaction can take place, then it will , or may not, for equal reasons. Where they do and the result is favorable to the existence of a new and usually more complex arrangement within the conditions those chemicals are situated, then they will survive and continue, or not, as the case may be.
The survivors go on to evolve again and so on...until, well, here we all are. (although I’m not sure about Jem being all here, but that's a different thing altogether).

Calling that evolutionary procedure 'highly organized' is I think, if not specifically incorrect, far too generous in description and expectation.

 

[futurecurrents]

" We have but one life to appreciate the universe. And for that I am extremely grateful" Stephen Hawking.


So how much does using God to explain things reduce our ability to appreciate the universe?

How much more amazing is it to really consider how all this came from than to simply say God did it.

How much more profound is the realization that all life is one and from the same ancient ancestor. From the bacteria to man there is a common thread. DNA.

Man is not apart as some special creation of God but is a son of the earth and a daughter of the cosmos.

Man is the true God. He is the universe having become self-aware.

How limiting it is of the human intellect and our appreciation of what we are to just say God did it.

 

[jem]

Quote from RCG Trader:

I expected you to respond first Jem.

You and stu have been arguing heaven and hell for many years, lol.

I respect what you have to say about the subject, and by no means would I call you stupid. But the God of the Bible has fucked up some shit down here. That cannot be denied. Bad things happen to good people all the time, and vice versa. Being in Allied Health and witnessing far more than I should have, I have to say, bruh, if this is best that God can do, he knows I got some questions if I get my day in court with him.

Why does everybody bring up the God of the bible.
Right now lets stick to the science.
Did we evolve from inorganic matter by random chance?
Answer is we don't know and over the last 20 years science is showing that it is highly unlikely.

Does that mean we have talk about God? Not to me. I would like to know what science thinks could have formed the universe the way it is. How did the singularity of the big bang form?

There are famous scientists who speculate that our universe responds like a thought process from a quantum mind or minds.
That stuff is very intriguing. You don't have to jump from - not random to Genesis. I am comforted that there could be a Creator. But, I do not need science to prove Genesis not do I say science proves a Creator.

The ET atheists are so afraid of the possibility of a creator... they lie their asses of about the science. Why?

 

[Trader666]

Hawking once claimed that if the universe eventually collapsed after expanding, time would flow backwards (and later retracted it) so he's far from infallible. His claim that the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing is even more ridiculous and wild speculation at best.

Quote from RCG Trader:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7L7VTdzuY7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Trader666]

Futurecurrents is the true idiot who doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Man is the true God.