Terror raids (2 Viewers)

[veterandoggy]

you said muslims dont belive in resurrection.

umm, if you remember since i posted it to one of your replies, however you dont remember well, i said that our souls dont come back in another form. we do get resurrected, otherwise how will we be judged on the day of "resurrection"?? please make sure your talk isnt just for the sake of it, and the least you could do is read back every now and then, especially when you're back-quoting

hhaa thats a good explanation on how veterandoggy thinks, and all other religios sheep

i find it funny how i am standing for everyone with a religion. at least the sheep have a shepherd. you guys seem like you live life freely, and you can correct me freely, but a bunch of unwatched sheep will more likely be attractive to a wolf than a sheperded flock.
i like how the titanic was used, esp. since the maker said "not even god can bring it down". well, if god didnt do it, then mother nature did it for him.

damn, im going back to god's existence...

 

[veterandoggy]

yeah, i am too. whos the idol and who're the idiot worshippers?

dont bother. our imaginations, coupled with what youve been saying, may give a close estimate.

 

[physician]

We have to draw the line somewhere. If there is a wealth of strong evidence from a variety of different sciences supporting a theory, and little or no solid evidence to refute that theory, then should we accept the theory as being quite close to the mark? Or reject it because we can conceive of any number of far-fetched and impossible-to-prove (i.e. supernatural) hypotheses that would invalidate it were they true?

The living cell, it is commonly agreed by the world of science, is the most complex structure that mankind has so far encountered. Modern science has revealed that just one living cell has a much more complex structure and mutually interconnected complicated systems than a large city. Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate parts emerge at the same time and in full working order. Otherwise, it will serve no purpose, and will fall apart over time and disappear. We cannot expect that its parts developed by chance over millions of years as claimed by the theory of evolution.

This is one argument, backed up by scientific facts. By this fact alone, would it be possible for humans to develop gradualy, over the yrs?

Whats ur opinion on this?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

The living cell, it is commonly agreed by the world of science, is the most complex structure that mankind has so far encountered. Modern science has revealed that just one living cell has a much more complex structure and mutually interconnected complicated systems than a large city. Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate parts emerge at the same time and in full working order. Otherwise, it will serve no purpose, and will fall apart over time and disappear. We cannot expect that its parts developed by chance over millions of years as claimed by the theory of evolution.

This is one argument, backed up by scientific facts. By this fact alone, would it be possible for humans to develop gradualy, over the yrs?

Whats ur opinion on this?

But they didn't necessarily emerge at the same time. It has been proposed that mitochondria and chrloroplasts developed entirely separately from other parts of the cell (with the other parts relying on chemosynthesis for energy).

 

[physician]

... little or no solid evidence to refute that theory, then should we accept the theory as being quite close to the mark?

FACT 2:
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.

Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell

 

[Generator]

Ah, a century in the lab (actually, not even that) iis meant to suitably replicate however many million years in what was then the real world?

That wasn't a fact, physician. Nothing has been disproven at all (yet, I might as well add for the sake of being somewhat balanced).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.

of course because it has not occured once in the lab it will fail in mathematical probability tests... However given the shear scale of the universe / time period we're dealing with, I think you need to accept you would need to continue for quite a long time and attempt it quite a few times before your probabilities could be anywhere near conclusive.

 

[physician]

. Nothing has been disproven at all QUOTE]

but why should there be proof against the theory, if thats all it is, a theory. If there was a sufficient amount of scientific evidence to support evolution, it would then be classified as a scinetific fact, and not a theory any more... This has not been done yet!... until now, there seems to be a variety of problems scinetists are faced with when trying to prove evolution!

The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue regarding the giant molecule (DNA):

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic. 2

Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, makes the following admission regarding how impossible it is for life to have come about by chance:

Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance… 3


references:

2. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39
3. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121

 

[Generator]

It's a scientific theory, physician. If you are going to challenge the idea, then at least treat it with the respect that it deserves.

 

[physician]

of course because it has not occured once in the lab it will fail in mathematical probability tests... However given the shear scale of the universe / time period we're dealing with, I think you need to accept you would need to continue for quite a long time and attempt it quite a few times before your probabilities could be anywhere near conclusive.

Fair enough, but until then, it remains a scientific theory!... not a scientific fact!

 

[Capitalist Pig]

FACT 2:
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.

Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell

Wrong. Miller and Urey were able to simulate the conditions of the early earth in the 1960s (iirc) and showed that molecules as complex as rna could be formed in as little time as a few weeks.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Fair enough, but until then, it remains a scientific theory!... not a scientific fact!

It's still 1000x more credible a theory than creationism. If something ever replaces it it will be something similarly scientific and non-conforming to religious ideas.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

. Nothing has been disproven at all QUOTE]

but why should there be proof against the theory, if thats all it is, a theory. If there was a sufficient amount of scientific evidence to support evolution, it would then be classified as a scinetific fact, and not a theory any more... This has not been done yet!... until now, there seems to be a variety of problems scinetists are faced with when trying to prove evolution!

The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue regarding the giant molecule (DNA):

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic. 2

Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, makes the following admission regarding how impossible it is for life to have come about by chance:

Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance… 3


references:

2. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39
3. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121

Relativity is still a theory, even after thousands of experiments have verified it, the road to becoming a law or a principle is a very long one.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

For something to be a scientific theory it has to withstand some pretty strong punches... ID/Creationism does not do this.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Ah, a century in the lab (actually, not even that) iis meant to suitably replicate however many million years in what was then the real world?

That wasn't a fact, physician. Nothing has been disproven at all (yet, I might as well add for the sake of being somewhat balanced).

About 1000 million years between the formation of the earth and the predicted first cells.

 

[physician]

Wrong. Miller and Urey were able to simulate the conditions of the early earth in the 1960s (iirc) and showed that molecules as complex as rna could be formed in as little time as a few weeks.

In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.


There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

EDIT: (forgot to reference)

source: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

 

[Capitalist Pig]

In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.


There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

EDIT: (forgot to reference)

source: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

The fact is that:
a) they produced molecules
b) they did it in a few weeks
c) the earth had a billion years.

 

[loquasagacious]

How about chucking abit of theoretical physics/philosophy into the mix. Eg abit of parallel universes happening. If we accept the formation of life as unlikley we also accept that it could happen and thus we create two parallel universes one where it happens and one where it doesn't. So on and so forth.

Meh I'm not sure if that adds anything valuable - I'm too tired...

 

[veterandoggy]

umm, i think you mean "let everyone live their own life"

man, why did i have to throw in the petrol...

 

[veterandoggy]

hey, ive just thought about something: if evolution was survival of the fittest, would that mean that racism and genicides were caused by this sentence?

just pointing out a bad thing to come out of evolution, and trying unsuccessfully to be neutral.