How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

I suppose it is, most idiots aren’t sanctimonious and condescending, they have a certain amount of self awareness.

This is a whole new level, and this masters seems to have come from the same place that dolls out 170 IQs

A person who has no answer will try to intimidate. You failed to intimidate me

Your argument leads back to "Its too complx to have happened naturally"
Unfortunately "natuarlly" is the only way that all the mounting evidence supports. If there was an INTELLIGENCE behind it all. THe intelligence was quite retarded.

Ive read the Wistar Proceedings maybe 30 yers ago and it was out of date even then. Weve discovered so much in the ensuing time that the many mechanisms of evolution have come full circle. BUT , as far as I know, NO reputable scientist could do any work with ID because its totally untestable.

I still say that you cannot state, what can or cannot happen with organic chemicals until you do some investigation that begins with a firmer understanding of chemistry.

I yield to your knowledge of computers, but I really think that, without a deeper knowledge of the origins of lifes chemistry , you miss most of the story, and cannot state CONCLUSIVELY about how reactions do or do not occur. Read about the origin of photosynthetic reactions by complex organics.

You really are delusional.

Still no workings.

Someone who is full of **** will speak in grandiose platitudes, but when push comes to shove they’ve got nothing.

From your post:

All you/they show here is the type of conditions required for the theoretical formation of longer chains of organic molecules. There is no experimental evidence that such conditions have resulted in anything which could be termed 'life'. And it isn’t for lack of scientists trying. There is a Nobel waiting for you if you can do it.

Those are the facts behind your claim.

All you show is the type of supernatural conditions required for the theoretical formation of life. There is no experimental evidence that such supernatural conditions have resulted in anything which could be termed 'life'. And it isn’t for lack of religionists trying. There is a Nobel waiting for you, and a seat at the right had of your god if you can do it. Apart from that, your magic sky daddy is implausible and pathetically silly.

Those are the facts behind your claim.

Quite apart from that, you said it wasn't possible. I have shown that it is.

This is what you wrote: To be more precise, my claim is that the mechanisms seen in biological Lifeforms have never been shown to self-assemble from the chemistry of prebiotic conditions. That's a lie, and I have demonstrated it. In fact, investigations of the formation of organic molecules in such conditions have been going on since the 1920s. But those were the days Billy Sunday, Father Coughlin and so many other snake oil salesmen, and the time of the Scopes trial, when it became clear that it was better to keep one's head down.

whered you get this bs from?? There certainly is. There are about 5 different experiments that showed the self Assembly of pre biotic chemicals done by Miller t al (After they id the original they looked at different atmospheres)
Self assembly by catalyzed Formamide (using FeTi 2 as the catalyst]. It occurs in cool acidic temps andwater of low pH. There are a whole number of these types of self assembly routines that are easy to follow by a first year chem student.

(PS, the reason they used FeTiO2 is because the mineral "Ilmenite" is an iron titanium oxide that is quite common and was found in the iron banded formations .)

No one can intimidate you. Only you can be intimidated.

Because he had no answers he TRIED to intimidate me However, he failed because I was Spirit filled.

Yeah . . . you're full of something, anyway.

You made a load of grandiose claims.

Setanta then asked you to provide your workings.

I said you wouldn’t be able to do it because you did not have the wherewithal.

I’m right, you don’t.

As you do not have the wherewithal you resorted to the cheap underhand methods your kind always employ.

You accused me of being emotional and now are playing the victim card by hysterically claiming I’m trying to intimidate you.

It’s pathetic. The only thing you’re full Of is ****.

Hello, and welcome to able2know Neal.

I'm glad that you found a friend here in livinglava.

You certainly seem to have quite an interest in religion.

Is it part of your church obligations to reach out to others on this topic?

What religion do you belong to?

Do you like to discuss any other matters?

Et tu Setanta?

I note that it is you (and farmer) who keep bringing up the supernatural. I have made no such claim on this subject.

And don’t twist what I said. I didn’t say organic molecules can’t link up by themselves. They can, but not plausibly in an arrangement that is biological life.

You can dump a load of bricks out of a bag and some will land on top of others. But you don’t have a house.
That’s the best analogy I can make for those without IT education. I really do wish more here had some. The comparison is uncanny. Bill Gates said DNA is directly comparable to a computer operating system, but DNA is just way more complicated.

The best counter argument is the old 'enough monkeys at keyboards will eventually write Windows 10 OS (and all of Shakespeare's works). ' If that’s all you got, that’s all you got. I wouldn’t bet on it though.

Then you hould separate your argument from your "evidence". Your evidence is more often than not, an evidence -free conclusion and . Your conclusions have almost always been connected to random clips from popular Intelligent Design blogs and news.
Your most recent assertion was that DNA supports ID, HOW? anybody can announce their conclusion but avoid any data.

Ive never done that to you. I have always tried to associate my tatement with ongoing work in the field.(You, most often tend to ignore the real scientific literature)
I think you should spend less time on making grand conclusionary assertions and spending more time explaining how those assertions actually work and "fit" an ID model. Sorta "Wheres the Beef?"


Actually you are the one who livs n a phrase that if it appears like a barcode an its complex (as we know life is), Its gotta be a product of an intelligent esigner

Your above quote never came from a scientist. It fails to understand that electron capture (a very basic steering wheel in natures chemistry) "edits" (To use your comparison to coding) the biochemical phrases. We can create the chemistry of life by setting up early earth wnvironments and seeing what happens . The Miller and Urey xpwrimnt you poo poo;d was mrely a start in that ntire arena of experiment. Many of the results, are presented almost monthly in journals like EVOLUTION orMICROBIOLOGY Youd really be surprised how certain, of, the list of chemicals CAUTG, the only one we are not able to see assemble sustainably in a free range lab is C (because its unstable in low temps) .While AUTG are unstable in high temps, they dont degrade in low temps.
All this from some chemicals of deadly N based poisons in pools of rusty swamps .

In order for your argument to be even worthy of consideration (besides the stating the relevance of how you see life being formed under your hypothesis of "Intelligent Direction" , you need to explain how this designer was able to control all the earth processes that provide the raw materials for life. Geochem can explain it fairly easily . AND, it can be done all randomly, as long as we have a set bag of compounds like water ,halogen salts, phosphoric acid, cyanide, formamide, Mthane, ethane, ,ammonia, and, of course ALKALI metals.
You seemed to accept that the development of these chemical groups can freely form in nature. Then, if I understood what you think happens next, you conclude that "a miracle happens".

I can understand how Bill Gates (and you and others) can use a "Bar code" , if an analogy is needed. Genes do , on cursory inspection have visual aspects of comparison to coding. However a gene has many more levels of complexity and actual dimensions in space all of which react and reassemble based on time , the environment, and available enzymes and catalysts. Thats why we see the functional relationships between helical biotic molecules and same structures in inorganic chemical (mostly iron) salts and molecules common to life.
Coincidentally, they first occurred at an opportune moment in time when certain chemicals became more available , all based upon electron capture and a simple palette of chemicals, and the assembly and some compounds that could act as enzymes and catalysts. All this then, needed a comfortable environmental condition for assembly and replication.

Science is busy trying to understand the origins of life, but evolution (not the same thing) is fairly well understood and the conditions for evolution are mostly xternal to the organism, where adaptation is expressed in adaptive changes of body and function, or extinction.
From the fossil record alone, we have rally good knowledge of how things happened and as we learn more, our original "simple minded" relationships between mother and daughter species has shown to be amazingly complex and is usually always associated with some big environmental change or an actual catastrophe.
How does your Intelligent designer fit in with changes to the environment that seem to spur radical changes in species? Does it plan extinction events or regional species isolation events (like the drying of the Mediterranean basin that define the separation of African v European species), Or the Wallace line where the separate species lists between Asiatic v Autralian species are slwoly being dissolved by intermingling due to the fact that Autralia and SE Asia are gliding towards ach other.

So much evidence based information supports random evolution that, to deny it would take way more than conclusionary statements with no technical backup.

Ah-hahahahahahahaha . . . you crack me up!

You can shove that IT education bullshit up your backside where it belongs. There are few communities of annoying weenies in contemporary society more annoying that pompous IT people. Of course, I don't know that you're actually in IT, it's just something you say. You made a claim that is bullshit, and and I showed it isn't true. Get over it and grow up.

You surpass even my high expectations of you Set.

If you think that's bad, try pointing out the fact that history and archaeology confirm the accuracy of the Bible's historical narrative as far back as 900 BC and the twin kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and there is occasional evidence for even earlier stuff from the Bible.

The histrionics from the progressives can be truly epic when you confront them with reality.

Just remember: The evidence is right and the progressives are wrong. None of their childish name-calling will ever change reality.

Most of the posters have been rather kind to me. I appreciate that.
It seems to me that it takes faith to believe in either Evolution or Creation. The pure sciences are good at explaining the world as it exists in modern times. However, we were not here to observe the world billions of years ago

Evolution is a proven theory. The remains or traces of organisms from a past geologic age embedded in rocks by natural processes are called fossils. They are extremely important for understanding the evolutionary history of life on Earth, as they provide direct evidence of evolution and detailed information on the ancestry of organisms.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
Also, study Charles Darwin's finches: Proof of evolution.