100
   

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

 
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 04:05 pm
@Setanta,
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
NealNealNeal
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 04:43 pm
@izzythepush,
A person who has no answer will try to intimidate. You failed to intimidate me
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 04:48 pm
@Leadfoot,
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Ive read the Wistar Proceedings maybe 30 yers ago and it was out of date even then.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.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 04:57 pm
@NealNealNeal,
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.

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 06:23 pm
@Setanta,
From your post:
Quote:
These results help to constrain the range of possible environments for the origin of life. A site conducive to self-assembly of organic solutes would be an aqueous environment relatively low in ionic solutes, at an intermediate temperature range and neutral pH ranges, in which cyclic concentration of the solutes can occur by transient dry intervals.

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.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 06:50 pm
@Leadfoot,
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.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 07:00 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 07:05 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
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.
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 .)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 07:28 pm
@NealNealNeal,
Quote:
A person who has no answer will try to intimidate. You failed to intimidate me
No one can intimidate you. Only you can be intimidated.
NealNealNeal
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2020 07:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Because he had no answers he TRIED to intimidate me However, he failed because I was Spirit filled.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2020 12:04 am
@NealNealNeal,
Yeah . . . you're full of something, anyway.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2020 12:28 am
@NealNealNeal,
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 ****.
0 Replies
 
nacredambition
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2020 01:18 am
@NealNealNeal,
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?




0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2020 03:54 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
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.

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.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2020 06:43 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I have made no such claim on this subject
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?"

Quote:
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.

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.




0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2020 07:35 am
@Leadfoot,
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.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2020 11:20 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
You can shove that IT education bullshit up your backside where it belongs.


You surpass even my high expectations of you Set.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/24/2020 at 07:47:20