Pericles
New Member
As I said before, it is entirely possible that the Universe was created by Higher Power. It is just the notion that we are only 50k years old that is 100% out of touch w/ the evidence.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Why there almost certainly is No God!!
- Thread starter Desibaba
- Start date
As I said before, it is entirely possible that the Universe was created by Higher Power. It is just the notion that we are only 50k years old that is 100% out of touch w/ the evidence.
I dont really give a shit what you believe as long as you keep it to yourself. Evolution eliminates the crap eventually.
The real problem I have with organized religion is that it is selfish, destructive, promotes stagnation of thought and centralization of power. Selfish vs selfless.
And you are casting pearls befor swine by even entertaining them.
IDMd, they cast out everything but their "TRUTH" because their belief system is dogmatic, ie. beyond dispute, and conviently directly derived from God. So it becomes easy for their mindset to cast out the baby with the bath water.
What is really sad about the whole thing is that organized religion has used the same manipulative techniques for centuries to fool the ignorant masses, while at the same time keeping them in ignorance.
Never ceases to amaze me.
What is really sad about the whole thing is that organized religion has used the same manipulative techniques for centuries to fool the ignorant masses, while at the same time keeping them in ignorance.
Never ceases to amaze me.
I'm afraid the presence of Carbon, Nitrogen and Hydrogen in elemental form is a very meek representation of building blocks.
That's like saying we can build a house of trees and rocks but not mention the importance of nails, cement, shingles, electricity and on and on.
Indeed the notion because certain elements were present at a fixed point on earth, life would "find a way" to morph from literally nothing into something much more meaningful, such as a composite cell, is so far fetched it makes creationism very appealing, IMO.
You of all people know how nonsensical, or of you prefer "imaginative", that sounds mate.
Lets go to the lab and make nucleic acids out of H, N and C what the F are these "research" clowns talking about.
Shit even if nucleic acid formation was EVER accomplished in the lab, the "soup" would require specific and orderly sequencing, organelle integration with lipids and sugars and some mechanism of reproduction, such as a nucleus, how utterly absurd.
Jim
That's like saying we can build a house of trees and rocks but not mention the importance of nails, cement, shingles, electricity and on and on.
Indeed the notion because certain elements were present at a fixed point on earth, life would "find a way" to morph from literally nothing into something much more meaningful, such as a composite cell, is so far fetched it makes creationism very appealing, IMO.
You of all people know how nonsensical, or of you prefer "imaginative", that sounds mate.
Lets go to the lab and make nucleic acids out of H, N and C what the F are these "research" clowns talking about.
Shit even if nucleic acid formation was EVER accomplished in the lab, the "soup" would require specific and orderly sequencing, organelle integration with lipids and sugars and some mechanism of reproduction, such as a nucleus, how utterly absurd.
Jim
Pericles
New Member
Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief [Eugenie, 2004] that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. [Ibid, 2006] Its primary adherents are those Christians and Jews [Barry Freundal, 2004] who, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis, believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.[Grifith, 2007].
The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[Wiki] Although many young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science, an endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modeled through an interpretation of the scientific method, the consensus among scientists is that creation science is unscientific in both conception and methodology.[Overton, 1982)]
A Gallup Pole demonstrated that the percentage of "Young Earth" believers decreases as the level of education increases.
Lack of scientific acceptance From Wiki (I edited down a bit):
Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century. Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a young Earth creationist view. In the aforementioned poll, 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process, a view described as theistic evolution, while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process. Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have had time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites.
Against the young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that, while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now, it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by theologians and philosophers.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence for a "Young Earth" Creationism Model. On the other hand, old Earth creationists have demonstrated how the Earths actual age can be consistent w/ a belief in God.
The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[Wiki] Although many young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science, an endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modeled through an interpretation of the scientific method, the consensus among scientists is that creation science is unscientific in both conception and methodology.[Overton, 1982)]
A Gallup Pole demonstrated that the percentage of "Young Earth" believers decreases as the level of education increases.
Lack of scientific acceptance From Wiki (I edited down a bit):
Young Earth creationism was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century. Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a young Earth creationist view. In the aforementioned poll, 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process, a view described as theistic evolution, while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process. Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have had time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites.
Against the young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that, while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now, it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by theologians and philosophers.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence for a "Young Earth" Creationism Model. On the other hand, old Earth creationists have demonstrated how the Earths actual age can be consistent w/ a belief in God.
Pericles
New Member
Oh, and Intelligent Design is also a reasonable theory.
More importantly, what is Gods' view on HGH?
More importantly, what is Gods' view on HGH?
I`m not deleting anything, nor do I wish to stiffle your input.
Pericles
New Member
No, No, No: This is a healthy and vigorous debate over a fascinating concept.
As I said, Stretch, we are not attacking you, but the mistaken idea that the Earth is only 6k years old.
There have been virtually no personal attacks (OK, maybe one thinly veiled by you know who). We certainly are not attacked you, brother, just discussing the issue. Like I said, if your religious beliefs are responsible for the person you are, than I support them 100%.
And I also agree, human nature is generally a foul thing. IMO, people need to live their life's on a spiritual basis in order to be kind, loving, and happy. I try and start every day w/ a prayer that I align myself w/ Gods will and do the next right thing.
Last edited:
Stretch
Subscriber
So...from this copy and pasted writeup I am assuming, secular science mostly doesn't agree with YEC.
Other than that, I just wasted my time reading it. You said I couldn't produce scientists....I did.
I agree that this debate has NOTHING to do with my religion. For me, it's only a matter of how God created life. Not "if" he created life. Furthermore, the theory of evolution does NOTHING to absolve man of responsibility to God. A fact which has been demonstrated in this thread with the questions about what occurred prior to the Big Bang.
The idea of macroevolution and the earth being billions of years old is in no way a violation of my religious beliefs. The Bible says nothing, that I am aware of, that would preclude the possibility of God using evolution as a mechanism for creation.
The post you are responding to was meant rhetorically. You insinuated you didn't want to hear about my beliefs, I merely told you what I would require for silence. I didn't want, nor did I expect, the thread to be deleted.
I haven't felt attacked. And it doesn't come as a surprise. Jesus warned me that I would not be warmly welcomed for my beliefs by non-believers. For the record when you read "hate" below, a more relevant translation for us today would be "to love less"
John chapter 15
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
Pericles
New Member
How is reading an overwhelmingly supported argument based in science a "waste of time"
And not secular science, just plain old garden variety science.
I believed that I said straight up that a section was cut, edit, and pasted from wiki.
The others, I read the articles/abstracts.
Speaking of cut and paste. your cut and paste of "Scientists" was from ICR, yes? Have you verified, IE, read about the members on the list you provided?
Can you provide the source (es) as I have done? ICR is not taken seriously since their purpose is not to find the truth, just somehow spin the argument in favor of their beliefs.
Wiki, quoting the dominant researchers in this field said that YES have been overwhelmingly refuted by the evidence. The World is much, much older than 6k years. Oh, and it is round.
Stretch
Subscriber
Because it was redundant, obvious information please quote one scientific fact that you think was unknown to me before reading the section you pasted.
And the list of scientists I posted was not from ICR, it is also available on WIKI.
And since you won't say it, I will: You were wrong when you said I couldn't produce a list of scientists who accept the Biblical account of creation.
And the list of scientists I posted was not from ICR, it is also available on WIKI.
And since you won't say it, I will: You were wrong when you said I couldn't produce a list of scientists who accept the Biblical account of creation.
Stretch
Subscriber
Funny you mention the earth being round.
The bible said the earth was round about 4000 years before science accepted it.
You know me better than that Jim. It wasn't just atoms but simple organic molecules.
Menor-Salván C, Ruiz-Bermejo DM, Guzmán MI, Osuna-Esteban S, Veintemillas-Verdaguer S (2007). "Synthesis of pyrimidines and triazines in ice: implications for the prebiotic chemistry of nucleobases". Chemistry 15 (17): 4411–8. doi:10.1002/chem.200802656. PMID 19288488.
Funny you mention the earth being round.
The bible said the earth was round about 4000 years before science accepted it.
I'm not trying to be a dick but so what? This doesn't validate anything other than the earth being round. It's these mighty assumptions that cause me problems. We got it right one time so we must be right all the time. Doesn't work that way in science and it doesn't work that way in religion either.
Stretch
Subscriber
When did I make all of these crazy jumps in logic bro?
My perception of the general attitude of most posters in this thread is that you believe the Bible is just a book written by men who knew nothing or little about science.
I believe the Bible was written by God in a very literal sense. The way we use a pen, God used authors. Verbal plenary inspiration.
You clearly disagree with this belief, as do most other posters.
I don't believe just because the Bible was correct about one concept that it should be accepted ultimate truth. The Bible also said the earth "hangs on nothing" and that God "stretched the heavens" (which may play into the ever expanding universe/big bang)
The Bible discussed these things long before the men who penned the words could have known the concepts. I know what that means to me, how do you explain it?
Martins Z, Price MC, Goldman N, Sephton MA, Burchell MJ. Shock synthesis of amino acids from impacting cometary and icy planet surface analogues. Nature Geosci;advance online publication. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1930.html
Comets are known to harbour simple ices and the organic precursors of the building blocks of proteins[mdash]amino acids[mdash]that are essential to life. Indeed, glycine, the simplest amino acid, was recently confirmed to be present on comet 81P/Wild-2 from samples returned by NASA/'s Stardust spacecraft. Impacts of icy bodies (such as comets) onto rocky surfaces, and, equally, impacts of rocky bodies onto icy surfaces (such as the jovian and saturnian satellites), could have been responsible for the manufacture of these complex organic molecules through a process of shock synthesis. Here we present laboratory experiments in which we shocked ice mixtures analogous to those found in a comet with a steel projectile fired at high velocities in a light gas gun to test whether amino acids could be produced. We found that the hypervelocity impact shock of a typical comet ice mixture produced several amino acids after hydrolysis. These include equal amounts of D- and L-alanine, and the non-protein amino acids [alpha]-aminoisobutyric acid and isovaline as well as their precursors. Our findings suggest a pathway for the synthetic production of the components of proteins within our Solar System, and thus a potential pathway towards life through icy impacts.
Comets are known to harbour simple ices and the organic precursors of the building blocks of proteins[mdash]amino acids[mdash]that are essential to life. Indeed, glycine, the simplest amino acid, was recently confirmed to be present on comet 81P/Wild-2 from samples returned by NASA/'s Stardust spacecraft. Impacts of icy bodies (such as comets) onto rocky surfaces, and, equally, impacts of rocky bodies onto icy surfaces (such as the jovian and saturnian satellites), could have been responsible for the manufacture of these complex organic molecules through a process of shock synthesis. Here we present laboratory experiments in which we shocked ice mixtures analogous to those found in a comet with a steel projectile fired at high velocities in a light gas gun to test whether amino acids could be produced. We found that the hypervelocity impact shock of a typical comet ice mixture produced several amino acids after hydrolysis. These include equal amounts of D- and L-alanine, and the non-protein amino acids [alpha]-aminoisobutyric acid and isovaline as well as their precursors. Our findings suggest a pathway for the synthetic production of the components of proteins within our Solar System, and thus a potential pathway towards life through icy impacts.
I don't know Jim two articles on how these molecules could be formed in nature....maybe it ISN'T so far fetched after all.
Synthesis of pyrimidines and triazines in ice: implications for the prebiotic chemistry of nucleobases.
Menor-Salván C, Ruiz-Bermejo DM, Guzmán MI, Osuna-Esteban S, Veintemillas-Verdaguer S.
Source: Chemistry. 2009;15(17):4411-8. doi: 10.1002/chem.200802656.
Centro de Astrobiología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial, Carretera Torrejón-Ajalvir, Km. 4,2, 28850 Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
Herein, we report the efficient synthesis of RNA bases and functionalized s-triazines from 0.1 M urea solutions in water after subjection to freeze-thaw cycles for three weeks. The icy solution was under a reductive, methane-based atmosphere, which was subjected to spark discharges as an energy source for the first 72 h of the experiment. Analysis of the products indicates the synthesis of the s-triazines cyanuric acid, ammeline, ammelide, and melamine, the pyrimidines cytosine, uracil, and 2,4-diaminopyrimidine, and the purine adenine. An experiment performed as a control at room temperature, with the urea solution in the liquid phase and with the same atmosphere and energy source, led to the synthesis of hydantoins and insoluble tholin, but there was no evidence of the synthesis of pyrimidines or triazines. The synthesis of pyrimidines from urea is possible under a methane/nitrogen atmosphere only at low temperature, in the solid phase. The generation of both pyrimidines and triazines in comparable yields from urea, together with a possible role for triazines as alternative nucleobases, opens new perspectives on the prebiotic chemistry of informational polymers.
Synthesis of pyrimidines and triazines in ice: implications for the prebiotic chemistry of nucleobases.
Menor-Salván C, Ruiz-Bermejo DM, Guzmán MI, Osuna-Esteban S, Veintemillas-Verdaguer S.
Source: Chemistry. 2009;15(17):4411-8. doi: 10.1002/chem.200802656.
Centro de Astrobiología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial, Carretera Torrejón-Ajalvir, Km. 4,2, 28850 Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
Herein, we report the efficient synthesis of RNA bases and functionalized s-triazines from 0.1 M urea solutions in water after subjection to freeze-thaw cycles for three weeks. The icy solution was under a reductive, methane-based atmosphere, which was subjected to spark discharges as an energy source for the first 72 h of the experiment. Analysis of the products indicates the synthesis of the s-triazines cyanuric acid, ammeline, ammelide, and melamine, the pyrimidines cytosine, uracil, and 2,4-diaminopyrimidine, and the purine adenine. An experiment performed as a control at room temperature, with the urea solution in the liquid phase and with the same atmosphere and energy source, led to the synthesis of hydantoins and insoluble tholin, but there was no evidence of the synthesis of pyrimidines or triazines. The synthesis of pyrimidines from urea is possible under a methane/nitrogen atmosphere only at low temperature, in the solid phase. The generation of both pyrimidines and triazines in comparable yields from urea, together with a possible role for triazines as alternative nucleobases, opens new perspectives on the prebiotic chemistry of informational polymers.
Last edited:
