Terror raids (2 Viewers)

veterandoggy

A Restless Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,242
Location
Somewhere yonder where the sun never rises
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
sashatheman said:
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

sashatheman said:
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...
 

physician

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Not-That-Bright said:
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?
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
166
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
physician said:
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

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Not-That-Bright said:
... 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

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
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

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
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

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Generator said:
. 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

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
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

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Not-That-Bright said:
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!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
166
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
physician said:
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.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
166
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
physician said:
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.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
166
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
physician said:
Generator said:
. 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.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
166
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Generator said:
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

Some things never change.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Bankstown bro
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Capitalist Pig said:
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
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
166
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
physician said:
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

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
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

A Restless Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,242
Location
Somewhere yonder where the sun never rises
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
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.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top