Jump to content

Does Water Mean Life?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#21 John Paul

John Paul


  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 06 September 2005 - 08:06 PM

Two things:

1) Please tell us why you think that the "bogus" assumption you mentioned was made.

2) Tell us why you think it is bogus.

It's a strawman argument. Among the various conjectures currently being considered, none includes the proposition that genes and proteins sprang fully-formed into the world.

I don't know of any IDist or Creationist who thinks that. The odds I gave do not reflect that assumption. The odds reflect the "likelyhood" of the required components being 1) created/ formed; 2) Getting to the same location; and 3) being properly configured.

Then there is the chaperon requirement- proteins that guide the amino acid sequences to the destination where they will be folded and configured for function.

But anyway RNA and DNA are delicate macro-molecules. Amino acid sequences and the sugar-phosphate backbone don't just lay around waiting for more amino acids to come washing their way.

That all depends on what is meant by abiogenesis. If abiogenesis means life arising from non-life via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, then abio is NOT self-evident.

It may seem like a semantic quibble, but there is an important difference between a conjecture and an axiom. One of the axioms of science is that everything is the result of natural processes.

Not only is it a quibble but it is a meaningless quibble as the origins of nature cannot be the result of natural processes because natural processes only exist in nature.

How about this: Everything that exists in nature had a cause.


Everything that exists in nature can be explained.

One more time- the "Church" did so because of the pressure put on it by the Aristoleans at the universities. IOW it was the academics who convinced the Church that this is what the Bible says.

I think this might be debatable as a historical point. If I considered it worth debating, I would probably begin by pointing out that the wording of the Genesis account rather unambiguously indicates a geocentric universe.

The Hebrew text? Or some lame translation? And yes it does make a difference.

I probably should have included Aristotle in my list of suspects in the crime of sowing confusion.

Seeing that all roads of geocentrism lead to him, he would be kind of hard to avoid.

I might provisionally accept your claim that the Roman Catholic Church had been influenced (though I question the degree to which it would have been likely to bow to 'pressure'), but I don't know that I could consider it less culpable because of that fact.

Culpable of what?

Earth's early atmosphere is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen.

Actually the version of abiogenesis I was talking about requires it. However there isn't any evidence to support that requirement.

#22 Guest_Calipithecus_*

  • Guests

Posted 06 September 2005 - 11:03 PM

If your going to say that the percentages that I have shown are wrong (strawman), then say so.

View Post

Maybe we have different ideas about what constitutes honest, civil dialogue. My idea of that includes allowing each participant to decide for himself what he wants to say. If I had wanted to say that the percentages you showed were wrong, I can't imagine where you could have gotten the idea that I would have hesitated for a moment to say so. What I said was that the numbers were meaningless absent context. Re-reading the posts makes that obvious; the context was Miller's experiment. But in the midst of responding in the same post to both you and JP, I got a little lost. One minute we were talking about conditions on early earth, the next about Miller's results. A comically clumsy error on my part, and I apologize.

You accuse me of running numbers off a page.

Looks like you got a little lost yourself. I was responding to JP, where he said:
"Also scientists have determined the simplest life would require 250-400 genes and their corresponding proteins. The probability for getting this vastly exceeds 1 chance in 10^150."
(Of course, those weren't actually his numbers, so I wasn't really accusing him of fabricating them any more than I was accusing you).

And If I find that the evidence you present has been fudged, or mis-quoted. Your membership here will be short lived

Here, I feel that you have really crossed a line. It might be one thing if I had a history of resorting to such dishonest tactics, but I must protest this accusation as completely undeserved. Unless you can indicate where I have ever fudged or misquoted anything in the past, your implying that my next response will contain examples of these is nothing but an attempt at character assasination. That you would resort to such mudslinging suggests that you have found my arguments difficult to counter directly. I sense anger here; if your frustration is preventing you from maintaining a civil tone, maybe you should consider sending yourself to the cooler for a few days.

I have no problem admitting to being wrong

I can't recall ever seeing you do that, but considering the high risk of error in extrapolating from a small sample, I am willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt.

The primary goal of this forum is to provide a place for honest, educational, civil, and fun debate on the topic of origins. I have had fun. I've also learned a lot. I kind of hate to admit that; for some reason I don't completely understand, I suppose I'd rather you thought I knew all about this stuff already. But I take pride in presenting only arguments that I've researched and given thoughful consideration, and I tend to double-check everything (to the point of borderline OCD, so I've been told). You can't do that without running into things you didn't know, and I learn more every day.

But as the membership of this forum continues to drop, the fun factor seems to be diminishing accordingly. At this point, there are, what, four of us? And we're going in circles. For some time, I've been thinking that it might be about time to move on (there are, after all, soooo many places on the internet to discuss this stuff). But I was worried about who that would leave for you guys to have fun with, since you've already banned just about everybody besides me who disagrees with you. If engaging in these discussions with someone who disagrees with you is ceasing to be fun for you, just say the word, and I'm outta here, and you guys can knock yourselves out tossing "amen brother" back and forth.

On second thought, I guess you've already done that. So I just want to say thanks to everyone here who has devoted so much energy to trying to straighten me out on these matters, and especially for helping me to better appreciate the importance of at least trying to keep things civil.

Best wishes to all,


#23 Guest_Admin3_*

  • Guests

Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:03 AM

Well the response was expected in the true fashion of what usually happens. For every person we bann is for one reason. And you showed it pretty much here. No respect for who owns this forum, or who runs this forum. Why? Because you do not respect the view of these people. Your suttle over tones for what you don't like, or are not willing a accept as evidence, which is pretty much anyone that disagrees with your point of view, is all through the post that started it all. Your attempt to make us feel guilty, while at the same time, lashing out, is actually common practice, and is very predictable.

You took your time in responding, because I saw you online several times since I posted. So I know your post was well thought out to have the effect you have presented.

You speak as if everyone here is a rookie at running a forum, or to debate in one. You'd be sadly mistaken. And is the reason we do not put up with the attitude presented by you on the issue. Your attempt to down grade what was said by you, was a nice try. But we run into this all the time. your post on what you attempted to do is no different from any other. And that is why it was seen as such.

Your dodge of every issue brought up, and every attempt to place blame on everyone else shows that your quite an expert. Your learning curve here is probably learning how to combat more of the views presented, than anything else.

Making the apology was a nice touch, but I did not ask for such. All I asked for was evidence to the accusations made. But none was given. So you figured an apology would make up for it. And because I had pointed this out, you really had nothing to prove other wise, and was caught, pretty much at your own game. Which is to discredit the poster's evidence with lame accusations, because you really had no rebuttal evidence. And when called on it, you had really a no way out. And could not stand being out done by a creationist. So your lash back was expected. I called you own it because I knew this, and saw right through what you were attempting to do.

Though I did not expect the expert guilt trip. One we have gotten here more times than I can count on two hands. The: I'm sorry, but it's your fault post.... I really like being here, but it's your fault if I leave..... I like your forum, but you don't know how to run it...... I've had fun, but it's not fun anymore..... I know I need to go into the cooler, but why don't you put yourself there instead. etc..... :o

What that represents, is that you can't say anything nice about those here you disagree with, without having something to counter it.... Can't let those creationist have an inch from an evolutionist. It's just not right. :o

So why will you get banned? It is because you played this game, and instead of admitting to what you tried to do, which I pointed out. You tried to worm your way out. You were not mad because of what I said, you were mad because you got caught in the act of doing what we bann people for. Don't think so? Where is the evidence to show I was wrong?

I actually came in here today thinking you would find such evidence, and I would have to apologize. I had no problem with it. But no one likes to admit being wrong. But when you allowed this to go beyond wrong doing, and tried to put blame upon someone else, this is where you crossed the line. It's my fault, as you would say, and tell your buddies at the other forums you visit. It's always the evil creationist fault :o . But this attitude is the norm and is expected from just about every evolutionist that comes in here. For I can count on one hand those I have met that would respond differently from what you have. And I have lost count on how many come in here and respond exactly how you did.

Is anyone allowed to have a different view than an evolutionist? No. And this is the reason your at this forum, and we're not at a evolutionist forum. For I could care less that you believe in evolution, because it is your right to make that choice. But the main reason forums go up like this, is because this choice is being forced. But you know this. It's why your here. To force your choice, and fight what is claimed does not exist.

I am going to close this thread, but will leave up what was said, just as it is.

#24 lionheart209



  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 10 September 2005 - 09:57 AM

For they sent probes to a comet, which is mainly ice, to send back date on that ice.

View Post

One thing we must all be aware of and remember is that scientists can't tell how old anything is. All their dating methods are flawed.
They just guess or flat out lie about the dates of things they find and test.

Take fossils for example, they dated a certain fish fossil they found to had been alive billions of years ago, and then they found the same exact type fish living today.

The reason they love to add time to every find, is because saying something is older, like millions or billions of years older, would support their imagined story(evolution).

Things don't come with a label that says how old they are, and I'm sorry to tell you, that science isn't able to come up with a method that can accurately tell you the age of anything.

But there is one tool we can use, and its always correct, the geneology of the Bible.
Which if followed will show that the world is around 6,000 to 10,000 yrs old.

ThanX <><

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users