Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#24802 Jan 30, 2014
UdintBuildThat wrote:
For Gods sake man we're no longer racist. We elected a black man.
"We"? That makes it sound like you were part of the 53% that voted for Obama in 2008.

I'm guessing that you didn't vote for him.

If you think that there are no racists left, please explain this:

http://bit.ly/1bBzMqR

Or this: http://bit.ly/1fzUMRC
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24803 Jan 30, 2014
seriously wrote:
And within those billions of galaxies are billions of billions of solar systems. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who believes our earth is unique.
In our galaxy alone it takes 100,000 years for light to travel from one end to the other, so it's entirely possible that we have other life bearing planets right here in our galaxy.
Yes, we have no idea what's out there.
Chilli not me

Canton, OH

#24804 Jan 30, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Magical explanation, huh? I asked you to explain your theory about the origins of matter, but you didn't want to do that. So, I'll explain it for you:
"In the beginning, there was absolutely nothing in the universe. No gasses, no matter, no gravity, no nothing. Only completely-empty darkness." (Just stop and take that in for a minute.)
"And then for no reason, some non-living thing just popped up one day. It wasn't a miraculous or magical occurrence, though, because everyone knows that things that don't exist can pop up from nothing all the time. And now we have an entire universe with billions of galaxies and ordered planetary systems, each comprised of various gasses and types of matter. And in our own galaxy, there just happens to be the perfect conditions on earth to sustain a vast array of infinitely-complex lifeforms, which evolved from a tiny, single cell that suddenly -- but not miraculously or magically -- sprang to life for no reason, and is like a computer program more sophisticated than anything man has ever designed."
You're right, Old Guy ... my explanation is ridiculous compared to your scientific one. HAHAHA
<quoted text>
You don't think that's a pathetic statement? These people can't do anything but speculate about the origins of the universe, yet they're so arrogant and prejudiced that they'll say without a doubt that someone else's theory is wrong. Science is supposed to be about discovery, not indoctrination into the cult of God-deniers who fear any rational discussion about the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.
It mentions in Genesis that God created light on the earth, before he created the sun. Teach THAT in science classes. Just don't have what it takes...
seriously

Chillicothe, OH

#24805 Jan 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
"We"? That makes it sound like you were part of the 53% that voted for Obama in 2008.
You indicating the 47% who didn't vote for Obama as being racist is racist, not the people who didn't vote for him.
Chilli not me

Canton, OH

#24806 Jan 30, 2014
Ignorance Is Bliss wrote:
Just ignore Canton, his trolling days are over.
Yep. Deleting your browsing history to judge your own posts. Agreeing with yourself to seem important. Check and check. All the symptoms of a conniving Christian Conservative Rightwinger. Speaking of check lists...here's your exact agenda...step by step.

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#24807 Jan 30, 2014
seriously wrote:
<quoted text>
You indicating the 47% who didn't vote for Obama as being racist is racist, not the people who didn't vote for him.
But, of course, I didn't say that at all. If I did, you would have quoted that part.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#24808 Jan 30, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Magical explanation, huh? I asked you to explain your theory about the origins of matter, but you didn't want to do that.
Well, actually we were talking about evolution. You said that you couldn't see how life could spring from non-life, and therefore there must be a creator. I asked you then how the creator came to be. You admitted you had no idea. That's a real problem with your "theory." Because you can't understand how life could evolve from non-life, you suggest a creator. But then you still don't understand how a creator could come to be, and yet you are OK with that. A theory can be tested, and has the potential to be falsified. What test would you offer that could disprove your "theory" of the creation of life?
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
And in our own galaxy, there just happens to be the perfect conditions on earth to sustain a vast array of infinitely-complex lifeforms, which evolved from a tiny, single cell that suddenly -- but not miraculously or magically -- sprang to life for no reason, and is like a computer program more sophisticated than anything man has ever designed."
OK, now we are back to the idea of how life could arise from non-life. Scientists believe that what we know as "life" developed (over a very long time) from chemical reactions that occurred in the distant past. That's a real theory, and one that can be tested.

The way to test it is to set up an experiment where the chemicals and environment are similar to our distant past, and see if the building blocks of life (organic molecules and amino acids) would appear.

A famous experiment, conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did just that:

"The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour, and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars were also formed. Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. 18% of the methane-molecules became bio-molecules."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93U...
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
And in our own galaxy, there just happens to be the perfect conditions on earth to sustain a vast array of infinitely-complex lifeforms, which evolved from a tiny, single cell that suddenly -- but not miraculously or magically -- sprang to life for no reason...
Single cells are not the beginning. They are the result of a long period of organic chemicals arranging themselves in ever more complex forms, including earlier forms of protolife, such as viruses. Understand, this happened over a very long time (billions of years.)

If you are interested in this area of science, you should investigate "abiogenesis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
seriously

Chillicothe, OH

#24809 Jan 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
But, of course, I didn't say that at all. If I did, you would have quoted that part.
"We" is a collective term. It doesn't matter who "you" or "I" voted for "we" elected a black president and your mindset is clearly racist.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24810 Jan 30, 2014
Chilli not me wrote:
It mentions in Genesis that God created light on the earth, before he created the sun. Teach THAT in science classes. Just don't have what it takes...
I've stated that I'm not really in favor of Creationism being taught in public school. I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design. It's up to parents to teach a specific religion to their children.

Try again, dum dum?
seriously

Chillicothe, OH

#24811 Jan 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, actually we were talking about evolution. You said that you couldn't see how life could spring from non-life, and therefore there must be a creator. I asked you then how the creator came to be. You admitted you had no idea. That's a real problem with your "theory." Because you can't understand how life could evolve from non-life, you suggest a creator. But then you still don't understand how a creator could come to be, and yet you are OK with that. A theory can be tested, and has the potential to be falsified. What test would you offer that could disprove your "theory" of the creation of life?
<quoted text>
OK, now we are back to the idea of how life could arise from non-life. Scientists believe that what we know as "life" developed (over a very long time) from chemical reactions that occurred in the distant past. That's a real theory, and one that can be tested.
The way to test it is to set up an experiment where the chemicals and environment are similar to our distant past, and see if the building blocks of life (organic molecules and amino acids) would appear.
A famous experiment, conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did just that:
"The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.
Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour, and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars were also formed. Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. 18% of the methane-molecules became bio-molecules."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93U...
<quoted text>
Single cells are not the beginning. They are the result of a long period of organic chemicals arranging themselves in ever more complex forms, including earlier forms of protolife, such as viruses. Understand, this happened over a very long time (billions of years.)
If you are interested in this area of science, you should investigate "abiogenesis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
We can however agree here "Old Guy".
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24812 Jan 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
Well, actually we were talking about evolution. You said that you couldn't see how life could spring from non-life, and therefore there must be a creator. I asked you then how the creator came to be. You admitted you had no idea. That's a real problem with your "theory." Because you can't understand how life could evolve from non-life, you suggest a creator. But then you still don't understand how a creator could come to be, and yet you are OK with that. A theory can be tested, and has the potential to be falsified. What test would you offer that could disprove your "theory" of the creation of life?....
Apparently we weren't talking about just evolution, because you asked me how the creator came to be. That takes the discussion to the origin of every single thing, living and non-living.

So, what is your theory? How did a vast amount of absolutely nothing produce something?

By the way, did you ever hear the joke about the scientist who decided he was as smart as God? God challenged him to a man-making contest, just like when Adam was created The scientist said, "Sure, I'm in!", and reached down to get a handful of dirt. God said, "No, you go get your own dirt."
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24813 Jan 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
Reagan encountered an early, real world example of what happens when your only consideration in healthcare is profit. I think we can both agree in hindsight that his was an imperfect and costly solution. But what would you have done? Citizens were dropping dead (in public spaces) because they could not pay for necessary care. What's the free market solution to that problem?
And you don't want your citizens dropping dead in the streets --- it looks bad.
I'm just acknowledging that I saw your post. I'll give it some thought and get back to you.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#24814 Jan 30, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently we weren't talking about just evolution, because you asked me how the creator came to be. That takes the discussion to the origin of every single thing, living and non-living.
It's certainly a good way to deflect the conversation from the origins of life, and your belief in intelligent design.
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what is your theory?
I don't have a theory on the origin of the universe.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#24815 Jan 30, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I've stated that I'm not really in favor of Creationism being taught in public school. I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is just a rather obvious attempt to evade the Supreme Court decision that found that the teaching of creationism in public schools is unconstitutional.

"The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula.

A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term". In drafts of the book over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design", while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists" [sic]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_desi...
Canton

Canton, OH

#24817 Jan 30, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I've stated that I'm not really in favor of Creationism being taught in public school. I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design. It's up to parents to teach a specific religion to their children.
Try again, dum dum?
Intelligent Design IS Creationism. In fact, you sneaky, conniving Bible voters got busted once, replacing the word creationism with intelligent design...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_Pe...
"Many of the book's arguments are identical to those raised by creationists, which have been dismissed by the scientific community.[35] In fact, a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 draft showed how in hundreds of instances the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design" and "creationist" replaced by "intelligent design proponent", while "creator" was replaced by "agency" or "designer".
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/critique...
So just like the lame, and I'm talking feeble to the point of being sad, attempt to agree with your own posts under another screen name, you conniving Christian Conservative rightwingers were busted trying to sneak creationism, under the name "intelligent design" into our tax paid public school science classes, in this free and religiously equal nation. How very un-American. Keep your weird, middle eastern religion away from America's children.
Just don't have what it takes...
Canton

Canton, OH

#24818 Jan 30, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just acknowledging that I saw your post. I'll give it some thought and get back to you.
Oopsie. Now even Old Guy is starting to see what a conniving worm you are. Better invent some more "friends". Weak.

Since: Aug 12

Decatur, GA

#24819 Jan 30, 2014

In case you missed the State of the Union...

Since: Aug 12

Decatur, GA

#24820 Jan 30, 2014


The correct link for The State of the Union.
Ignorance Is Bliss

San Francisco, CA

#24823 Jan 30, 2014
Canton wrote:
Yep. Deleting your browsing history to judge your own posts. Agreeing with yourself to seem important. Check and check. All the symptoms of a conniving Christian Conservative Rightwinger.
How's that working for you?
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24826 Jan 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
It's certainly a good way to deflect the conversation from the origins of life, and your belief in intelligent design.......... I don't have a theory on the origin of the universe.
Deflect the conversation? Hardly. What's a discussion about the origins of life without delving into speculation about the origins of the universe? We live in the universe. Aren't you aware that secular scientists have tried to solve that mystery?

So, you have no idea how matter originated or even how the earth was formed, And all you can do is guess about how life began. But you know with absolute certainty there's no God?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Findlay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
dentist John Erdeljack May '16 gator hunter 1
A renewed mind Apr '16 Adiemas 2
Cassity Green (Aug '11) Apr '16 Findlay Rez 4
Kayla farr Feb '16 Blase 1
Tara Brubaker? Feb '16 Ayee 1
David Young (Feb '15) Feb '16 T smith 5
Review: Optical Shop In Meijer (Jan '16) Jan '16 Wei Thomas 1

Findlay Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Findlay Mortgages