Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
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

Cincinnati, 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

Cincinnati, 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

United States

#24819 Jan 30, 2014

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

Since: Aug 12

United States

#24820 Jan 30, 2014


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

New York, NY

#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?
Canton

Canton, OH

#24827 Jan 30, 2014
Ignorance Is Bliss wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that working for you?
How's the weather in Chilli...uh New York? Don't put much into the judge icons. You seem to have made it a hobby though. It's like a little peek into the true psychology of a person who would sit around and do that, don't cha' think? Oh...is it that proven fact that religious folks have lower IQs thing again? Oh well. Maybe some day you'll be able to play with the big dogs. Now back to the haunted truck driver and how god could always be but not the universe...
Pops

Newport, KY

#24828 Jan 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Pops, I'm afraid the answer is that YOU are. You keep making the "I don't like the white half, either!" joke. It's not really funny and it makes you look bad. If you saw Obama walking down the street, would you think "Hey, look at that half-white guy"? Nope, you'd think of him as a black man. That's the way it is in the US. A lot of it is a result of racist distinctions where even "a single drop of blood" was enough to be considered black.
<quoted text>

He is obviously more educated than you. I don't see him resorting to childish insults.
Pops, I think you are better than this. If you don't like some of Obama's policies, fine.(I'm unhappy with some of them, too.) But attack the policies, not the man. By focusing on personal, racial insults, it make it appear that part of your dislike for Obama is the color of his skin, rather than his politics.
You overlook the FACT that I was responding EACH time to another post that introduced the race card & thusly made it an issue. Can I presume that all of us are allowed to respond to the posts of others?
THEN, remember that Obama himself ( not me) very recently brought race to the forefront when using race as an excuse for his poll scores. I didn't start the topic, I only responded to what others started including our POTUS.
I won't go into case after personal case as to evidence that I am not racist since you are free to believe or disbelieve anything that anyone posts, but I have dated bi-racial & have bi-racial kids in my family. BUT I will REPEAT that Obama has recently claimed racism for his poll numbers...NOT me.
But I understand your train of thoughts for your post.
As far as Obama being more 'educated' than me, IF 'education' means the knowledge to obfuscate, deny things that have been recorded & video taped or to be able to make excuses for unkept promises I have to admit that he is royalty while in comparison I am a shoe polisher. I would bow to him just as he has bowed to monarchs around the world.
Pops

Newport, KY

#24829 Jan 30, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't the 50's. Although you wouldn't know it, listening to Conservatives.
Sorry, YOU brought up the 50's. Mutt responded to that post
Pops

Newport, KY

#24830 Jan 30, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent Design IS Creationism. In fact, you sneaky, conniving Bible voters got busted once, replacing the word creationism with intelligent design...
..
Just like libs/progressives/dems replacing 'tax increases' with "revenue enhancement". I can see the comparison.
By the way, I am NOT a 'bible thumper' & can NOT stand people ( Atheistic zealots & religious zealots) that are not tolerant of other views. WE do not have to agree to be tolerant.
Anyone being religious will NOT make the grass turn green anymore than someone being atheist will make the grass turn brown or visa versa.
Pops

Newport, KY

#24831 Jan 30, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
As it is taught in religion, God was always there. There was no beginning for him. How is that possible? How is it possible the universe goes on forever? And even if we ventured out into the universe far enough and found a wall, what's behind the wall?
From a religious point of view, time is yet one of the most amazing things that God created. In actuality, there really is no time.
FAITH in God is the most difficult argument to present to a nonbeliever so weigh your efforts & monitor your passions.
Don't be baited & just leave others alone while keeping it personal to your own heart.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24832 Jan 30, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you didn't look hard enough:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =DyLmru6no4UXX
I just watched all 39 seconds of that video, and missed the moment where Obama referred to himself as "the black candidate." I thought that you actually found some brief clip to back up your point, that's why I clicked to watch it. Thanks for wasting my time. Perhaps you'll understand if next time I don't watch...
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24833 Jan 30, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Deflect the conversation? Hardly. What's a discussion about the origins of life without delving into speculation about the origins of the universe?
Two entirely separate questions, talking about events that happened at vastly different times.

Estimate for the origin of the universe is about 13.8 billion years ago. Origin of life on the planet Earth? That's a mere 3.5 billion years ago. For you, it may all seem to be just a big ball of fuzzy unknowables. But, for scientists, there is general consensus that evolution is correct, based on a great deal of physical evidence. But when it comes to the origin of the universe, there is no consensus. It doesn't mean that it is forever unknowable, but just that we don't know it NOW.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24835 Jan 30, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
As it is taught in religion, God was always there. There was no beginning for him. How is that possible? How is it possible the universe goes on forever? And even if we ventured out into the universe far enough and found a wall, what's behind the wall?
Religion doesn't have to make sense. Science does. Religion helps us through stories and parables, and once was the only explanation for the uncertainties of our physical world. Science came along, and offered a different take on reality --- one that was constantly evolving, based on new information. Now science has helped us to achieve amazing goals. We now understand (as a culture) so much more about this world we live in.

But religion still has it's place. In the course of living, life will deliver to each of us a number of personal tragedies. Events that challenge us on a very personal level. Science offers cold comfort in those circumstances, while a nice story about better places where chronic pain is relieved and loved ones will be reunited is much appreciated by many.

Unfortunately, the more we mix the two together, the more they are each diminished.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
As it is taught in religion, God was always there. There was no beginning for him. How is that possible?
"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's tortoises all the way down!"
—Hawking, 1988"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_...
Pops

Newport, KY

#24836 Jan 30, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I just watched all 39 seconds of that video, and missed the moment where Obama referred to himself as "the black candidate." I thought that you actually found some brief clip to back up your point, that's why I clicked to watch it. Thanks for wasting my time. Perhaps you'll understand if next time I don't watch...
Come on Old Guy. Don't be niave or closed minded. Obama personally didn't claim to be 'only'black'. He let his propagandists, handlers, PR people, campaign manager, the media & strategist do that & he NEVER publicly voiced any opposition to such an M.O when the accusation came up.. That's why 95% of blacks voted for Obama TWICE.
Like the movie, Independence Day..."plausible deniability " just like he denies about every thing else OR blames others still after 5 yrs in office..

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.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
maternity care new to area 2 hr The Duke of Hazard 4
Leonard fugate 2 hr Mudslinger 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 6 hr HERE COMES DA JUDGE 20,110
Anyone know Doug Adams 9 hr Lady Bug 2
News City Of Dayton Apologizes For Traffic Stop Thu Big Johnson 1
MMA Fighters Thu RayS 1
MMA Fighters Thu SSF 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Springboro Mortgages