“Primum non nocere”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75805 Dec 5, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Gawdunit continues to be the greatest source of ignorance worldwide as brainwashed godbots like you demonstrate on a daily basis in this forum. Once again, you should stop humiliating yourself in an international forum and seek professional help for your mental illness immediately, kid.
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/fir...
"Daniel Gibson, Ph.D. and a team of 23 additional researchers outline the steps to synthesize a 1.08 million base pair Mycoplasma mycoides genome, constructed from four bottles of chemicals that make up DNA."

Now how do we know those chemicals were present at that point in time and how you would we know what environment it occured in? Could this experiment be replicated in said environment? Could those chemicals come together and create life without the influnce of humans manipulating them with the specific design in mind to create life? By removing outside influences such as the knowledge of what the environment was like and could this survive in it you skew the results. Then there is the clear possibility of experimenter bias. If you believe abiogenesis is the only answer it may be easy to overlook these details. That is if the goal of this experiment was to prove abiogenesis and not to simply create life (the main difference of course being the careful intelligent design and controlled laboratory setting).
Myth Buster

Cottonwood, AZ

#75806 Dec 5, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
Their belief that evolution rules out the existence of God
You're obviously desperately clinging to your self-degrading cultist lifestyle and should be totally ashamed of yourself. There are no valid rationalizations for a self-degrading cultist lifestyle in a death-denying hate cult.

No rational adult has ever stated that evolution rules out the possibility of supernatural creatures. It does however rule out the possibility of the monstrous deity of Christian mythology because the damn bible, which someday will be internationally banned with similar hate books, is totally inconsistent with evolution.

I recommend valuable de-conversion resources to Christian cultists like you. You'll find a scientific answer to your question in Victor Stenger's book. If the universe had been designed then there would be overwhelming evidence for the existence of a designer and design and none exists.

The universe certainly hasn't been intelligently designed. An obvious observation is that our Sun will eventually die and we've yet to definitively locate another life sustaining planet or develop the technology to get there.

Does your damn bible, which is consistently wrong when the terrestrial authors wandered into scientific matters, mention anything about other life sustaining planets and developing the technology to get there?

What kind of a monster would supposedly create a life sustaining planet knowing our Sun will eventually die without providing any guidance for our survival? The terrestrial authors of the damn bible didn't know the answers to the above question and were more concerned with programming their mindless followers to hate gays.
Myth Buster

Cottonwood, AZ

#75807 Dec 5, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
From William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" Website
Faith has never ever been "reasonable".

Science is the antithesis of religion. Science is based in reality on observation and experimentation. Religion is based on dogma and delusions without any basis in reality.

There's no common ground between reality and fantasy!
Myth Buster

Cottonwood, AZ

#75808 Dec 5, 2012
RN Student wrote:
Now how do we know those chemicals were present at that point in time and how you would we know what environment it occured in?
We know the conditions that must have existed for life to develop. The challenge for science is to duplicate the environment. I expect exciting discoveries in our life times.

Although you'll never be man enough to accept this irrefutable fact, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the first single cell life forms were intelligently designed.

You should be spending more time scrutinizing the damn bible than finding pathetic rationalizations for worshiping a mythical god of the gaps, kid.

“Primum non nocere”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75809 Dec 5, 2012
Care to entertain the rest of my questions?
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
We know the conditions that must have existed for life to develop. The challenge for science is to duplicate the environment. I expect exciting discoveries in our life times.
Although you'll never be man enough to accept this irrefutable fact, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the first single cell life forms were intelligently designed.
You should be spending more time scrutinizing the damn bible than finding pathetic rationalizations for worshiping a mythical god of the gaps, kid.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#75810 Dec 5, 2012
ReligionMustDie wrote:
So, you like magic beans and fairy dust, do ya...
<quoted text>
http://www.spellsandmagic.com
And , lil fella, just what do you assume?
So Dr Frankenstein, you believe life was created randomly out of non living matter and you use the Rolling Stones as an example of abiogenesis. Neat!

Well child, I assume Alister McGrath was correct when he stated in his book,The Twilight of Atheism,:

"It may once have been bold, brave and brilliant to argue that religion was an infantile delusion or a pernicious superstition. Now, atheism seems arrogant and uncomprehending; incapable of even the most basic act of intellectual empathy that tries to grasp why intelligent, articulate people might choose to believe something which we disagree with - and which might even be right."
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#75811 Dec 5, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
We know the conditions that must have existed for life to develop. The challenge for science is to duplicate the environment. I expect exciting discoveries in our life times.
Although you'll never be man enough to accept this irrefutable fact, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the first single cell life forms were intelligently designed.
You should be spending more time scrutinizing the damn bible than finding pathetic rationalizations for worshiping a mythical god of the gaps, kid.
"Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."
Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75812 Dec 5, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
No rational adult has ever stated that evolution rules out the possibility of supernatural creatures. It does however rule out the possibility of the monstrous deity of Christian mythology because the damn bible, which someday will be internationally banned with similar hate books, is totally inconsistent with evolution.
Oh I don't think that evolution rules out the possibility or the probability of God at all. It's a fact that evolution is responsible for much of what we see in nature. I find your above statement very strange. You seem to be saying that it's possible that some supernatural creatures exist, but you're not willing to entertain the existence of the deity from the Christian Scriptures.
Myth Buster wrote:
If the universe had been designed then there would be overwhelming evidence for the existence of a designer and design and none exists.
Well that's what I keep asking you. What is *YOUR* personal standard of evidence that you use as a basis for your conclusions? My personal personal standard isn't wrapped around any singular evidence but rather a collective sum.

For example; the Woodpecker is unusual, but consider why it's unusual. The Woodpecker uses such force on trees when pecking for food that the shock and impact would shatter the beaks of virtually every other bird in existence by comparison. Only the Woodpecker's beak can handle that kind of repeated stress. Very few dead Woodpeckers have ever been found with broken beaks. In fact, the Woodpecker alone has cartilage in it's head that appears to be placed rather than evolved. This cartilage acts as a shock absorber for the woodpecker's skull. If evolution is true without God, then why don't we see other birds with the same characteristics? If you attempt to argue that some went extinct it is plausible, but the woodpecker really isn't an endangered species on a global scale. This only causes us to ask why haven't other birds evolved with the same attributes?

A single strand of human DNA is equal in information to one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain has an information capacity of 10 billion gigabytes. Yet with that much capacity, we still know less than 4% of all available knowledge in the history of humankind. That's a very generous estimate. If true, then there is 96% knowledge that is unknown to us. If it's unknown, how do we confirm whether or not God is in that percentage? We look at the collective evidence.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75813 Dec 5, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
The universe certainly hasn't been intelligently designed.
An obvious observation is that our Sun will eventually die and we've yet to definitively locate another life sustaining planet or develop the technology to get there.
Just because our sun will eventually die doesn't mean that it wasn't intelligently designed. In fact it just might prove the opposite. If the Bible is correct, then God just may create a new Heaven and new Earth. This might imply a new solar system. Wouldn't it be awesome to witness this creation?
Myth Buster wrote:
Does your damn bible, which is consistently wrong when the terrestrial authors wandered into scientific matters, mention anything about other life sustaining planets and developing the technology to get there?
Of course not. Why would it? The purpose of the Bible isn't about science. It's not about processes or laboratory observations. While the authors of the Bible may have had a rather simplistic understanding of modern physics, its purpose was not to explain how things were created with any detail.
Myth Buster wrote:
What kind of a monster would supposedly create a life sustaining planet knowing our Sun will eventually die without providing any guidance for our survival? The terrestrial authors of the damn bible didn't know the answers to the above question and were more concerned with programming their mindless followers to hate gays.
If God keeps His promise to create a new Earth and Heaven, then it's only logical to conclude that a new source of light and energy will be designed and created to sustain us. Of course if God is "light" and is "love" as described in the Bible, then it's reasonable to conclude that every future need has already been planned for. That we don't know the details of those plans is irrelevant. I don't care how God does it. I just care that He will.
Myth Buster

Cottonwood, AZ

#75814 Dec 5, 2012
RN Student wrote:
Care to entertain the rest of my questions?
As I explained above and Charles Darwin in more detail long before any of us were born, we know the conditions that must have existed for life to develop. The challenge for science is to duplicate the environment. I expect exciting discoveries in our life times. Care to suggest your cult donate money to a worthwhile cause which will put another "final nail" in the coffin of the abomination known as organized religion?
Myth Buster

Cottonwood, AZ

#75815 Dec 5, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
Oh I don't think that evolution rules out the possibility or the probability of God at all.
No, I don't think it's probable that any supernatural creatures exist just that evolution doesn't rule out such a possibility. As I explained above, the damn bible is inconsistent with evolution so evolution rules out the hideous monster of Christian mythology. Willful ignorance of science isn't proof of the existence of the supernatural.

If your determined to rely on offensive Christian pseudoscience bullshit to rationalize your self-degrading cultist lifestyle then you'll waste your one life as an ignorant slave to Dark Ages dogma. You should always seek out facts from reputable websites with legitimate scientists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/wo...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin...
Myth Buster

Cottonwood, AZ

#75816 Dec 5, 2012
Eddy Boyd wrote:
I just care that He will.
Two hands at work will always accomplish more than two billion in self-indulgent prayer. The human race is heading towards a premature demise. There's absolutely no place for religious cults with violence and hatred inciting dogma in a world with weapons of mass destruction. It would be fitting for the last words uttered to be the last unanswered prayer.

“Primum non nocere”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75817 Dec 5, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
We know the conditions that must have existed for life to develop. The challenge for science is to duplicate the environment. I expect exciting discoveries in our life times.
Although you'll never be man enough to accept this irrefutable fact, there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the first single cell life forms were intelligently designed.
You should be spending more time scrutinizing the damn bible than finding pathetic rationalizations for worshiping a mythical god of the gaps, kid.
You think you know what type of environment would be required for abiogenesis; however do you know if those conditions existed on Earth and if so when, or if these questions have even been explored?

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#75818 Dec 6, 2012
ReligionMustDie wrote:
<quoted text>
(((BS!!)))
This is for you Remudie; a little reminder of the past, just altered a tad :)

I was walking down the street the other day, and I ran into an organism, and not only was it having a hard time trying to sprout some hair, it was having real issues creating itself some eyes, so that it could see.

Not to worry, organism, I said, in a couple of billion years, you will not only have eyes, that might have golden flecks within, you will have irises, that are attached to optical nerves, that will be linked to a brain that you haven't developed yet, and you will be able to see in color!!

Not only will you be able to see in color, but you will be wearing 3D specs so that you can sit there and watch things magically appear as if they are flinging themselves out at you and make you duck to avoid being hit.

And guess what organism? If you have blue eyes, you will be related to every other organism that has evolved into similar resemblance.... and you will never run across an ape with blue eyes, letting you know in advance that you are not related to an ape.

You will never be a Monkeys Uncle!!

And the organism breathed a sigh of relief.....

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#75819 Dec 6, 2012
*** http://io9.com/5789256/physics-shows-that-no-...

Physics proves that no one really has blue eyes

Although some people have blue eyes, and many babies are born with particularly deep blue irises, no one actually has blue pigment in their irises. They're just a trick of the light.***

If my eyes aren't blue, then I am an organism in heaps of strife......
Myth Buster

Cottonwood, AZ

#75820 Dec 6, 2012
RN Student wrote:
You think you know what type of environment would be required for abiogenesis; however do you know if those conditions existed on Earth and if so when, or if these questions have even been explored?
Look in the mirror and you'll get your answer as to whether the conditions existed on earth for the first living cells approximately 3.5 billion years ago. As I've previously explained, scientists are currently working towards duplicating the conditions in a controlled environment.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/fi...

“Primum non nocere”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75821 Dec 6, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Look in the mirror and you'll get your answer as to whether the conditions existed on earth for the first living cells approximately 3.5 billion years ago. As I've previously explained, scientists are currently working towards duplicating the conditions in a controlled environment.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/fi...
The problem I see is that you are starting with a conclusion and trying to make the model fit rather than exploring what the Earth would have been like through various points in its' life to and explore it from birth (or creation) on. This thesis operates off of several presuppositions that are assumed rather than explored and/or proven and that is not good science.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#75822 Dec 6, 2012
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Look in the mirror and you'll get your answer as to whether the conditions existed on earth for the first living cells approximately 3.5 billion years ago. As I've previously explained, scientists are currently working towards duplicating the conditions in a controlled environment.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/fi...
Yes scientists are working towards duplicating the hypothetical conditions in a controlled environment. If they succeed in a controlled environment, then they will have a very good idea of how God did the same thing in an uncontrolled environment.
Myth Buster

Cottonwood, AZ

#75823 Dec 6, 2012
RN Student wrote:
that is not good science.
Wrong! The real problem is you're a death-denying coward determined to rationalize your self-degrading cultist lifestyle with bullshit accusations about authors and scientists instead of seeking help for your mental illness.

Charles Darwin hypothesized about the origin of the first living cells while making observations about evolution. Today, there are various scientific hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. It's a challenge for science to duplicate the conditions at the moments of the origin of the universe and life on earth.

Once again, scientific hypotheses are merely educated guesses based on observation. The god hypothesis remains a failed scientific hypothesis because there's never been a single scientific observation in support of design (note the ignorant post above on evolution from a fellow godbot desperately trying to cling to the delusion that intelligent design is science).

“Primum non nocere”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75824 Dec 6, 2012
You didn't address any of the issues I presented and attacked me instead. Science is criticized all the time and I am simply pointing out obvious flaws in this thesis that would shoot down pretty much any other thesis but is accepted in this case and in any other thesis my questions would be enough to trash the thesis or at least call it into question by all involved.
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong! The real problem is you're a death-denying coward determined to rationalize your self-degrading cultist lifestyle with bullshit accusations about authors and scientists instead of seeking help for your mental illness.
Charles Darwin hypothesized about the origin of the first living cells while making observations about evolution. Today, there are various scientific hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. It's a challenge for science to duplicate the conditions at the moments of the origin of the universe and life on earth.
Once again, scientific hypotheses are merely educated guesses based on observation. The god hypothesis remains a failed scientific hypothesis because there's never been a single scientific observation in support of design (note the ignorant post above on evolution from a fellow godbot desperately trying to cling to the delusion that intelligent design is science).

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min lightbeamrider 817,553
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min June VanDerMark 579,010
Women and Men: DO NOT marry/date an Engineer!!! (Oct '08) 50 min Rohan 101
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Remnant of 144000 39,955
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr Classic 2,190
whats wrong with people that dont believe in je... (Jan '12) 1 hr Reason Personified 1,072
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 1 hr WelbyMD 111
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr bad bob 176,207
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr Pegasus 270,109
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 hr mike 609,819
More from around the web