Comments
68,401 - 68,420 of 69,789 Comments Last updated Wednesday Jul 16
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75811
Dec 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75812
Dec 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75813
Dec 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Cornville, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Cornville, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Cornville, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75817
Dec 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Cornville, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75821
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Cornville, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75824
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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).
Myth Buster

Cornville, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75825
Dec 6, 2012
 
RN Student wrote:
You didn't address any of the issues I presented
Actually, I explained to you scientific methodology which you evidently still lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend.

The universe and life on earth exist therefore they were created by the hideous monster of Christian mythology isn't science.

Once again, you should stop making a complete ass of yourself on an international forum and seek professional help for your mental illness immediately, kid.

“Primum non nocere”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75826
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I explained to you scientific methodology which you evidently still lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend.
The universe and life on earth exist therefore they were created by the hideous monster of Christian mythology isn't science.
Once again, you should stop making a complete ass of yourself on an international forum and seek professional help for your mental illness immediately, kid.
If you look at God alone you are absolutely right as there is no known way to prove his existence at this point. To say God created the Earth in six days simply because God exists is operating on a presupposition rather than a fact. Humans were not there at the creation of life because we can't observe God creating life nor can we replicate it. You can't really falsify God either or that God created life.

That said you have the Biblical genesis account which most scientists reject because it cannot be replicate, observed, or falsified... so they present us with abiogenesis which can't be replicated, observed, or falsified. If you reject one as being unscientific how is the other one different when it fails the same pillars of logical research?
Myth Buster

Cornville, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75827
Dec 6, 2012
 
RN Student wrote:
If you reject one as being unscientific how is the other one different when it fails the same pillars of logical research?
Once again, you fail to understand that abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis and evolution is a scientific theory. I expect abiogenesis to be classified as a scientific theory in the next decade as scientists learn to replicate the first living cells while working within their budgets.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abio...

The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Emergence-Life-Chem...
Martha Olivares

Hobbs, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75828
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hail Mary full of grace the lord is with thee
blessed art thou among all women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of
our death. Amen. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit now and forever. Amen.
Oh my Jesus forgive us our sins save us from
the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven.
Especially those in most need of thy mercy.
Amem. Pray for forgiveness. He loves us.

Martha Olivares

Hobbs, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75829
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jesus save us.

“Primum non nocere”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75830
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you fail to understand that abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis and evolution is a scientific theory. I expect abiogenesis to be classified as a scientific theory in the next decade as scientists learn to replicate the first living cells while working within their budgets.
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abio...
The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Emergence-Life-Chem...
1. I wasn't comparing abiogenesis to evolution so I'm not sure why you mentioned that.

2. The first webpage you gave me addresses the probability of life occuring on it's own and macromolecules (if memory serves me correctly here). This does not address the problems I presented which are far more fundamental in science.

3. Thank you for the book reference, I will buy it next pay check but I won't get to reading it until after finals which are quickly approaching.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

373 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 4 min Godchild 114,974
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min RoSesz 532,441
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min I LOVE TORTURING ATHEISTS 720,224
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 min Rosa_Winkel 93,658
Have any girls on here had sex with a dog??? (Feb '12) 16 min JSarah 63
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 19 min shyam 4,482
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 25 min andet1987 3,946
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Catcher1 172,267
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Insults Are Easier 256,381
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 9 hr John 53
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••