Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rifleman, I'm disappointed in you. I ask a question on this list and you insult me. You don't even know me and we've never communicated before, but this does not hinder your attack.
I frankly don't care what problems you've had with other people: they have nothing to do with me and your response to me. The fact remains that you cannot answer my questions. Oh, you make quite a lot of smoke and noise, and then refer me to books that I have no desire to read, but YOU cannot PERSONALLY engage the questions I have posed.
I've been working in the physical sciences for 30 years. Real science demands proof, not the latest trend in ideas and theories. I asked how "design information" came to be located inside DNA/RNA. I want YOU to explain how this happened--not and I'm nost interested in references to large volumes of books I don't have the time or interest to read.
The posts on this list are exchanges between individuals; not a reference service to other sources. YOU have been asked a questions...Now the entire list is waiting to see if you have the intelligence to succinctly answer it those questions...
First off, my apologies. You are right: I do not know you, nor you me. I'm not in the best of moods these days with some irritating and worsening health issues that do keep me up waaaay past my usual beddy-bye time. So given that pre-excuse, here it is. Ignore my sarcasm if you can.
Here's some starters:
1) You assume that you have to have a complete set of modern RNA or DNA to have reproduction. There are other simpler means, such as the accumulation of similar or identical biochemical units based on the chance abundance of the right simple precursors. The successful and duplicitous replication of primordial life-forms is all it would take. but... that one's now been done in British labs. QED, as you understand that acronym.
2) I certainly do not entertain "the latest trends". My own field research in several areas of expertise and discipline have more than confirmed what I have honestly come to believe. But still, I'm also completely open to change if it's warranted or demonstrated. The SM, as you surely must know, always provides all the necessary ingredients, the recipe if you will, to replicate the offending experiment. Why do Christians so assiduously avoid this step?.
3) Probably I won't ever buy into mythological sky daddies however, since He refuses to EVER show His face. And everything He (or more correctly, the bible) claims to have done have pretty much been punctured and put away. For good.
As in: No wine into water, no ascending spirits or angels, (I esp.l like the one about our sun being just some angel-hung mirrors that reflect, just for our own arrogant use, the heavenly light from God..); no insta-poofy Genesis event (with, depending on whom you talk to, extensions of Genesis time for God to get it right... funny!), no fully completed universe (which it so surely is NOT...), no co-existing T-Rex or Apatosaurian household pets. No Noah's Ark. Nada. None of it ever panned out when honestly evaluated.
So, why should I keep trying to do that after I did take a very intense soul-searching look at it, and thus tossed out my own originally devout Christian faith? I mean, honestly now, how many bat-blows direct to the head does it take until a person admits it's all a big ol' hoax?
4) Lenski's fascinating publication is not a voluminous book. Your comment however is telling: "...and I'm not interested in references to large volumes of books I don't have the time or interest to read." I'm quite sure this is exactly how you and many Christians feel. After all, why go looking for some new factual info, esp. when it "stabs at the heart of the wily beast"? And yet, you claim to be in "the physical sciences" for 30 years? And you don't have an innately insatiable hunger for truth and new facts?
5) Try these ones on (after all, why should I re-type it all for you, complete with my usual crowd of typos to then go and correct?):
(this one mentions the original but simplistic Miller-Uhey experiment, which was indeed fraught with some early experimental errors, but it has since been carefully re-done, and durned if it didn't go and produce even more types of potentially useful pre-cursor amino acids and other useful molecules! Don't you just hate it when that happens?
Or this one in which DNA and RNA are not required:
And by the way, nowhere does anyone EVER claim to have all the answers yet, but by Gawhd we're certainly dancing on the high road with ever-more complex (see the LHC in Cern as an example...) ongoing research, don't you agree?
And there are numerous creative and imaginatively credible hypotheses, some of them described in the links I provided you above. (and which is how we always start out, btw, not with absolute but fully unsupported wishful claims, as religion is forced to do..) as to how and why the first replicating molecules may have arisen.
Again, the Brits and now others have done some amazing work of late, and have now seen the events that other denialists claim absolutely could not, well... work! And yet....
But then Dr. Craig Venter took some synth DNA parts, dropped them into an open lifeless cellular balloon along with some non-synthetic DNA, and dag-nab-durned if it din't close up all by itself and double-dang-durn it, began self- replication. Holy Science Lab, Batman!
So, is it possible it's all just basic molecular interaction? Not directed or designed? Quite simply put, if it didn't "work out" biochemically, then it was rejected/ But then, after a few billion more natural trial events, yet another trial experiment was started up, with another few quinntah-zillion molecular test interactions. Sooner or later, you'll win The Lottery, or the new car in Vegas, if you keep at it long enough!
People always forget the unstoppable power of exponential growth, of vast trial and error numbers in chemical tests, and so on. They ardently insist it has to be "serial", a cat birthing out a dog overnight. The stuff of utter fantasy and illogic, and yet, that's exactly what they demand as "proof" of anything.
Now, just to show we bio-scientists are not hide-bound... another potential hypothesis just waiting to be thoroughly tested. And therefore possibly substantiated? Who knows? Surely not me. Or you!
I however, am at least willing to consider all the rational options, and don't auto-dismiss it as being "too awesome!", and thus necessarily Godly. In my carefully considered opinion, there's absolutely no viable rationale to go after any more "research" on some mythical Godly origin.
After all, He's been so thoroughly debunked that it's just paddling about in the mud to try to keep the whole idea of a Glorious Omnipotent Creator in the mix of possible options. That's sorta like insisting on believing in Santa on your 45th birthday!
All these potential hypotheses will be tested, trust me! Look what the SM has produced so far! Hubble's predictions, the Higgs boson, Darwin's concepts even absent his having any personal knowledge of DNA; natural selection and Evolution now proven beyond any reasonable doubt, radio-active dating that proves we've been here a very long time, and so on. And so forth. And so on.
Rifleman, please forgive me if I ignore most of your atheist sermon, though it always amazes me how some atheists don't have enough "faith" in their position to sit back and not argue it. On the other hand as a Christian, I don't feel the need to to defend my Faith and my God to anyone: y'all will find out soon enough
So I'm going to focus on your paragraphs 1 & 5, which seem to bear on my original questions. First, when someone actually does create precellular life that morphs into RNA, which then morphs into DNA, I will be the first to applaud. However, this has never EVER been done (and it will be front-page news if it does). Duplicating bits of DNA matter and watching it play with itself is rather like copying the construction of an already-built automobile and watching if drive down he road. The real question is where did the FIRST car come from; something duplicates cannot answer.
Nevertheless, if it makes you feel better about God, then you can play your "Lottery of molecular interaction" until the end time (if that's indeed what makes you happy). The Plain Truth is that you are projecting nothing but theories and wishful thinking, hoping beyond hope, that there's not a Being vastly more powerful and holy than you are.
So let's have a level-set: I didn't start this thread preaching about the worthiness of Christianity or atheism; and I'm not interested in your position on the subject. You have not answered my original questions with anything but smoke, mirrors, and a proposed endless lottery of chance. There is no SM here: it's merely the expressions of a man who will grasp at any straw, simply because he hates the idea of facing his God.
Thanks for the post Life... Great information! Thank the Lord our God for creationist! Finally scientist who are refuteing Darwin's wildly vivid imagination.... I AM NOT A DECENDENT OF AN APE!
Sure you are. Your parents were both apes. Humans are, by biological definition, apes. Or, more precisely, members of the superfamily Hominoidea. You're an ape, too. We all are.
Rifleman, please forgive me if I ignore most of your atheist sermon, though it always amazes me how some atheists don't have enough "faith" in their position to sit back and not argue it. On the other hand as a Christian, I don't feel the need to to defend my Faith and my God to anyone: y'all will find out soon enough
Quick point: you ask him to answer, he does, you reject it as a rant?
I'm a polytheist: more Gods than you. He's absolutely right, you're wrong, evolution is real and those sites provide factual information.
PS- we won't find out soon enough, we already know: your God isn't coming.
Can't you Christian God-haters find anything better to do? If my God does not exist, then why would you spend your time ranting against people who believe the impossible? Sounds like some kind of mental illness to me!
Thx HH: By now I'm very used to the Christian "Oooppsss... I'm cornered. Help me!" quick knee-jerk denial and side-step. Sing along now: La-dee-dah..."Doin' the side-step shuffle!"
He totally ignores that I did, as I said, once belong to the same flock as he still mingles with. And despite my polite apology and re-statement in reasonable terms, he still comes back, predictably, with the usual Xtian ad hominem hostility, and then assumes command of the thread.
"Thread closed"? Nope. So sorry.
As well, when I take the considerable time to make my point(s), thoroughly and in depth, with supporting links, and it's inarguable, it's then demoted to the ranks of an "endless rant" or some other deprecating adjective. I can tell when I overwhelm someone with facts so easily found on the 'net by anyone.
So OK then, if I were to keep it all nice and short-like so as not to bore or overload you, I'd just say:
"Everything you say or think is all indefensible BS."
That OK with you?
Now then, to your invalid counterpoints, I'll again take the time*:
Quote:
Quote:
Rifleman, please forgive me if I ignore most of your atheist sermon, though it always amazes me how some atheists don't have enough "faith" in their position to sit back and not argue it. On the other hand as a Christian, I don't feel the need to to defend my Faith and my God to anyone: y'all will find out soon enough .
Quote:
Ahhh yes, the pointless and tiresome Pascal's Wager rears it's brainless threat-head one more time. Haven't we shown that any God you can imagine would see through your "I'll just keep enough demonstrable faith to save my sorry faker-a$$.... just in case I'm wrong!" mentality?
So now you don't want my commentary or participation? You want me to keep my own faith and just shush? How funny! You want us to all just go away and stay quiet, unlike the usual bloviating Christian output? Unasked for, uninvited and unwelcome, and yet there it is, on line, in pamphlets, on street corners, and on Sunday TV shows by such memorables as Jerry, Pat Jimmy and all the other money-grubbing egotistical blowhards?
The hypocrisy of org-religion is pathetic, and that should be obvious even to the blindly faithful who choose to NOT examine any other options. As you so openly admit to here time and again. But then, to admit anyone other than a Christian might just have a point would also be a tacit admission, something only a person of honesty and integrity can hope to accomplish.
So I'm going to focus on your paragraphs 1 & 5, which seem to bear on my original questions. First, when someone actually does create precellular life that morphs into RNA, which then morphs into DNA, I will be the first to applaud.
Quote:
You won't have to wait long, given what's in the lab cookin' up as we live and breath tonight. But "morphs into", like that? Where did you get that silly idea? Tell me/us: did you read any of the links I provided? You did ask for that info after all, so I provided, and then you run away?
But here's exactly what will happen when they do jump-start life from simple origins, exactly as has happened with each and every new discovery that debunks yet another old biblical myth. You won't applaud it or apologize for your long-held stubborn intransigence: it will be desperately woven into the fabric of evangelical faith-based beliefs, with the ultimate "Well, no matter what you find, it always was just God's Great Design anyhow."
So tell me, r0339 illogic-man: since you ask us where it all started? Exactly who created your illustrious Creator? And His father & mother? And theirs? And so on? There is no beginning to infinity, just FYI.
I know... this question is not to be asked, and certainly can't be answered. It just IS. Faith in it all is your answer. So instead of me, why don't you keep off these threads then, my man: you have all the answers, and obviously don't like to read so much. "No New Info!" is your creed apparently.
I suggest that you, not I, go keep your faith and don't bring it to the debating table, since you don't know how to comport yourself with that simple task.
You know: to answer direct questions about the Christian explanation for Abiogenesis, or the Creation of the Universe, or modern radio dating, or astronomy and all that we're finding out there. All of it will (and already has...) confound and deny the old biblical bloviations. Trust me folks (no, not you, r0339. You can't change).
All of it: inexplicable by the faithful, at extreme odds with that increasingly illiterate biblical interpretation that has been painfully revised so many times to try to cover it's own ever-more contradictory and error-filled a$$, but also not to be questioned by anyone!
How convenient. How "Side-Steppin'". And of course, how predictable.
However, this has never EVER been done (and it will be front-page news if it does). Duplicating bits of DNA matter and watching it play with itself is rather like copying the construction of an already-built automobile and watching if drive down the road. The real question is where did the FIRST car come from; something duplicates cannot answer.
The synthesis of DNA, and of amino acids, and of Craig Venter's spectacular experimental results, and of the recent Higgs boson consequences, and the speciation by Lenski, have indeed been front page news. Many times. You just desperately look away, probably going directly to the religion page to reaffirm your disbeliefs.
BTW, as to your silly metaphor, the first "car" as a form of transportation was not this...
You assume too much about how things evolve, (instant cat-into-dog, or wire wheel into Corvette, or instant RNA from soup, all via some ultra-slow serial process instead of multiple-co-emergent processing), all not how it works. [Even Apple figured that one out years ago, to the instant dismay of MicroSoft Man, that copycater!] Well, obviously some folks have genius, and some are but linear-serial thinkers. One lonely slow step at a time, wondering how it all happened that way, but then coming to unsupported conclusions of convenience fraught with a vast illiteracy in the subject! Nothing outside of the box, eh?
You must know that feeling, huh, r0339? And then you deny the obvious and wonder why we want to bring it all up?
What a special way of arguing! Charming. Compelling. But frankly, not at all well thought out, which is so obvious to all thinkers and observers here.
___________________________________________
*btw, remember, it was I who restarted politely, but then you still didn't like how you got cornered once again with my direct and valid point-form replies, and so you had to be combative. So sorry to upset you, but I won't back away from idle threats and The Good Olde Side-Stepping Dance, oh silly person.
Oh, and Now... it's thread closed...........................
Can't you Christian God-haters find anything better to do? If my God does not exist, then why would you spend your time ranting against people who believe the impossible? Sounds like some kind of mental illness to me!
Get a life!
The mental illness is yours, and it's being spread perniciously to others. We spend all this time and effort, correcting the lies and misinformation repeated by drones who think it's real.
I'm up late tonight studying the bible. Yet I notice how I keep getting emails from those who are troubled by my belief in a Christian God (how sad). You've had your chance to convince me of your positions; I've chosen to not agree. And likewise, you do not agree with my position. That's OK; such disagreements won't change the world. Let's agree to disagree.
"A man (or woman) convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." So I suggest we all be big boys and girls and give this subject a permanent rest.
Rifleman & Heathen, this thread is closed on my end. That's within my limited power, and I don't believe there's anything you can do to change my decision. So if you decide to continue to express your views and criticisms to a person who will just delete them, then that's your call: have fun.
I've enjoyed the exchange of information, but found your logic flawed, tedious and unscientific. I've died, met my God, and even talked to him. And thus I can tell you from experience, it's awfully hard to change the mind of someone who has had verbal intercourse with a Being you do not even believe to exist. Human logic and ever-changing theories just don't "cut it" when you've talked to the Real McCoy...
Your willful ignorance in favor of something you saw while oxygen-deprived really isn't my problem. Our logic and the information provided in response you tour own questions is sound; your denigration of Rifleman is basically a lie.
You do not love us; please save such ridiculous claims. Please don't appear pious and benevolent when you fear reality and insult those whose work you demanded in the first place. It's embarrassing to watch.
Good nite Heather. Even though you are interrupting my studies, I still love you; however, I'd hate to be married to you!
PS: I just took 5 deep breaths to get more oxygen...and what do you know? I still think the same about our disagreements
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's within my limited power, and I don't believe there's anything you can do to change my decision. So if you decide to continue to express your views and criticisms to a person who will just delete them, then that's your call: have fun.
