It's not a secret. And you shouldn't abuse a bug. So stop doing that, it's kinda pissing me off.
"In regards to a woman having sex with multiple partners, you said...."
Thank you for proving me right. I never said that it doesn't affect the guy. You just inferred that.
"You didn't actually, you sidestepped it."
No, you did. You turned it into some messed up debate about the freedom of speech.
"I don't even know how to respond to this."
Just like I really don't know how to respond to you saying that mark is kind without any proof.
"These two sentences seem contradictory."
Nope, mark is having people gang up on me. That ain't kind at all.
"I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?)"
Yes I do. Referring to an earlier post:
No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again.
After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.
After Miller failed, he further synthesized his experiment in order to try to prove evolution.
I believe I said your action was lazy, not you yourself. And even if I had called you lazy, was I supposed to somehow just know you worked 84 consecutive work hours?"
LOL. Man, let me tell you, the price of college tuition has exploded in the past 20 years. According to Times Magazine, the price of college went up like 700%. I try to get money anyway I can...within the bounds of the law of course (I don't run moonshine......).
"The Miller Urey experiment shows us that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials, so we already know that life can form from inorganic matter."
But the Miller Urey experiment shows us that life can't form. Again I refer to my three points:
One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half.
Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life.
Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that?
"I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable."
Doubt it, I bet you feel uncomfortable reading the Bible. Yet I can read Darwin's Origins of Species without breaking a sweat. Remember the questioning of Jesus by Pontious Pilate:
John 18:33-38
33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
If you were truly seeking truth, then I assume you would already be a Christian.
"Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated."
Really, didn't some famous scientist say that to believe in Christianity was "unthinkable"; so he wouldn't even study to see if it could be true? Wasn't that Hawking?
"It raises the question "who created god?". To which you and other creationists reply "Well, god doesn't need a cause. He has always been there". This is just special pleading, otherwise we can say that the universe has been here forever. Equal argument."
You use this argument anyways when you try to explain where the matter from the Big Bang came from. Scientists say it just was "always there".
"This is equivocation on your part. You're using the term ape and pig as if they are singular species. Ape refers to a group of primates. I have already said before that humans have a common ancestry with every single other species."
So this proves evolution how?
"The results of the experiment show that organic molecules can form from inorganic material"
Yes, but that doesn't mean life can form.
"As for the Lithium problem, what makes you think that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are related?"
Without the Big Bang theory, there is no theory of evolution. So if you are willing to give that up, you might as well convert to Christianity.
"Remember where the scientists are all in agreement that the conditions for early earth in the Miller Urey experiment were likely wrong? Did it ever occur to you that if they had simulated the correct conditions, that a high enough amount of amino acids would have formed?"
So then why don't they just do that? Why don't they just simulate those "right" conditions?
"Do not confuse abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The latter of which has far more evidence and is amongst the most comprehensive of theories in science."
All right, since I'm running out of time tonight, I'll give you that for now. But I want to return to this point later.
No, some bacteria use right handed amino acids."
Well, that's all fine and great, but you still haven't touched on the fact that all life nowadays uses left handed amino acids, and right handed ones are lethal.
"the majority of women have positive feelings about one night stands"
They do?
According to Professor Campbell, although women do not rate casual sex positively, the reason they still take part in it may be due to the menstrual cycle changes influencing their sexual motivation.
Yeah, that's positive feeling alright.
"Secondly, I think it shows your sexist and low opinion of women when you say that casual sex "destroys" women, while the men walk out unscathed."
I did? Show me where I said that! And don't not reply to this argument either. Show me where I said that! If there is one thing I can't tolerate, it's someone who will falsely accuse someone of something they are not guilty of.
I already covered the third argument below, so I will move on to the last. Mark has more kindness in his finger than I have in my whole body? On day one, I disagreed with one of his arguments and he immediately declared me an enemy. It wasn't even a strong disagreement, but NOPE, I'm an enemy anyways. Wow, he's sure kind. Got a heart of gold. Not even iamdavidh is that "kind", and we've fought for hours. In fact Mark was my first enemy declaration ever. And I have never even debated with the second enemy declaration, so I assume Mark told him to do that. So keep telling yourself lies; you are just delusional.
It ain't a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree"? It ain't Merry Christmas, it's Happy Holidays? They say, "Oh, you offend atheists when you say things like that, so we will censor the freedom of speech and say YOU CAN'T SAY THOSE THINGS!"
Or how about abortion? The can say that it's just a bunch of cells you are killing. There nothing wrong with that, but when I try to hold up a sign with a picture of an abortion, I have to take it down because it "offends" people?
Don't play dumb. It just makes you look dumb.
"The United States is not a police state, it is also not a socialist country. To say it is to either of those statements is to vastly exaggerate the issue. Small steps towards becoming a socialist state or a police state does not equal automatically becoming one."
I didn't mean that we are socialist, I meant we are becoming socialist. Small strokes felled great oaks.
"And then it goes on to say that the student put some book cover on another book (I assume school book? If its not a school book then its legal) saying something about god or the bible. The school should have the right to prohibit certain book covers, including religious ones, from being on school books."
And yet I've seen ones promoting Islam or Hinduism and that is somehow OK??? Why is Christianity book covers bad, but ones of other religions OK?
"They are only minor variations in opinions. They have the ballpark figure correct, they are not ambiguous. Now, if one state said the speed limit was 20 and another said 120, then that would be ambiguous and make zero sense. Do you think they just made up a number that would be safe for interstates?"
Your statement makes zero sense. There is an obvious safety difference between 20 and 120. There is no safety difference between 65 and 75. No, they don't make up the numbers, but they plan for speeding tickets. See, tickets are a huge source of income. So they set up speed traps in order to make money off them. For example, I have a highway that's 65 MPH. For about 1/4 mile, it drops to 55 MPH for no reason then goes back up to 65 MPH. And every time I go by there at night, there is a cop sitting there without fail because they know they will make money off the ticket. They can raise the limit to 75, but they make too much money off the tickets to do that.
"You're willing to take away a woman's rights all for the veil of protecting them."
Rights based off of what??? The Constitution? Which is based off of what? What is the basis for your moral theory?
In regards to morals, how does it compare?"
Morals start off as being something small, then corrupt and turn into something destructive.
Russia never signed the treaty. That's why they were our enemy during the cold war years. But what I do not understand is, why can't we ask permission from the other nations that signed the treaty to use the nuke to stop the oil well? It makes sense to me. Lets say we have two people Bob and Jim. Bob gets a contract offer from Jim to do some work. Later, Bob doesn't want to do that work. Bob asks Jim if he could be relieved of his contract and Jim agrees. Since both parties agreed, no legal infringement was caused. So I don't understand why we couldn't do the same thing. Sure it's a law, but if everyone including those who made it says it's OK, then we should have been able to do it. Like all laws, they can be modified or repealed to fit a certain situation.
" No, that wasn't their goal...they did an experiment to find out if organic compounds could result from inorganic material."
No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed.
"Look up the dictionary definition of the word, you are being delusional. I do not think I am guilty."
Yes, but the definition of moron is "dull witted". It's comparable to delusional.
"Copying and pasting large chunks just so I can refute it is lazy."
I suppose it would seem so, but I just finished 84 consecutive work hours (72 hours in the previous week alone). I didn't necessarily have time to arrange my argument properly on the website, so I wouldn't necessarily call myself "lazy". Now I am typing my arguments into Microsoft Word and pasting them to the website from there. That way, you won't have to worry about this type of situation any more.
"We already know that it happened, we just do not know how."
Believing in something for which you don't even know how it happened? And you call me crazy?? Wow, you got issues because you said you belief was based off of fact not faith. Without that "how" you are relying on faith. You are no longer trying to prove evolution false, as in your first argument; but trying to prove it true contrary to science (which supports my "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god" claim).
"This is an infinite regress problem. It does not answer the issue."
Why not?
"Um, no. Evolution does not tell us we evolved from apes."
What? Did you just claim that??? Then why this? All evolution does is claim that we evolved from apes.
"It does? Perhaps I missed it, please show me where."
Ah, I misread. It says the conditions are not accepted.
"all you do is abandon them after being proven wrong and look for new things to bring into the conversation."
Sounds like something you did. Like with my argument on Polystrate fossils, or statistical probability for evolution. In fact, there is tons of questions that evolution can't answer. Like The Lithium Problem. According to the Big Bang, there should be 66% MORE Lithium-7 in the universe. Or what about Missing Antimatter? The Big Bang created more matter than anti-matter. This imbalance doesn't fit any evolutionist theory. Yeah, like I said, you believe in evolution despite the scientific contradictions.
And now, to fix your complaint with my copy/paste argument, here is what I propose in my own words.
One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half.
Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life.
Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that?
So then what did Russian do when they used four nukes to stop their oil spills? Break the treaty and not care?
Yeah, including not having to work for food or housing, getting all the food stamps you want, committing crimes and getting away with them, stealing cool stuff from people, and calling other people racist while doing the exact same thing.
LOL. That's funny. But I don't think all religious people are nuts. Just a whole lot of them.
"I'm not aware of any law that would enable the U.S. to simply ask permission to break a treaty."
You are acting like a treaty is some sort of law. It isn't. Think of it as more of an understanding between nations. If Russian launched a nuke at us, would we hesitate to fire back because of a stupid treaty? Of course not! And we can ask the nations that signed the treaty if we could use a nuke for this purpose since a treaty is not a law.
"This would be like the government regulating free speech to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt."
But they already do that.......would this prove my point 1 about the US becoming more socialist?
"A true scientist comes up with a theory and tries to prove it false."
Then why are all scientific experiments, such as the Miller Urey experiment, attempts to prove evolution true?
"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge"
The scientific aspects of evolution are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of evolution in order to make man as a god. That might as well be posted on every evolutionist website, since they do everything that they can to push God out the door science or not. So no, you didn't refute it; I'm not satisfied.
"Ad hominem attacks now? I feel special."
"MarkML0528 said:
"This guy is delusional"
Ad hominem; I feel special too. You know, you shouldn't accuse other people of things you are guilty of...
"Yes, you are correct. Creation.com is not a reputable site, therefore your argument implodes in on itself."
This is an example of a straw man argument. You are attacking Creation.com rather than the argument they present. Now I don't have to answer your "Where did I use a straw man argument?" question because you just used one. Look at that, I took care of two posts with one.
"Oh, well then why did it happen outside of a laboratory experiment a few billion years ago? How else did we get here?"
First question: Prove it!
Second question: God created us.
"We'll go along with what you say, that pigs are our closest ancestor according to DNA. How does this disprove evolution? We still share a common ancestor with apes, as well as any other form of life."
Because evolution tries to tell us as fact that we evolved from apes when we may as well have evolved from pigs.
"Prove that scientists support it? Okay."
You do realize that you own post says that it is no longer widely accepted right? Looks like you just shot yourself in your other foot.
Now back to on topic, enough with the straw man augments! Are you going to provide a rebuttal for my post concerning the Miller Urey argument as being proof that evolution is false or not? If not, then I do not think you have a rational enough mind to handle debate.
"Thirdly, I think it's hilarious you want to get the government involved in what goes on behind the closed doors of its citizenry's bedrooms in a vain attempt to protect women,"
Like laws against prostitution??? I don't think you even realize what you are saying.
"I like how you copy and paste material from a different website as if it were you who wrote the whole thing."
LOL, broken "Here's Why" link. Fixed that now. Thank you for brining that to my attention. I copied and pasted because you complained last time I just slapped ya with a link, so I took the time to give you the important bits in order for you to condense your reading. Because the actual web page is like, 100 book pages long. :)
"Because all you're going to do is run for cover to your creationist website and ignore any and all scientific evidence I propose."
Who's ignoring who you fucking retard? I posted material that showed that the Miller Urey experiment was wrong. All you say is, "It's disreputable" like some twisted text bot. And that's another thing. Off all the obvious logical fallacies, you would think the straw man would be one you wouldn't use. But nope you use it anyway like for you it's somehow "exceptable".
And, IF IT'S DISREPUTABLE, IT SHOULD BE EASY TO REFUTE!!!!! Like those sites that say things like "9/11 was a government conspiracy". Those are extremely disreputable, yet because they are, it's all the more easier to refute.
But no, you can't refute it, because you know you are wrong! . And another thing. You still need to prove it's disreputable! And don't weasel out of it by saying, "You need to prove it's not disreputable" because that is a fallacy. You can't prove a negative any more that you can prove evolution, but you already proved that with your straw man arguments.
"you've been brainwashed by creationists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of creationists pseudo scientific claims".
No, I think you have been brainwashed by evolutionists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of evolutionary pseudo scientific claims. See, these are my favorite type of accusations because they work both ways.
"but that is irrelevant"
No it is relevant because it could never happen naturally outside of a laboratory. Thus does not pertain to actual evolution. You see, you use the word irrelevant like you do not know what it means.
"But it is in fact truth that gives relevance to "relevance," just as "relevance" becomes irrelevance if it is not related to truth. Without truth, relevance is meaningless and dangerous."-Author Unknown
"How do you know a pig is our closest relative?"
Because a pig is what they use for medical testing. Your own website even admitted that pigs are used for rare organ transplants. Looks like you shot yourself in the foot.
"The Miller Urey experiment is not false, it is supported by scientists."
Then fucking prove it!!! All you did was say, "It's a disreputable source". You didn't actually give any evidence to actually prove your point.
You know, I think there is a word for that.....oh yeah, delusional; the same word you seem to be obsessed with like it's some "magic" argument winner.
You are on the wrong side. I think, judging by your post, you want to be on the Not! side of the spam issue.
"I do not know about polystrate fossils. Could you explain them in more detail?"
For example, a tree trunk goes down many yards through multiple layers of earth, or "millions of years" of earth. The tree should not have existed in particular layers. It goes against everything evolution claims. Like human fossils being found next to dinosaurs. Care to explain those while you are at it?
"Eventually, one of the E coli's population exploded because it developed a mutation that allowed it to not only break down the sugar into energy, but the other non sugar compounds in the incubator into food as well."
You only told half the story. What you "forgot" to tell is that the altered organism is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the E. Coli less fit in an environment without that specific solution. I would hardly call that evolution.
"DNA already verifies that we have a common ancestor with other animals simply due to the similar strands of DNA in all organisms."
Do you know what animal our DNA is closest to? A pig! So tell me, how do you know we evolved from an ape when a pig is our closest relative? Looks like neither the fossil record, nor DNA is on your side.
" Must I refer back to the Miller Urey experiment where inorganic materials managed to form into organic compounds such as amino acids?"
HA HA HA! Did you seriously just reference that?? Modern scientists reject (I repeat) REJECT that experiment because it actually shows that abiogenisis is NOT possible. This shows you do not know what you are talking about. Even an amateur grade schooler wouldn't reference that. Here's why.
The Miller-Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below.
Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine. The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, "The total yield was small for the energy expended." The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (-CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.
And, scientists cannot even explain the presence of O2 in our atmostphere! The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earth’s putative primitive atmosphere was then widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen. They believed this because laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by oxygen. Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the "fact" of chemical evolution is used as "proof" of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O2 in the earth’s early atmosphere rely heavily on speculation. The fact is, They still don’t know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose.
It was believed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of much more complex life units called proteins—the basic structure of all life. Although widely heralded by the press as "proving" that life could have originated on the early earth under natural conditions (i.e. without intelligence), we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred.
In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.
But I must digress. Thank you, THANK YOU for giving me the debate. By being so crazy as to actually cite the Miller Urey experiment, you just lost the argument. Because I'm going to cite it throughout the rest of the debate. LOL!
"What you don't understand is that the U.S. making steps towards becoming a police state does not equal socialism."
Technically they don't, literally they do. What you are saying is basically, "Just because I am standing next to this radioactive plutonium cell with no protective gear on doesn't mean I'm going to get cancer." That statement would be true, yet at the same time laughable. All police states are socialist. Not once in the history of the world has a police state not been socialist. They just go hand in hand.
To my knowledge it is not illegal to simply possess or read a bible in school.
What the liberal media hides from you. Here read these:
http://www.10news.com/news/
http://www.adherents.com/misc/
"The crimes you references are violations of someone elses rights"
Defined how? Playing the devils advocate, I argue that laws against murder hinder someone's right to kill another person. And as for speeding, that is just as ambiguous. For example, highway speed limits in my state are 65. In a neighboring state, they are 75. So you are saying risking people's lives varies from state to state?? It doesn't make sense. You only think it's endangering someone. It has yet to be scientifically proven.
"Having sex with multiple partners, so long as they are consenting adults, violates NO ONES rights."
Wow, that was a bold statement. I do not think you fully understand how much that destroys a women. Because you are a heartless guy, you have no clue what sex does to women.
When women have sex with a guy, they bond with him. This bond is extremely strong, like super glue. When the heartless douche has his fill of sex and breaks up with here, he basically destroys her. So much so, I think it is a crime against women and should be outlawed. Read here:
http://phys.org/news133617019.html
http://www.icr.org/article/4776/
" think this is a minor problem because how can sex before marriage, sex with multiple partners, or cheating on your spouse, cause the destruction of the entire nation?"
It's because destruction of morals is a domino effect. It starts out with sex, then leads to other bigger problems. After all, how could one little cancer polyp destroy an entire body?
"I don't have to name a country, that's irrelevant. What matters is the message we would be telling the world. "We're the United States, and we don't give a fuck about nuclear treaties."
And what is Russia saying every time they use a nuke? "We're Russian, we don't give a fuck about the US authority." What's the point of this if we never actually enforce it? And what if we asked permission of the countries we signed the treaty with? Then we would NOT have been violating any treaty. Again, this was just a terrible political move on Obama's behalf. Even Democrats agree with me on this one (read Newser comments for verification).
Sorry, it was the end of the day and I wanted to reply to JustIgnoreMe before I logged off.
"The three sites you referenced are not reputable sites."
I say they are. You need to prove it. If you think they are not reputable, then refuting them should be easy.
Doubt it, I think you pretend to have knowledge on a subject you know next to nothing about.
As far as bacteria, nothing new is added; it just uses DNA already there.
And another thing. Why haven't you evolutionists found any missing link fossils. I've seen many human fossils, and I've seen many monkey fossils. But I haven't seen any missing link fossils. So where are those?
And what about Polystrate fossils (fossils which extend through "millions of years" of layers E.G. tree fossil)? Explain those.
"You however have chosen to lie about your education"
Half lied, there's a difference. I'm a three year student in Computer Science. LOL
No, you haven't come close to backing me into a corner. Especially on statistical probability. I say it's statistically impossible.
Supporting Evidence:
http://www.icr.org/article/155/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/
http://www.answersingenesis.
And yes, I'm sorry for the delay. Just been busy, busy, busy. College is kicking into gear, and I work from 7 to 7 on weekends. Not as much debate time as I had during summer break.
