Athiests try this on for size...

---

Originally Posted By: CiderThere's no way of answering that conclusively because we cannot test what we'd be like without it, so while it may be interesting to think about why, any one who claims to know why is simply not telling the truth. All they have is a possibility, which does not merit belief, merely exploration. Without proof, that's all we have. But we can certainly draw some potential conclusions and eliminate some possibilities...can't we.

Originally Posted By: Saya....you are skipping a lot of points in 3 threads You noticed that, eh? Well, without my entire working day to spend here answering every post, I've had to limit my responses to those that I either find interesting or of some potential merit (in my oponion, of course). Most of the responses I've gotten so far are of the "you're wrong, I'm right" variety without any proof to back them up. Persuing the idea forward (from either side of the opinion) is something I do find interesting...and worth responding to, usually. Some folks minds are so closed to the idea that what they've been taught is not the truth (at least not the whole truth) about what is known, that they violently reject it. You, unforunately, fall into this last category. Then again, some folks around here just want to cause trouble...I ignore their posts entirely. I wish I had the time to adress everybody in a timely manner...but the reality is that I just don't. Sorry.Since you're leaving the thread, I'll leave you with this:All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -Arthur Schopenhauer

Originally Posted By: thor Some folks minds are so closed to the idea that what they've been taught is not the truth (at least not the whole truth) about what is known, that they violently reject it. Apply it yourself please. Quote:You, unforunately, fall into this last category. Happy to be who I am. A debate is a debate no matter which side one may take. Yes I do reject stuff that has no solid proof and is mostly imaginary. Quote:Since you're leaving the thread, I'll leave you with this:All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -Arthur Schopenhauer No matter how much I may oppose it now, I wont believe or accept your line of thought ever in my life.I am leaving this thread only for one reason........I have serious problems at hand to solve........esp regarding my bf. I even got severe head ache and cold........meds are making me too drowsy.

Chemical evolution, on the other hand, is still mainly hypothesis and speculation.
Thank you.
Quote:
With no more basis than this, biology textbooks taught us that amino acids became concentrated in a primordial "ORGANIC SOUP" then linked together to form proteins, the principle [sic] ingredients of living cells.
First, biology textbooks are not science. They are books written by people to teach science.
Exactly. But they are accepted as truth by those being taught...regardless of anything else. The evidence of that exists throughout this thread.
Scientists communicate principally through primary journals (and Heinze fails to cite even one piece of primary literature).
You fail to cite any yourself. At least he cited some texts...you cited none.
Biology textbooks are usually at some remove from the fundamental science, and particularly, authors try to simplify things to provide something students at the particular level they are writing for can readily grasp.
That's a personal unsubstantiated opinion, not a documented fact. And even if sometimes true, does not make any difference to the students who are learning it AS IF IT WERE TRUTH. (See above)
Heinze fails to cite the particular textbooks that are supposed to have taught him about a capitalised "ORGANIC SOUP". Had he actually referred to a textbook, it's likely it would have informed him that this was an hypothesis only, if he could have understood the difference.
You understood what he meant. So did, I would surmise, most of the folks who responded to this thread. Where do you think they learned about this "hypothesis"? If it is only a hypothesis, why was it taught?...especially, as we will further see, since there is NO evidence to support it.
Quote:
Amino acids, however, will not "link together" to form proteins!
Living cells are the only places in nature where proteins are made because they contain the information to put amino acids in the right order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together.
No proteins ever form in nature outside of already living cells. Never!
A typically over-blown statement. Amino acids are easily linked together and proteins synthesised in the laboratory. Large-scale linkage of amino acids is unlikely in a primordial soup, though perhaps not impossible, but this doesn't have to have happened on a large scale. The major point of chemical evolution is that only one single self-replicating molecule ever needs to be formed by random chance in the whole world. With the huge number of suitable molecules around (around 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in a kilogram of a typical amino acid), bumping together about a billion times a second, over a long period of time the chance of reaction is pretty good.
How about the chances of creating one that forms life? Have we ever created life in a laboratory experiment while creating amino acids? I think we would have heard about it if we did...we have not heard anything. It would seem the chances aren't that great after all. Since we are discussing the creation of life here, the statement is not overblown at all...it is right on the money. So, for the purposes of this discussion (concerning life), Heinze is correct.
Quote:
added to the fact that proteins never form outside of cells
Not so, as we have seen. Laboratory syntheses of proteins are now standard and commonplace.
Again, the only germane issue is what happens in nature...not the laboratory. I don't think a lab existed on earth when life was first created...though I could be wrong. Then there's that little concern about being "life-forming".
Quote:
Scientists can't even make DNA in a laboratory.
Oh what a horrible fib! Laboratory synthesis of DNA goes back at least to 1970 - earlier if you are not fussy about the base sequence. It's now done commercially.
The point, again, is "life-giving" DNA. Has life been created in the lab that we didn't hear about?
Quote:
"...no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA."
I'm not readily able just now to check when RNA was first chemically synthesised, but it has been done, not just in research labs but commercially, for quite some time.
Again, was it "life-giving" RNA? If it wasn't, it has no merit in this thread concerning the creation of life. This is not a thread on the creation of chemicals.
We get in this section an interesting example of how 'creation scientists' and their ilk do not understand how science works.
Stop right there. It seems that many, including you, don't understand it either. You develop a hypothesis, you test it, you evaluate, you refine your hypothesis (or discard it) and continue on with the process. As the article mentions (though maybe not in these word), nobody has been able to proceed past creating a verifiable hypothesis. So why is it accepted by so many people as the truth? Why are you defending it as if it were true?
Quote:
The fact that RNA does not form in nature outside of living cells and scientists cannot even make it from scratch in the lab is scientific evidence, and can be tested.
An example of either dishonesty or (at best) negligent lack of scholarship - Heinze could have easily tested the truth of his statement that RNA cannot be synthesised by some very simple library research. Either he did, and lied about the result; or he didn't, but pretends that he knows it to be fact. Of course Heinze wouldn't know 'scientific evidence' if it bit his bottom: scientific evidence is observations, not deductions (let alone jumping to conclusions about negatives).
Neither would you, it seems. But again, we're talking about life here...not some kind of random, undirected lab created chemical.
Quote:
None of them [sc. macromolecules] form in nature outside of living cells.
If Heinze had looked out of his window, he would probably have seen as asphalt road. Asphalt contains macromolecules formed in nature outside living cells. So does coal.
Last I checked, asphalt is not alive.
Quote:
If you personally turned to atheism because you were taught that proteins formed spontaneously, what will you do now that even atheists admit that was false? Will you be faithful to the religion of atheism that was wrong about proteins, and blindly switch your faith to the false argument that RNA formed spontaneously?
The man has not the slightest idea about science. Since his thinking is absolutely rigid and ossified (which he believes, wrongly, to be a religious duty), he thinks everyone else's must be. Science is always correcting itself.
How long does it take? This idea concerning "organic soup" has been going on a long time...making it all the way to the text books. When can I expect it to be removed from them? BTW, your thinking is, apparently, equally as rigid.
Quote:
Because Blue Gene will unleash tremendous computer power, by running it day and night it should only take, "about one year to simulate the complete folding of a typical protein." 11 Living cells, however, fold such proteins in less than a second. This evidence shows that the One who invented the way proteins fold in cells is much more intelligent than the new super computer.
In the lab, intelligent scientists have learned how to link amino acids together to form some of the smaller proteins. However, unless the amino acids are all left-handed and the proteins fold properly, they are no better than miniature spaghetti as far as biological activity is concerned.
It seems that Heize believes that the proteins must be folded, in some special way, by some outside action. This isn't so. Proteins fold themselves, following normal physical laws, moving towards states of lower energy. The shape they take up is a result of the interaction of physical laws with their particular sequence of amino acids, which each have side-chains of different physical properties. Simple laws have complex outworkings, so need a supercomputer to model them well; but no intelligence is needed for the actual folding action. Proteins synthesised in the laboratory fold themselves into the same shape. No living cell is required.
Heinze keeps referencing life and you keep ignoring that requirement. Why?
The remainder of your posts all continue to have the same basic flaw...they fail to address the issue of life and revolve around a bunch of lifeless chemicals created in laboratory environments which don't, and never did, exist in the real world. Doesn't the fact that life has never been created in the laboratory (we're not talking about cloning here) at some point along the line strike you as a little odd? It seems that something is missing here, doesn't it. I'd like to see you address the article with the concept of "life-creating" firmly ensconced at the front of your mind. That would be more beneficial for all concerned.

They did create a polio virus and it was alive--killed the rats...........you forgot to read my previous post. And its not cloning.

Originally Posted By: SayaThey did create a polio virus and it was alive--killed the rats...........you forgot to read my previous post. And its not cloning. It's debateable as to whether a virus is life or not. Depends which scientist you talk to. In some ways it's more akin to a chemical machine. But since virus' are parasites that require a living host to reproduce, it's quite safe to say that life on this planet did not start as a virus. The virus came afterwards. But it's good to see you thinking instead of reacting.

Originally Posted By: SayaThey did create a polio virus and it was alive--killed the rats...........you forgot to read my previous post. And its not cloning. I'm sure he purposely overly looked that... or at least will try and find some "flaw" to disprove it... we shall wait on the edge of our seat... lol

ROFL!!!! See I was right!!

A virus is a LIVING organism... it doesn't matter if it came before or after human life was created. The fact of the matter is this virus was created by man, something you suggested early that has not been done.

With a damn cold........and sneezingly I am reacting but I am gonna collapse any minute........my temperature is too high.......maybe fever

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfA virus is a LIVING organism... it doesn't matter if it came before or after human life was created. The fact of the matter is this virus was created by man, something you suggested early that has not been done. I'll state once again...it is debateable whether or not a virus is scientifically considered alive. Furthermore, for the purposes of this thread, it doesn't even matter if you choose to consider it alive or not...life on this planet could not have started with it. It is incomplete in itself as a life-form...lacking much in the way of structure that everything from the bacteria on up does have. Here's a link for you, Eddie:http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfA virus is a LIVING organism... it doesn't matter if it came before or after human life was created. The fact of the matter is this virus was created by man, something you suggested early that has not been done. Yep thats right.The virus was built from scratch.......unlike cloning.The whole process has been kept under wrap for the safety of people, if the terrorists get their hands on it they will kill millions of people with the help of specially designed viruses.There is lot going on in the research field only problem is some people out there may make use of such information in a wrong way........so its often kept under wraps from public.

Thor, like normal we could go back and forth until we are both blue in the face and regardless on what I say you'll find some way (even if ridiculous) to rebuttle. So is there really any point?? LoL

The first life forms on earth were indeed incomplete in one way or another when they first formed..........be it a virus or any microbe.........they were much simpler than the microbes we know today.An example: Nuclei has functioned for a billion years before mitochondria appeared. Prior to 2.2 billion years ago, mitochondria or any other organelles were not present in eukaryotic cells.The world today is much complex than it was 3-4 billion years ago.And none of the holy books state when microbes were formed (cos they didnt have microscopes at that time).

Originally Posted By: thorThen again, some folks around here just want to cause trouble...I ignore their posts entirely.Haha, is this why you won't respond to any of my fact-filled posts? The only trouble that I'm causing is that I'm ruining your attempt at arguments!

Originally Posted By: Saya

And none of the holy books state when microbes were formed (cos they didnt have microscopes at that time).

Nor that Dinosaurs ever roamed the earth, but obviously they did :wink:

LOL!..you're stuck on proving the virus is a life form and lost from the issue at hand. Man has yet to create life.If you check on this "man-made" polio virus, you'll find out that they did not create the gene sequences themselves...they got them mail-order from somebody else. So they were not created in the lab from scratch. I'm talking about sequencing the genes from scratch...which is what must have happened in nature if this "soup" theory were to hold any weight. Nature couldn't mail-order pre-made sequences...sorry.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfSo is there really any point?? Yep there is one.........he wants to preach us his way of thinking........which he thinks is the only thing thats right or true and without even giving proof. He hasnt told me where the heaven is yet.......I am still waiting to note down the address so I can interview God.

Thor who in the hell knows what all they have done behind closed doors. I would bet any amount of money some sort of life form has been created by man... obviously I cannot prove it, so there for will be meaningless. But with todays technology, more is possible than you give credit for. Again you don't even need to respond because I already know what you are going to say...But still even if man was able to create life, that doesn't prove that we were not created by God... just means we have advanced intellectually. Regardless people are going to believe what they want to believe when it comes to creation... you just need to respect that.

Let me know when you get it, Saya. I have a few choice words Mr. Omnipotent.