- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Recent Content
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
People like this are usually just incredibly ignorant. He has no idea that abiogenesis is not a part of the evolution theory either. People who know the least usually yell the loudest, something Socrates pointed out ~2,500 years ago.OakTownA said:
To continue to claim that "atheists" ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") claim that the universe was "created from nothing" indicates that you are either not paying attention to arguments presented or you are an interlocutor acting in bad faith.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
@Factfinder ; Science is only possible due the immutability of our Creator.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
According to your elf book, she provided evolutionary biologists too.RickeyHoltsclaw said:@Factfinder ; Elohim provided the doctors. -
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
@Factfinder ; Elohim provided the doctors.
-
Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?
First, I wanted to say how much I appreciated your post. Thanks for the link to the article. It was by far my favorite post of the day.OakTownA said:@just_sayin
"Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it?"
No one has directly observed the start of any novel life form, so I don't see the point of this question.
"Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?"
The "primordial soup" hypothesis is outdated, and no longer the predominant hypothesis for abiogenesis. If you are going to make claims, you may want to check if scientist are still making those claims.
"Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?"
Do you mean in a lab? No, but why would we need to, as they form naturally? There are over 500 amino acids, yet all life, that we know of, utilizes the same 20-22. Why is that? "The new study suggests that life’s dependence on these 20 amino acids is no accident. The researchers show that the kinds of amino acids used in proteins are more likely to link up together because they react together more efficiently and have few inefficient side reactions....
For the experiment, the researchers compared “proteinaceous” amino acids—those used by organisms today—to amino acids that are not present in living things. The researchers knew water evaporation could have created the conditions necessary for amino acids to link together on early Earth, so they used a drying reaction—water evaporates and heat is applied—to mimic the natural conditions that cause amino acids to form peptides...The proteinaceous amino acids seemed to prefer reactivity through a part of their structure called the alpha-amine. They mostly formed linear, protein-like backbone “topologies” (geometric formations). This tendency could have given these amino acids a head start in folding and binding, leading eventually to proteins." Article here, if you don't want to read the paper linked above.
"Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?"
See study cited above.
"Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?"
I have no idea what you are asking. Are you talking about DNA? DNA consists of chemicals, no different than any other chemical reaction. DNA contains no more "information" than H2O.
"Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?"
No, otherwise it wouldn't be a hypothesis. There is, however, support for it, like this recent study, which found an enzyme that allows RNA to self replicate. I, personally, don't know enough about it to say one way or another. There are multiple hypotheses on how life started on Earth. This is one.
"Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue. 1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help. And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions."
See study cited above. RNA does not need to "perform all the necessary cellular functions..." because modern cells are much more complex than primitive cells. If you think that biologists are claiming that the first cells to form looked and functioned like modern cells, you are mistaken.
"Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe. (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)"
Where did he get these numbers? In order to calculate probability, one must have one or more objects/items that actually exists to compare. For example, if one wants to find the probability of pulling a purple marble out of a pouch, one must first know how many total marbles are in the pouch, and how many of them are purple. The quote above has used speculation to create a probability that enforces the authors perspective. What does the author mean by "chance?" How did he come up with that "probability?" In my example above, I can show my math on how I calculated my chances of pulling a purple marble. Dembski has not shown his work similarly.
"As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it 'The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.'"
Okay. So what? Like I said, the RNA HYPOTHESIS is just that; a hypothesis. Not everyone is going to agree. He is NOT a creationist, but supports a different mechanism for abiogenesis.
"Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?"
Yes. DNA consists of amino acids, which are chemicals. Complex, yes, but chemicals none the less.
Evolution occurs regardless of how life started on this planet, which is why discussing abiogenesis is pointless in a debate about evolution. Do you believe that the Bible is literal and 100% true? If so, do you believe Noah's Flood was an actual global flood that wiped out all life on Earth except that which was on the Arc? Do you think natural and artificial selection occur?
The Nature article to the 2010 study, is not the study itself. But no problem, the study can be found in the National Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve any of the problems that I mentioned. First, it did not create the 20 - 22 amino acids from scratch in the same environment. While the amino acids , except one of them, play nicely with each other, the chemical reactions needed to create the amino acids are deleterious to the creation of other amino acids. It did not solve that problem. It did not create the enzymes that it theorized interacted with them. Further, it didn't create proteins at all but what it called 'protein like' or pre-proteins. Its 'pre-proteins' by their own admission can not form RNA or be used in DNA, so they are essentially useless. It would be like being tasked to build a bridge across the bay and building a sand castle instead. It might be an awesome sandcastle, but it can not be a substitute for the bridge. It doesn't solve the problem of water breaking down proteins either. They applied lab conditions to remove the water (a high powered blow dryer) to avoid the process. Not sure where this kind of environment would have existed in a prebiotic world where all the amino acids would have needed to be gathered together.
You asked about the calculation of the odds for RNA for a 250 nucleotide structure that is useable. All DNA, RNA, and their building blocks are all right-handed, whereas amino acids and proteins are all left-handed. Again, the proto-proteins from the study, didn't have the right 'charge' to work. But even if they did, you can see that random reactions would not produce even a short 250 nucleotide RNA strand.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
@just_sayin
"It is my observation that when atheists are asked about the obstacles of abiogenesis that they will respond that they still have faith in evolution, even though the science suggests it doesn't work. That's when I know I'm dealing with people who want to believe in fairy tales. When I ask atheists what created the universe and they respond nothing, I know I am dealing with people who believe in fairy tales."
What science suggests evolution "doesn't work?" Or are you referring to abiogenesis? Once again, even if it turns out that an advance group of reptilian aliens planted the first cells on Earth, evolution would still be true. Hell, even if it was discovered that your God started life on this planet, evolution would still occur. Please quote a single person on this debate that has claimed that the universe was "created by nothing." Many people have explained to you that science does not claim that the universe was "created from nothing." First off, science does not claim that the universe was "created;" that's your projection of your personal world view. The universe expanded from a singularity. That is how it began, to the best of our current knowledge and evidence gathered. To continue to claim that "atheists" ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") claim that the universe was "created from nothing" indicates that you are either not paying attention to arguments presented or you are an interlocutor acting in bad faith. -
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
It is my observation that when atheists are asked about the obstacles of abiogenesis that they will respond that they still have faith in evolution, even though the science suggests it doesn't work. That's when I know I'm dealing with people who want to believe in fairy tales. When I ask atheists what created the universe and they respond nothing, I know I am dealing with people who believe in fairy tales.Joeseph said:@Factfinder
It's remarkable how people like this will exercise caution when investing money , negotiating the job market , buying s car etc ,etc yet take any claim that's based on their book of fables as fact , indoctrination makes id-ots of them. -
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
Yeah LOL so true. I went round and round over this claim with him and got nowhere. He thinks an empty hole in the ground and a guy with his original two legs, scars and all, ancient archived cult transcripts, and a guy who wanted to sell books to Christians in modern times is all evidence of an amputation and regeneration.Joeseph said:@Factfinder
Apparently the guys leg was buried yet no leg was found in the plot it was buried in ......is it possible its B-lls-it.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
It is my observation that when atheists are asked about the obstacles of abiogenesis that they will respond that they still have faith in evolution, even though the science suggests it doesn't work. That's when I know I'm dealing with people who want to believe in fairy tales. When I ask atheists what created the universe and they respond nothing, I know I am dealing with people who believe in fairy tales.Joeseph said:@Factfinder
It's remarkable how people like this will exercise caution when investing money , negotiating the job market , buying s car etc ,etc yet take any claim that's based on their book of fables as fact , indoctrination makes id-ots of them.
