Religion should be banned - Page 4 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Religion should be banned
in Religion

124»


Arguments

  • So Joeseph has me on mute now.

    Here's what he said, because the man prefers to argue and not debate.

    "I cannot read anything you say on site as I muted you from making your usual idiotic comments"

    I'll let this forum know when "The Telegraph newspaper" has published his claims.
    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @Evidence

    This coming from an idiot who believes we live on a flat earth under a glass dome is hilarious , newsflash Evolution is fact your god is fiction boo ,hoo , hoo ....... You now have my permission to run on and kiss T T’s indoctrinated .....again 
    Zombieguy1987cheesycheesewhoknows
  • @Zombieguy1987

    "There’s a thing called research. It’s used so the argument presented isn’t crap.

    What you’re doing is relying on other people to help you because your arguments are bad."

    So when some of the anti religious are saying that the religious parents are abusing their kids, where's the research to back that claim up? 

    Joeseph said this to me:

    "So you still don’t know why you’re a Christian? Blame you parents on abusing you they’re the guilty ones buddy"

    Is Joeseph via his computer and the internet putting words in my parents mouth?

    They gave you explicit instructions that said you could talk about them in the Religion section of this website?

    They gave you the permission to judge them with your bias mindset? 

    You're calling my parents abusers? 

    They're guilty of abuse because you say so? 

    Where are your answers?  

    Zombieguy1987, where's the research to back that claim from Joeseph at? 
    cheesycheese
  • edited October 2018

    Joeseph said:


    Hilarious stuff I give you the link to the Oxford with the actual definition and of course you claim your edited version is ...correct .

    I can only imagine your an American and your nations love of alternative facts seems to be increasing .

    It is hilarious; you point me to site that proves my point and try to tell me what it says isn't what it says.  I take it you're English is a second language for you and you're far from mastering it.


    Atheism is now a form of worship ???? Atheism is a form of faith ???? You’re comedy gold mate let me correct you again

    worship
    [noun]

     1 [mass noun] The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
        ‘worship of the Mother Goddess’
        ‘ancestor worship’

         1.1 Religious rites or ceremonies, constituting a formal expression of reverence for a deity.
        ‘the church was opened for public worship’

         1.2 Great admiration or devotion shown towards a person or principle.
         ‘the worship of celebrity and wealth’

         1.3 archaic Honour given to someone in recognition of their merit.

    faith
    noun
    [mass noun]

    1  Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
        ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’

    2  Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
    ‘bereaved people who have shown supreme faith’

         2.1 [count noun] A particular religion.
         ‘the Christian faith’

         2.2 [count noun] A strongly held belief.
         ‘men with strong political faiths’

    Outspoken atheists like you and @Wowsil certainly demonstrate great admiration or devotion shown towards your faith and it is obviously something in which you have complete trust or confidence, so yeah, atheism meets all the criteria of a religion by definition.

     what does make something a religion? The supernatural, I know this is tricky stuff to follow but persevere and you may finally get it . 

    .Religions are social movements that maintain a belief in the supernatural, and religions are organizations who’s members engage in rituals and celebrations in relation to, or predicated on, shared supernatural beliefs. It is belief in God, or angels, or karma, or heaven, or Allah, or spirits, or past lives, or zombies, or Vishnu, or Satan, or Jesus, etc.—and the gatherings, rites, and activities that go on as a result of those beliefs – that make religion religion.

    Atheism lacks a belief in the supernatural. As such, it is not a religion.

    Callin atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sexual position, or baldness a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.


    No, "the supernatural" doesn't show up anywhere in the definition of religion.  A religion is faith in a belief of the origins of life and the universe.  Theists (disambiguous) don't have churches, they don't have rituals or celebrations, all they have is faith in a belief of God.  Are you going to argue that Theism is NOT a religion?
    Atheists have a faith in a belief that there is no God.  Two sides of the same coin, both hold their convictions religiously.

    Your claim to be agnostic is just another claim  you cannot back up and you have the reasoning capacity of the typical American Christian nut , your denial is noted with amusement

    You say (idiotically) that I'm a bible thumping Christian.  Feel free to repost any post I've made promoting Christianity.  You're no different than a born-again Christian or recently converted Muslim or convert to any other faith who feel the need to proselytize their religion.
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • @CYDdharta


    You say .....

    It is hilarious; you point me to site that proves my point and try to tell me what it says isn't what it says.  I take it you're English is a second language for you and you're far from mastering it.



    My reply .... 

    Still sticking to your lies I see , I gave you the Oxford definition in full you actually denied half the definition that was there to save face , you ask if English is my second language yet you cannot comprehend simple terms without re interpreting to fit your totally irrational mindset 



    You say .....


    worship

    [noun]


     1 [mass noun] The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

        ‘worship of the Mother Goddess’

        ‘ancestor worship’


         1.1 Religious rites or ceremonies, constituting a formal expression of reverence for a deity.

        ‘the church was opened for public worship’


         1.2 Great admiration or devotion shown towards a person or principle.

         ‘the worship of celebrity and wealth’


         1.3 archaic Honour given to someone in recognition of their merit.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/worship


    faith

    noun

    [mass noun]


    1  Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

        ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’


    2  Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

    ‘bereaved people who have shown supreme faith’


         2.1 [count noun] A particular religion.

         ‘the Christian faith’


         2.2 [count noun] A strongly held belief.

         ‘men with strong political faiths’

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith


    Outspoken atheists like you and @Wowsil certainly demonstrate great admiration or devotion shown towards your faith and it is obviously something in which you have complete trust or confidence, so yeah, atheism meets all the criteria of a religion by definition.


    My reply .... 

    There’s another term you don’t understand as in faith when applied to a religion it’s based on spiritual conviction rather that trust or cofindence as in an atheist has trust or confidence based on investigations into the god question rather than a spiritual conviction 


    So tell me people that argue with great admiration or trust about any subject are now using your irrational mindset religious? Care to defend that assertion?


    You may take notes if you wish 


     You say ......

    No, "the supernatural" doesn't show up anywhere in the definition of religion.  A religion is faith in a belief of the origins of life and the universe.  Theists (disambiguous) don't have churches, they don't have rituals or celebrations, all they have is faith in a belief of God.  Are you going to argue that Theism is NOT a religion?

    Atheists have a faith in a belief that there is no God.  Two sides of the same coin, both hold their convictions religiously.



    My reply ....so you’re back to lying in an attempt to cover your deceit here is a definition of religion, and now like the tool you are you’re making a new argument that believers do not believe god is supernatural ???



    ..... religion

    rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/

    noun

    1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

    2 synonyms:

    3 faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More

    4


      • ◦ a particular system of faith and worship.plural noun: religions
        "the world's great religions"
      • a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion."consumerism is the new religion"
      • See that .... a superhuman controlling power , bet you’re scratching your head now trying to think up some new lies 
      • Let’s look at Miriam Webster’s definition .....devotion to religious faith or observanceDefinition of religion 

    1


    Religion 

    (1)

    : the service and worship of God or the supernatural



    There’s that term again that you claimed didn’t show up anywhere in the definitions, proving you’re a notorious liar that two out of two dictionaries so far let’s try one more shall we? 




    The Oxford ...... religion

    [ri-lij-uh 



    1 a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


    See that superhuman agency , that three out of the first three dictionaries which makes you a compulsive liar




    You say ....


    You say (idiotically) that I'm a bible thumping Christian.  


    My reply ..... Oh do dry up , I’ve proved you’re  a compulsive liar and if you’re not a Christian you’ve spent the last couple of days taking a typical favourite Christians argument to attack atheism not realizing that it’s been debunked more times that the flat earth scenario, yet dogged Christians like you persist .


    Maybe your next attack is “ buh , buh, Mao , Stalin and Hitler were atheists and buh , buh see where that went “ 


    You say ...

    Feel free to repost any post I've made promoting Christianity.  You're no different than a born-again Christian or recently converted Muslim or convert to any other faith who feel the need to proselytize their religion.


    My reply .... feel free ? But I could repost this in its entirety as it’s your response to reason which is Christian text book argumentation for the absurd assertion that Atheism is a religion .


    I don’t push anything including Atheism on D I but when I get attacked by rabid Amarican Christians ( Americans being the most rabid ) for expressing views that differ you call that proselytizing? Interesting as I’ve no desire to “convert “ idiots like you or them as irrationally and Atheism are a poor mix .


    You don’t level the accusations of proselytizing at the countless religious morons on D I or your favourite buddies the Flat Earthers but  then again you wouldn’t turn on your own would you?


  • @TTKDB

    You say .....
    Why are you using the internet to stalk the millions of religious individuals and parents? 

    My reply .... Wow , D I has millions of indoctrinated sheeple on it now 

    You say .....And calling them abuser's? 

    My reply .... That’s what they are 

    You say .....I'm going to guess in your own country and in other countries as well? 

    My reply ....Well guessed 

  • @TTKDB

    You say .....
    So Joeseph has me on mute now.

    My reply .... Hilarious 

    You say .....Here's what he said, because the man prefers to argue and not debate.

    My reply ..... Says T T who cannot answer why he’s a Christian ask him and he says “ buh , buh I don’t know why “ 

    You say ......

    I'll let this forum know when "The Telegraph newspaper" has published his claims. 


    My reply ... I don’t think the Telegraph take the views of nuts like you seriously buddy 
  • While Atheism might not be a quasi-religion, something like materialism/scientism is definitely something akin to a religion. A very stupid one at that.
  • @Orthodox_Christian

    You say .....While Atheism might not be a quasi-religion, something like materialism/scientism is definitely something akin to a religion. A very stupid one at that.

    My reply .....Atheism is still not a religion and frankly it’s hilarious you call it  a “stupid one “ this from a throughly gullible Christian who believes in a water walking , water to wine  making zombie called Jesus 
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    "There’s a thing called research. It’s used so the argument presented isn’t crap.

    What you’re doing is relying on other people to help you because your arguments are bad."

    So when some of the anti religious are saying that the religious parents are abusing their kids, where's the research to back that claim up? 

    Joeseph said this to me:

    "So you still don’t know why you’re a Christian? Blame you parents on abusing you they’re the guilty ones buddy"

    Is Joeseph via his computer and the internet putting words in my parents mouth?

    They gave you explicit instructions that said you could talk about them in the Religion section of this website?

    They gave you the permission to judge them with your bias mindset? 

    You're calling my parents abusers? 

    They're guilty of abuse because you say so? 

    Where are your answers?  

    Zombieguy1987, where's the research to back that claim from Joeseph at? 
    https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=awrj3wodykhb2wgapjipxqt.;_ylu=x3odmtb0n2noc21lbgnvbg8dymyxbhbvcwmxbhz0awqdbhnlywnwaxzz?p=victims+of+religion&fr2=piv-web&fr=yhs-arh-001&hspart=arh&hsimp=yhs-001&vm=r#id=20&iurl=https://pics.onsizzle.com/victims-of-religion-troy-damelio-age-4-died-after-running-5657321.png&action=click

    https://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/03/jeffrey_and_marci_beagley_sent.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Neumann_case

    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html

    https://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/1228877.html

    https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/05/washington_faith-healing_paren.html

    Do i need to link more of the news articles from the pictures, TTKDB?
    Joeseph
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • (''Materialism and scientism have nothing to do with religion, nor are they akin to religion.

    If there is anything stupid, it is your foolish and completely unqualified observation.'')

    This is going to be fun. I say quasi-religion because I find materialism to be as dogmatic, faith based and circular as religion. Except it's even worse because it's not even philosophically consistent. It literally implys logical absolutes are material. Nor can radical empiricism verify with sense experience that they can receive knowledge through sense experience. ''Quasi'' is a Latin prefix meaning ''similar to'', by the way.

    (''Atheism is still not a religion and frankly it’s hilarious you call it  a “stupid one “ this from a throughly gullible Christian who believes in a water walking , water to wine  making zombie called Jesus'')

    It's right there in my post. I called scientism and materialism akin to religion. Not Atheism. And if you really want to get into this debate, do laws of logic exist immaterially?
  • @Orthodox_Christian

    You called Atheism a quasi religion ......1. quasi-religious - resembling something that is religious. sacred - concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music" Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection.


    You’re incorrect , Atheism is a position on one question and one question alone how does answering that question resemble something sacred? 
    Orthodox_Christian
  • @Joeseph:

    Are you as popular as Dawkins is?

    Do you have books published or videos on YouTube talking about your atheist rhetoric? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • @Wowsil

    He truly is an idiot and still cannot answer why he’s a Christian, you are right to give up on him as his genetic idiocy is like an impenetrable wall but as you say he’s a theist so it’s expected 


    Zombieguy1987
  • "Scientism" is based on applying a strict objective method rigorously in order to discover and understand the natural phenomena. It does not involve the concept of "belief/faith" at any point, nor does it postulate the existence of any supernatural entities - hence it has nothing to do with religion. Scientists do not pray to anything, they do not have rituals, they do not care about sensitivities and offensivities: if the facts show something we do not want to be true, we accept it to be true and deal with our feelilngs.

    Calling it a religion demonstrates an extreme form of projection, coupled with purposeful avoidance of inconvenient facts.
  • MayCaesar said:
    "Scientism" is based on applying a strict objective method rigorously in order to discover and understand the natural phenomena. It does not involve the concept of "belief/faith" at any point, nor does it postulate the existence of any supernatural entities - hence it has nothing to do with religion. Scientists do not pray to anything, they do not have rituals, they do not care about sensitivities and offensivities: if the facts show something we do not want to be true, we accept it to be true and deal with our feelilngs.

    Calling it a religion demonstrates an extreme form of projection, coupled with purposeful avoidance of inconvenient facts.

    It really depends on the context of the word scientism. Webster provides two definitions:

    scientism 

    1: methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the naturalscientist

    2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of naturalscience applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)


    In the second definition we see the word trust in the efficacy (of the scientific method.)


    In other words, scientism holds an unwavering belief that scientists both use the scientific method, and the data received or interpretations of such aren't infallible. The data is not infallible, simply because "scientists say", nonetheless, believers in scientism have faith in this data as absolute truth.

    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @TTKDB

    You say ......
    Are you as popular as Dawkins is?

    My reply .... Are you as popular as Jesus is?

    You say .....Do you have books published or videos on YouTube talking about your atheist rhetoric? 

    My reply .... Have you ever been crucified  if so is it on You Tube?
  • @Joeseph >'' quasi-religious - resembling something that is religious. sacred - concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music" Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection.''Nice cherry picking. I already explained that I likened it to religion by saying how it's dogmatic and faith-based. You're just giving a different definition you had to find on the internet so it would suit you. I gave my definition already, smart-aleck.

    MayCaesar said:
    "Scientism" is based on applying a strict objective method rigorously in order to discover and understand the natural phenomena. It does not involve the concept of "belief/faith" at any point, nor does it postulate the existence of any supernatural entities - hence it has nothing to do with religion. Scientists do not pray to anything, they do not have rituals, they do not care about sensitivities and offensivities: if the facts show something we do not want to be true, we accept it to be true and deal with our feelilngs.

    Calling it a religion demonstrates an extreme form of projection, coupled with purposeful avoidance of inconvenient facts.

    @MayCaesar Again, I called it a quasi-religion. You should pay better attention, especially if you will accuse someone of projection. I consider scientism is to synonymous with materialism. I call materialism inconsistent because they cannot verify with sense experience/the scientific method that they can verify knowledge with the scientific method. You cannot observe logic directly with the senses. 
  • @Orthodox_Christian

    You say .....Nice cherry picking.

    My reply .... You have objections to being corrected what a shocker 


    You say ....I already explained that I likened it to religion by saying how it's dogmatic and faith-based

    My reply ....Yes and I corrected you as to what the term Atheism actually means 



    You say ....You're just giving a different definition you had to find on the internet so it would suit you. I gave my definition already, smart-aleck.

    My reply ..... Incorect again I used the accepted definition of the terms used, you need to work on your “logic” buddy 
  • @Joeseph
    You are so insanely intellectually dishonest.

    >''Yes and I corrected you as to what the term Atheism actually means ''
    I didn't call atheism a quasi-religion. I called materialism/scientism that. I use the terms interchangeably.

    >''Incorect again I used the accepted definition of the terms used, you need to work on your “logic” buddy ''
    ''Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:''
    This case being radical empiricism as the fundamental set of beliefs. Oh wow, two can play at this game? I told you how I was defining religion in that context and you quoted some ''accepted'' (by whom?) definition that obviously contradicts what I said to make me look wrong. The terms are irrelevant, I got my point across, which you couldn't challenge.
  • edited October 2018
    Blatant dishonesty.
  • I'm plainly not calling atheism a quasi-religion. Stop being dishonest.
  • Hey, I think I fixed the thread.
  • @Orthodox_Christian @Erfisflat ; @Zombieguy1987 @Joeseph @CYDdharta and anyone theist/atheist reading this O.P. regarding "religion"
    MayCaesar said:
    "Scientism" is based on applying a strict objective method rigorously in order to discover and understand the natural phenomena. It does not involve the concept of "belief/faith" at any point, nor does it postulate the existence of any supernatural entities - hence it has nothing to do with religion. Scientists do not pray to anything, they do not have rituals, they do not care about sensitivities and offensivities: if the facts show something we do not want to be true, we accept it to be true and deal with our feelilngs.

    Calling it a religion demonstrates an extreme form of projection, coupled with purposeful avoidance of inconvenient facts.
    Let's step back for a moment and look at Religion, religious etc. and then Science, scientism etc. Faith, belief etc.
    First-
    Religion:
    the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship


    Religious:

    of, relating to, or involved with religion, or living and worshiping according to the beliefs of a particular religion:

    a religious holiday
    He is deeply religious.

    Religiously:

    adverb

    If you do something religiously, you do it regularly:

    I exercise religiously, I really do.

    Religiosity:

    the quality of being very or too religious, or reminding you of religious behaviour, often in a way that is annoying:

    From his mother he inherited a fervent religiosity.
    She has a distaste for overt religiosity in public life.

    Faith:
    noun
    a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone:

    Faith - (religion)
    a particular religion or belief in God or gods

    Belief:
    the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:

    **************************************************
    Science:
    the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, or knowledge obtained about the world by watching it carefully and experimenting

    @MayCaesar said this:
    "Scientism" is based on applying a strict objective method rigorously in order to discover and understand the natural phenomena. It does not involve the concept of "belief/faith" at any point, nor does it postulate the existence of any supernatural entities - hence it has nothing to do with religion. Scientists do not pray to anything, they do not have rituals, they do not care about sensitivities and offensivities: if the facts show something we do not want to be true, we accept it to be true and deal with our feelilngs.
    Calling it a religion demonstrates an extreme form of projection, coupled with purposeful avoidance of inconvenient facts.

    If "Scientism" is based on applying a strict objective method rigorously in order to discover and understand the natural phenomena, then don't you think this has to be done  religiously, having unwavering faith and a strong belief in the scientific method which should be held as a Religion, so some scientists wouldn't sidetrack into a world of make-believe, something that has never been observed, .. an unsubstantiated: "this is what we believe how the world, and our entire universe was created, starting millions and billions of years ago;

    "In the beginning there was this nothing you see, and out of this nothing we strongly believe a quantum-speck fluctuated in and out of 'nothing', until one moment before it created time or space, it started to get denser, which we believe created heat, because we have faith that 'quantum-speck' would get very, very hot if it got denser, and thousands of brilliant scientists also believe this. Matter of fact we believe this so religiously where we even teach it to our children in schools, and even in Colleges, and we also devote millions and billions of dollars a year in building enormous temples dedicated in finding 'speck', like at our CERN kingdom-hall we have the LHC Temple where we do religious dance we call: "SYMMETRY-CERN"
    Image result for cern dance


    , and offer prayers to Lord Shiva
    Image result for cern dance



    so She-it-va could reveal to us 'speck' from beyond the Portal we have built from our accumulated belief in "science and Technology"!

    Related image


    This is what happens when we don't get religious in what we know to be true, and what we believe works in our scientific method, because we can go on observing and documenting what we find in the world we see around us, and before you know it end up with a Religion based on blind faith like Big-Bang Evolution.
    Being 'religious' in something that we believe and know works; like the scientific method, .. is good. It keeps us from creating a Religion with some make-believe god or gods as you can see happened above.

    This is why I say: "Stick with science, build your faith on evidence with substance using the scientific method" and you will not end up creating some whacko-Religion with a bunch of man-made gods you start believing are planets floating in some imaginary space-vacuum being expanded by this magical gravity!
    Look where this Religion is taking the minds of their believers, whom we Flat Earthers call "Globetard's"



    If this is not some serious delusions in ones Religion, I don't know what is? And look at the cost!? No Religion has gone this far, I mean Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite don't even compare. This is not a few dozen or even a few hundred people scale, this is on a world wide scale!
  • Joeseph said:
    @Evidence

    You say .....Yes, but once these mind-processes become fanatics like @Wowsil and @Joeseph .. then it becomes a Religion.

    My reply .... So you accept one needs to be a fanatic to be religious ........ Just like you and the idiot TT 


     You say .....Like Communism, it started off as a good mindset, then it became one of the most fanatic Religions on earth, way passed Islam.

    My religion .... Communism and Atheists  are still not religions you troll , you and TT are typical religious loons who spend your time staliking others that’s why I muted the ace troll TT , you’re just his harmless sidekick 
    Hey @Joeseph this is not about hero's and sidekicks (actually I'm like @Erfisflat 's sidekick, but I'll be TT's too, if it's the truth they're spreading, hey, I would be honored) but about coming to the knowledge of the truth, wouldn't you agree? I'm not your enemy, no one here is, except your belief system, and those who agree and even encourage this dangerous belief system of yours. Your, our greatest enemy is; .. OUR FAITH.

    This is what the Bible says about "faith":

    Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

    But what did Religion teach about this Biblical faith for the past 1,700 years? They taught us that: "Faith is things hoped for, the blind acceptance of things not seen" Yes, this is what we been taught, and you can still see their heavy influence in Dictionaries, in science books, in the way they interpret science, right?
    I mean come on, how could ANYONE associate science with the Big Bang and Evolution stories, .. How??

    Infinite/God is our Creator, .. and Infinite is conscious as in when He told Moses as to who He is: "I Am", .. now that's science you can take to the bank.

    But be careful because CERN and NASA will take it out of the Bank, and chew it up, then regurgitate it, and give you this:


    Not ONE thing in this video (other than the two MK-Ultra'd mindless spoke persons) is real. This is one dangerous Religion, so please get out of it while you can.

    Erfisflat
  • @Evidence

    I’m all for truth so we’re on the same page isn’t that strange , good luck with @TTKDB as a new wing man I’ve asked the guy 71 times now why he’s a Christian and he is left dumbstruck by such a difficult question , maybe you could assist him?

    Poor old @Erfisflat has recieved a terrible pasting by @Gooberry and has resorted to posting up cartoon images as a last gasp defence , you and your fellow flatheads never went to his rescue , why’s that?

    The really weird thing about you and @Erfisflat is you believe the vast majority of people on earth are involved in a big plot to stop the real truths getting out , yous say in we live on a flat earth covered by a glass dome in which people make up lies in an attempt to push a satanic religion called Evolution for what purpose is beyond me 

    I always wonder how come only you and a certain amount of mostly American nuts know these “truths” 
    ErfisflatCYDdhartaEvidence
  • @Evidence

    Your dishonesty is appalling you take several terms used and related to religion and attempt to stick them onto science such is your desperation make a point , let’s give an example of how you slyly use the term faith as you know perfectly well when a believer use the term faith he does so out of spiritual conviction , a non believer will use the term to mean he has a strong trust or  confidence without the need of a spiritual conviction.

    Whats remarkable is you and your fellow flathead @Erfisflat will use science to make a point now and then but dishonestly label it pseudoscience when used against yous . Your worldviews are informed by a book of nonsense written by flea ridden Bronze age goat herds even @Erfisflat is to embarrassed like you to mention what particular brand of nonsense he follows , one thing is certain yous are both young earth creationists and biblical literalists which puts yous into the absolute loony fringe .

    Evolution is fact , the world is not flat fact ,the world is not covered with a glass dome and the medicines you and your family take were made by these nasty Evolution type scientists but you still take them don’t you?
    Erfisflat
  • Evidence said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Evidence

    You say .....Yes, but once these mind-processes become fanatics like @Wowsil and @Joeseph .. then it becomes a Religion.

    My reply .... So you accept one needs to be a fanatic to be religious ........ Just like you and the idiot TT 


     You say .....Like Communism, it started off as a good mindset, then it became one of the most fanatic Religions on earth, way passed Islam.

    My religion .... Communism and Atheists  are still not religions you troll , you and TT are typical religious loons who spend your time staliking others that’s why I muted the ace troll TT , you’re just his harmless sidekick 
    Hey @Joeseph this is not about hero's and sidekicks (actually I'm like @Erfisflat 's sidekick, but I'll be TT's too, if it's the truth they're spreading, hey, I would be honored) but about coming to the knowledge of the truth, wouldn't you agree? I'm not your enemy, no one here is, except your belief system, and those who agree and even encourage this dangerous belief system of yours. Your, our greatest enemy is; .. OUR FAITH.

    This is what the Bible says about "faith":

    Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

    But what did Religion teach about this Biblical faith for the past 1,700 years? They taught us that: "Faith is things hoped for, the blind acceptance of things not seen" Yes, this is what we been taught, and you can still see their heavy influence in Dictionaries, in science books, in the way they interpret science, right?
    I mean come on, how could ANYONE associate science with the Big Bang and Evolution stories, .. How??

    Infinite/God is our Creator, .. and Infinite is conscious as in when He told Moses as to who He is: "I Am", .. now that's science you can take to the bank.

    But be careful because CERN and NASA will take it out of the Bank, and chew it up, then regurgitate it, and give you this:


    Not ONE thing in this video (other than the two MK-Ultra'd mindless spoke persons) is real. This is one dangerous Religion, so please get out of it while you can.

    I think it's awesome that even the smartest people fall for these ideas, supported solely by cartoons. 
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat
    Theres some whackos on here that say the earth is covered with a ..... glass dome but they haven’t any photos just yet , they also say the earth is flat like a disc but the guy with the photos lost them or something like that 
    Evidence
  • Joeseph said:
    @Erfisflat
    Theres some whackos on here that say the earth is covered with a ..... glass dome but they haven’t any photos just yet , they also say the earth is flat like a disc but the guy with the photos lost them or something like that 
    I think you may be a bit delusional, what guy claims to have photos of a "disc earth"? Where is this claimed?
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited October 2018


    You say .....I think you may be a bit delusional, what guy claims to have photos of a "disc earth"? Where is this claimed?

    My reply .....This is too easy , the guy who claims the earth is flat yet him or any of the flatards  don’t have any photos of such , have you any of that glass dome you claim covers the disc earth ? 
  • @Pieter ;
    Atheism is a LACK OF FAITH

    Evolution isn't faith, it's a fact! But apparently your religious glasses are stuck to your eyes, because like I said, you're just ignoring science, because it completely destroys your religion.
    And here's some videos to disprove you, and your BS






    Yet another athiest misunderstanding christianity we dont deny evolution or the big bang
    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 439 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @Pieter ;
    Atheism is a LACK OF FAITH

    Evolution isn't faith, it's a fact! But apparently your religious glasses are stuck to your eyes, because like I said, you're just ignoring science, because it completely destroys your religion.
    And here's some videos to disprove you, and your BS






    Yet another athiest misunderstanding christianity we dont deny evolution or the big bang
    oh really?
    Joshua Feuerstein. A Christian pastor who denies both evolution and the big bang
     


    Some random engineer (Which raises red flags)


    this video disproves evolution and round earth but fails (WARNING: @Erfisflat may be present to put a fallacy)


    Want me to go put 50+ more links to various other sources?
    cheesycheese
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Pieter ;
    Atheism is a LACK OF FAITH

    Evolution isn't faith, it's a fact! But apparently your religious glasses are stuck to your eyes, because like I said, you're just ignoring science, because it completely destroys your religion.
    And here's some videos to disprove you, and your BS






    First of all these channels are hate channels that just want to seem like credible sources when really they are just looking for views and the other thing is that when you claim that all christians are stupid just because of your stereotype that we don’t believe in evolution is false you clearly entered this debate with the rather childish notion that you would use evidence against everyone else and no one was going to use it against you
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987 you are using one christian to taint every other one yet another misunderstanding taking the views of one person with a specific trait and using them to taint everone else with that trait let me just reword it
    MOST CHRISTIANS DONT DENY EVOLUTION
    EvidenceZombieguy1987
  • I would very much like for you to explain your reason for claiming that it is a fallacy that we use evidence i mark your arguments as fallacy because of anecdotal evidence
    Zombieguy1987
  • Pieter 
    Atheism is a LACK OF FAITH

    Evolution isn't faith, it's a fact! But apparently your religious glasses are stuck to your eyes, because like I said, you're just ignoring science, because it completely destroys your religion.
    And here's some videos to disprove you, and your BS






    Yet another athiest misunderstanding christianity we dont deny evolution or the big bang
    @cheesycheese
    The BIGGEST misunderstanding of theists/atheists and especially Christians themselves is Christianity itself, like that; Christians don't deny the Big Bang because Christians invented the Big-Bang story! It was the Jesuits, who were and are the Christian Marines, or the Popes Marines who both proselytize and defend the Christian doctrines by ANY means, starting with:

    * lies - like putting in Globes in every school (even in Ming China going back 500 years) or that the One and Only Possible Infinite Creator is really just three mortal  beings who give the illusion of a god 
    Image result for trinity triangle

    * torture - the Inquisition
                   "Silver badge of the Inquisition"
    Image result for the inquisition The 'badge' of the Inquisition;  father-god (the eye of Horus in the middle like in the above Trinity-Triangle), sun-god (sun rays) and spirit-god (circles), and of course the cross of Christian Jesus the sun-god; Emperor Constantine's sword.

    Related image Spanish Inquisition (Christian "father-god" of the trinity doctrine sitting on top as almighty judge to "save the souls of those who would not accept the Christian three gods as in the Trinity Doctrine)
    Related image



    But that was then, here is how "Christianity today" welcomes "his holiest of fathers" the Pope in Spain:
    Image result for pope arrives in Spain Pope arrives in Spain

    Image result for Spain crowd rejoices over pope also In Peru


    Don't "Christians" know who created a Religion out of the derogatory mocking word "Christian" used to mock the Early Believers who were of "the Way"?

    This is no different than if the White Southern slave owners who beat, raped and humiliated Early Negro slaves by calling them "niggers" would later start a Religion called "Niggers".

    Wake up people, you've been lured deeper in that rabbit hole than you can ever imagine!?
    cheesycheeseZombieguy1987
  • Firstly, here are some questions for you creationists:

    -There is no need of a god, the universe may have simply tarted from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy.

    - Assume the previous point is false. Who created god? Can god exist in a dimension where space and time don't exist?

    - At CERN, physicists were able to create anti-matter using enormous amounts of energy (around 30 Billion kW to create 1 nanogram). How does God get the energy to create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE?

    - Why does God look human? For all we know there may be so many other living species spread throughout the universe, so why does God, which is their creator as well, look coincidentally like us?

    -The Earth isn't 6000 years old, there are literally cave paintings that are 5 times older.

    -Beauty lies in simplicity. Why would God create such complex creatures? For example, why do we have 10 fingers, and not 12 (arithmetics is much easier in base 12).

    - Fossil records show that evolution is a FACT.

    Now, here comes the explanation disproving the probability argument that creationists love so much. If you're not a biochemist (why are you even arguing about something you barely know about), then I suggest reading just the part about tossing coins onwards.

    If you're too lazy to read the explanation, read the final conclusion, since it's pretty important.

    Having said that, all the calculations saying that the probabiblity of a protein forming is around (1/20)^300 are flawed, they include mistakes:

    1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

    2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

    3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

    4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

    5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

    So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

    Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

    Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont and Woese calls a progenote ), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself .

    Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle . An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator . These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

    These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles.

    No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.

    CREATIONISTS: simple chemicals ------> bacteria

    ABIOGENESIS: simple chemicals---->polymers------>replicating polymers----->hypercycle------>protobionts----->bacteria

    Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap.

    Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803!

    Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

    Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.

    This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins . Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still, and preceded by even simpler chemical systems.

    As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.

    The "life sequence" is a myth.

    So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.

    I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator, the SunY self-replicator or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group, but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.

    The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)^32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10^390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.

    However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

    Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

    Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 1040) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.

    1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates.

    Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)^6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.

    So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

    Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?

    Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10^27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks

    So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

    Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence . Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

    Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. The general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

    With that said, it's easy to see how the probability of proteins forming is not (1/20)^300. The reason that we haven't been able to reproduce these findings yet is because it takes time, millions of years maybe...

    Finally, evolution has been proved. Nowadays, many new technologies rely on evolution, such as in computer science, where evolutionary algorithms are used to simplify complex modelling problems. Now, if evolution were false, these technologies wouldn't work... however they do work, therefore showing that evolution HAS to be true,

    cheesycheeseZombieguy1987Evidence
  • You are wrong what you say is irrelevant because christians don’t deny that
    Zombieguy1987
  • @cheesycheese don't deny what?
  • Don’t deny anything you say i’m just saying that god started it how are we conscious athiests like to pretend that they have all the evidence but they dont
  • KdCuber said:


    - At CERN, physicists were able to create anti-matter using enormous amounts of energy (around 30 Billion kW to create 1 nanogram). How does God get the energy to create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE?

    - Why does God look human? For all we know there may be so many other living species spread throughout the universe, so why does God, which is their creator as well, look coincidentally like us?

    -The Earth isn't 6000 years old, there are literally cave paintings that are 5 times older.

    -Beauty lies in simplicity. Why would God create such complex creatures? For example, why do we have 10 fingers, and not 12 (arithmetics is much easier in base 12).

    - Fossil records show that evolution is a FACT.

    Now, here comes the explanation disproving the probability argument that creationists love so much. If you're not a biochemist (why are you even arguing about something you barely know about), then I suggest reading just the part about tossing coins onwards.

    If you're too lazy to read the explanation, read the final conclusion, since it's pretty important.

    Having said that, all the calculations saying that the probabiblity of a protein forming is around (1/20)^300 are flawed, they include mistakes:

    1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

    2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

    3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

    4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

    5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

    So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

    Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

    Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont and Woese calls a progenote ), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself .

    Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle . An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator . These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

    These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles.

    No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.

    CREATIONISTS: simple chemicals ------> bacteria

    ABIOGENESIS: simple chemicals---->polymers------>replicating polymers----->hypercycle------>protobionts----->bacteria

    Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap.

    Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803!

    Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

    Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.

    This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins . Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still, and preceded by even simpler chemical systems.

    As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.

    The "life sequence" is a myth.

    So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.

    I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator, the SunY self-replicator or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group, but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.

    The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)^32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10^390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.

    However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

    Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

    Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 1040) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.

    1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates.

    Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)^6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.

    So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

    Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?

    Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10^27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks

    So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

    Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence . Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

    Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. The general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

    With that said, it's easy to see how the probability of proteins forming is not (1/20)^300. The reason that we haven't been able to reproduce these findings yet is because it takes time, millions of years maybe...

    Finally, evolution has been proved. Nowadays, many new technologies rely on evolution, such as in computer science, where evolutionary algorithms are used to simplify complex modelling problems. Now, if evolution were false, these technologies wouldn't work... however they do work, therefore showing that evolution HAS to be true,

    @KdCuber   Firstly, here are some questions for you creationists:

    -There is no need of a god, the universe may have simply tarted from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy.

    To do that, the universe had to have always existed. And to scientifically claim that the universe has always existed, why should it go through some never observed cool sci-fiency sounding "collapsing into space time singularity", rather than having always existed? Besides, shouldn't science have observed a mini-universe do that somewhere before even assuming something like that, .. you know what I mean?

    Has science ever observed anything, a cow, or a rock, or a quantum-pebble, .. or anything else do a singularity?

    No.

    So this 'singularity' stuff is just like gravity, they admit it doesn't exist, but they know how it works!?

    - Assume the previous point is false. Who created god? Can god exist in a dimension where space and time don't exist?

    Where else could Infinite and Eternal God exist but outside of time and space!?


  • @Zombieguy1987 you are using one christian 

    Uh, I linked MULTIPLE videos to show that it isn't one Christian. How about you count a little better next time

    to taint every other one yet another misunderstanding taking the views of one person with a specific trait and using them to taint everone else with that trait let me just reword it
    MOST CHRISTIANS DONT DENY EVOLUTION


    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Although the disappearance of religions would be a good thing, a ban would be impractical... It's one of those thing that just has to die on its own.  

    Eventually, humanity will grow out of this childish nonsense (theism), it's unavoidable, younger generations born in this age of information are less and less religious, this trend will continue... Theism may be replaced by deism, which is a much more defensible position, if all theists became deists, it would already be a HUGE leap forward. Until then, continued ridicule and critique with a healthy dose of daily blasphemy is the way I chose to help humanity grow out of theism...
    Zombieguy1987Oppolzer
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @TTKDB ;

    Wouldn't it be a fair and equal question to ask if atheism or theism should be banned as well? 


    Yes, atheism is a form of publicly shared belief. The problem of banning religion comes by understanding of truth, the meaning of religion is held in question equally now as what is made clear by the Governing state licensing of religion in general, setting a stage. It is the shared basic principle that all religions have as common equal burden which is nothing more that a publicly shared belief. Spread out into the a public. The argument is that States that have abandon Constitutional order of law become burden with civil lawsuits as they do not understand the responsibility of religious independence a freedom religion assumes declared by its tax exception status.

    The real issue TTKB is with religions that are truly exploited in the public without self value or cost, and the public who may become victimized by this abuse, as like drinking and drugs the produce a price that is also measured in loss of human life so does religion. Going of topic slightly possibly by not understanding Drugs and alcohol are also a religion as recreational, not just medical. It is like when legislation to legalizing first alcohol then marijuana ignore the precedent set by murders lethal force that have taken place along side the actions of public consumption. Linking combat death with use of lethal force directly to the general welfare of any who use the products that are independently declared prohibited. It is like United State Constitutional separation got flushed right down the toilet bowl after Executive officer Regan's/and the House of Representative declaration of independence as this  Part of the World Civil War grew.

    This idea of Civil War should be know clearly as some have abandon this Nations Constitutional separation process. The idea is there are two kinds of distributors of narcotics, with two kinds of consumer of marijuana and narcotics in the area of any collateral damage. It is by truth and has never been about the money fest under any condition of seizures of property, which is not a legal registered impartial Federal Notes to pay all dept.. This is not part of the sworn security of the boundaries of Secret Service to these United States.

    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • I'm an atheist. I DO have a belief. The belief I have is in science, not unproven mythology. 
    The reason atheism is growing and religions are closing down churches, etc. is because science is becoming more provable every year. I believe religions will "peter out" as they get even more unbelievable. I have NO  animosity against anyone's belief, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, as long as they stay within their cult. I have as much RIGHT (in this country) to MY belief as I feel you do with yours. Good luck with the eternal life thingy .. I mean no disrespect.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987Oppolzer
  • To go on about the new belief AKA the forming of registered new religion same gender BiniVir or Unosmulier are taught as belief to be a equality like marriage to the public, marriage said to be a religious idea. While in truth the witness are not told they are witnessing an new formation of private incorporation method in which the officers of formation do not require as much legislation burden or legal burdens state licensing on a yearly timetable.

    The understanding is that a religion of large scale may be able to evade the burdens of its own declaration of independence made on taxation for an overall less costly alternative. At least this may be a principle that can be exposed by axiom as one nation under GOD. An easily mistakable expression for religion by the general welfare of unregulated believers of truth. The people, for the people.

    Ironically I just want to point out the powers of the 1st Amendment of Freedom of Religion. A person told by a teacher they would never be President of the United States by action of displayed educational intelligence. No offence taken by this statement so the idea is not to be translate to many outside of truth, hold person accountable and not the many. A President of the United States of America does not simply need to be voted to executive office. As abilities is a demonstration taken and displayed on belief the Presidential commitment and does not have to acquire the approval of the voter to show the constitutional ability. It is demonstrated to the United States Constitution directly.


    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • DrummerDudeDrummerDude 17 Pts
    edited February 17
    @Zombieguy1987 ; No, it would be unnecessary. What problem would it solve anyways? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch