Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Just the facts.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here are some scientific facts that evolutionists overlook.

1) The law of Biogenesis: Life comes only from life. There is not one example that evolutionists can point to that violates this law. They claim that life arose from lifeless chemicals. There is no credible theory about how this might have happened. Scientists have claimed to have created complex precursors to life, in the lab. So what? They used a controlled environment. It required human intervention to happen. This, in no way, supports it happening in the wild.

2) The law of cause and effect: Athiests would like us to believe that life was an accident. They want us to believe that nothing caused it to happen. It was just random chance. Science disagrees. There is not one example of something happening without a causative effect. Lifeless chemicals could not produce life. Evolutionists come up with some pretty incredible stories to explain how this might happen. But they are just that. Stories.

3) The second law of thermodynamics: Evolutionists are always denying that this law applies to evolution. They are wrong. Every real scientists will tell you that there are no exceptions to this law. It was originally used to describe entropy in a closed system. It also describes how everything, unless acted on by an external force, tends to become more disordered. Evolutionists try to get around this by claiming that the Earth is an open system, and that life could become more complex because of the energy of the Sun. This argument does not hold water. Energy, by itself, cannot produce order. Adding energy actually increases entropy. So this argument fails.

So, there you have it. Three facts that refute evolution, and the origin of life. I have never seen valid arguments that allow evolution or the beginning of life, in defiance of these natural laws. In order for me to believe in evolution, you would have to successfully refute all three of these arguments. No one has been able to do so. A creator is more believable, in my opinion. At least that doesn't violate any natural laws.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:23:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here are some scientific facts that evolutionists overlook.

1) The law of Biogenesis: Life comes only from life.
Life is a specific set of chemical reactions. That's really all that it is. As something that is alive, it's hard to encapsulate all of our experiences within such a definition but the definition is accurate. It has been explained to you SEVERAL TIMES, that evolution does NOT address the origin of life. Evolution addresses the origin of species. So you've misplaced this claim.

However, more poignantly, chemical reactions do not occur only among biological materials. And non-biological matter can become biological material in the presence of a strong electrical charge (such as lightning), and a given combination of naturally occurring gasses (See: Urey Miller)

2) The law of cause and effect: Athiests would like us to believe that life was an accident.
Only theists used the term "accident" here. this shows once again that you've learned nothing by the continual and total refutations levied upon your claims - claims you've obtained from dishonest creationist sites. We do not propose that life was an "accident". An "accident" is an outcome other than intended. We propose no intent. Life happened. It was neither intended, nor unintended. And we do not propose that nothing caused it to happen. Chemical reactions are caused by the interaction of matter/energy based on the properties of that matter/energy. Science DOES NOT disagree with this in any respect. Learn what you're talking about and stop parroting dishonest creationist arguments. Learn to learn.

And stop telling us "lifeless chemicals can not produce life". Show me a chemical which is not "lifeless". Yet life is a chemical reaction.

3) The second law of thermodynamics: Evolutionists are always denying that this law applies to evolution.
This is a common complaint and instantly tags anyone who presents it as both intellectually stunted, and a pure dork. The Second law of thermodynamics - like many other laws, applies under conditions specified within that law itself. The Second Law of Thermodynamics SPECIFICALLY STATES, that it applies only to closed systems. Earth is NOT a closed system.

So, there you have it.
Here we have three PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). And as long as desperate theists continue to resist learning anything about the arguments they present, they'll be refuted a thousand more times, and a thousand times after that. You'll never win with a collection of failed arguments. But only sane people begin to understand that if you continually utilize the same approach, you'll receive the same response.

You don't appear capable of learning.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:33:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you're as lazy as you've shown yourself to be, you can jump to 6:00 in the video. I've linked this for you at least twice in recent weeks, and you continually refuse to address it. I suspect that you've refused even to look. And this is a key component in retaining false beliefs - refusing to look at what refutes your beliefs.

Here we have:

1. Water (the medium in the dish)
2. Oil
3. Three chemicals in the oil.

It's not alive. But had you not been told that this isn't alive, could you have established that it isn't? It mimics enough of the properties of life, that without continual study, it's not possible to know.

THAT'S how "impossibly complex" abiogenesis is. And it's important to understand that evolution can begin before a true state of life is achieved. And evolution can then drive a proto-cell toward an actual state of being alive.

Now stop screaming the same chants like a primitive, and start learning.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:52:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:23:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here are some scientific facts that evolutionists overlook.

1) The law of Biogenesis: Life comes only from life.
Life is a specific set of chemical reactions. That's really all that it is. As something that is alive, it's hard to encapsulate all of our experiences within such a definition but the definition is accurate. It has been explained to you SEVERAL TIMES, that evolution does NOT address the origin of life. Evolution addresses the origin of species. So you've misplaced this claim.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that these laws refute evolution AND the origin of life. So it is not a misplaced claim.

However, more poignantly, chemical reactions do not occur only among biological materials. And non-biological matter can become biological material in the presence of a strong electrical charge (such as lightning), and a given combination of naturally occurring gasses (See: Urey Miller)

LOL! That experiment has been debunked. Get with the program. It did nothing more than create some simple chemical compounds. And only a few of the ones needed for life to occur. I don't know why people keep trotting out that pathetic excuse for evidence.

2) The law of cause and effect: Athiests would like us to believe that life was an accident.
Only theists used the term "accident" here. this shows once again that you've learned nothing by the continual and total refutations levied upon your claims - claims you've obtained from dishonest creationist sites. We do not propose that life was an "accident". An "accident" is an outcome other than intended. We propose no intent. Life happened. It was neither intended, nor unintended. And we do not propose that nothing caused it to happen. Chemical reactions are caused by the interaction of matter/energy based on the properties of that matter/energy. Science DOES NOT disagree with this in any respect. Learn what you're talking about and stop parroting dishonest creationist arguments. Learn to learn.

And stop telling us "lifeless chemicals can not produce life". Show me a chemical which is not "lifeless". Yet life is a chemical reaction.

Show me one example of life coming from non life. Show me how it's even possible. You can't. When I say accident, I really mean chance. Poor word usage, on my part. You want us to believe that random interactions of chemicals resulted in life. There is absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion. None! Just wishful thinking, on your part.

3) The second law of thermodynamics: Evolutionists are always denying that this law applies to evolution.
This is a common complaint and instantly tags anyone who presents it as both intellectually stunted, and a pure dork. The Second law of thermodynamics - like many other laws, applies under conditions specified within that law itself. The Second Law of Thermodynamics SPECIFICALLY STATES, that it applies only to closed systems. Earth is NOT a closed system.

This article refutes that. A scientific article by Granville Sewell

Mathematics Department, University of Texas, El Paso http://www.math.utep.edu...

So, there you have it.
Here we have three PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). And as long as desperate theists continue to resist learning anything about the arguments they present, they'll be refuted a thousand more times, and a thousand times after that. You'll never win with a collection of failed arguments. But only sane people begin to understand that if you continually utilize the same approach, you'll receive the same response.

You don't appear capable of learning.

You have refuted nothing. You have merely stated your opinion. You have offered no evidence to refute anything I claimed. None. Because you can't. Show me some scientific articles that support your claims, as I have done.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:21:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:52:15 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:23:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that these laws refute evolution AND the origin of life. So it is not a misplaced claim.
You need to work on your honesty. Evolution has NOTHING TO DO with the origin of life... NOTHING! It addresses the origin of species. So your claim IS most certainly, and without exception - MISPLACED. And that reveals the ignorance which you have revealed many times in your recent threads.

However, more poignantly, chemical reactions do not occur only among biological materials. And non-biological matter can become biological material in the presence of a strong electrical charge (such as lightning), and a given combination of naturally occurring gasses (See: Urey Miller)

LOL! That experiment has been debunked.
No it hasn't, you DOLT! Not only has it NOT been debunked, but when some of the vials from that experiment were opened and analyzed in 2007, it was found that they were an even greater success than realized at the time. Read some actual information instead of feasting on creationist feces.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
- "After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life."

How has that been "debunked"? As usual, you haven't a clue what you're talking about because you keep rolling out decades old, refuted, creationist garbage.

Get with the program. It did nothing more than create some simple chemical compounds. And only a few of the ones needed for life to occur. I don't know why people keep trotting out that pathetic excuse for evidence.
Wrong. It created BIOLOGICAL chemical compounds, where none had existed before. And without biological compounds, you can't have life. (By the way, your God has no body, and no biological compounds. Therefore, God - even if he existed - would NOT be alive. So much for "biogenesis", idiot!)

2) The law of cause and effect: Athiests would like us to believe that life was an accident.
Only theists used the term "accident" here. this shows once again that you've learned nothing by the continual and total refutations levied upon your claims - claims you've obtained from dishonest creationist sites. We do not propose that life was an "accident". An "accident" is an outcome other than intended. We propose no intent. Life happened. It was neither intended, nor unintended. And we do not propose that nothing caused it to happen. Chemical reactions are caused by the interaction of matter/energy based on the properties of that matter/energy. Science DOES NOT disagree with this in any respect. Learn what you're talking about and stop parroting dishonest creationist arguments. Learn to learn.

And stop telling us "lifeless chemicals can not produce life". Show me a chemical which is not "lifeless". Yet life is a chemical reaction.

Show me one example of life coming from non life. Show me how it's even possible.
I keep showing you how it's possible. You keep intentionally not looking, and then challenging me to show you again.

You can't. When I say accident, I really mean chance.
Great! So you've changed wording... shifted the goal posts. AND YOU'RE STILL WRONG!
Chemical reactions do not rely upon chance. Next time you mix pure water and pure salt, and end up with chocolate milk, let me know. That would be a "chance" reaction. Chemistry doesn't work that way. Mix any set of chemicals in a given set of conditions, and you'll get the same result.... EVERY.... SINGLE.... TIME. Because chemistry DOES NOT function on chance.

Poor word usage, on my part. You want us to believe that random interactions of chemicals resulted in life.
That's more poor word usage. NOTHING about chemical reactions is, IN ANY WAY, random! Mix iodine and hydrogen peroxide. If you end up with vanilla icing, you have observed a "RANDOM" chemical reaction. It'll never happen. It won't happen because chemical reactions are NOT random. Intelligent decisions are far more random than chemical reactions. Chemicals are not intelligent and do not make decisions. They are governed by the conditions in which they take place, and by their own properties. NOTHING about the reactions of chemicals is random.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion. None! Just wishful thinking, on your part.
We have TONS of evidence to support this conclusion. I've told you about the work at Szostak Labs. I've described the success with the self-assembling, replicating RNA molecule at Scripps Research Institute. I've presented video of proto-cells which you can't determine to be other than alive by observing them... SEVERAL TIMES.

But you refuse to look. You're too damned, lazy, and too friggin' stupid to want to know the truth. You're happier sitting here drooling on your keyboard, and making the same false, refuted, and idiotic claims, over, and over, and over. WATCH THE VIDEO!
https://www.youtube.com...

3) The second law of thermodynamics: Evolutionists are always denying that this law applies to evolution.
This is a common complaint and instantly tags anyone who presents it as both intellectually stunted, and a pure dork. The Second law of thermodynamics - like many other laws, applies under conditions specified within that law itself. The Second Law of Thermodynamics SPECIFICALLY STATES, that it applies only to closed systems. Earth is NOT a closed system.

This article refutes that. A scientific article by Granville Sewell
No article can refute what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states!

http://en.wikipedia.org...
- "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy."

See that? "ISOLATED SYSTEM"! That's part of the law itself.
It's like "right turn on red, after stop". You can't just roll through and claim you complied with the law. The phrase "after stop" is part of the law. And the Second Law of Thermodynamics states WITHIN THE LAW ITSELF, that it applies ONLY to ISOLATED SYSTEMS. Earth receives energy from the sun. It is therefore, NOT an "isolated system", nimrod!

Mathematics Department, University of Texas, El Paso http://www.math.utep.edu...

So, there you have it.
Here we have three PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). And as long as desperate theists continue to resist learning anything about the arguments they present, they'll be refuted a thousand more times, and a thousand times after that. You'll never win with a collection of failed arguments. But only sane people begin to understand that if you continually utilize the same approach, you'll receive the same response.

You don't appear capable of learning.

You have refuted nothing. You have merely stated your opinion. You have offered no evidence to refute anything I claimed. None. Because you can't. Show me some scientific articles that support your claims, as I have done.
I've refuted your objections against evolution, your objections regarding abiogenesis, your ridiculous assertions about DNA.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:29:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:33:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you're as lazy as you've shown yourself to be, you can jump to 6:00 in the video. I've linked this for you at least twice in recent weeks, and you continually refuse to address it. I suspect that you've refused even to look. And this is a key component in retaining false beliefs - refusing to look at what refutes your beliefs.

Here we have:

1. Water (the medium in the dish)
2. Oil
3. Three chemicals in the oil.

It's not alive. But had you not been told that this isn't alive, could you have established that it isn't? It mimics enough of the properties of life, that without continual study, it's not possible to know.

THAT'S how "impossibly complex" abiogenesis is. And it's important to understand that evolution can begin before a true state of life is achieved. And evolution can then drive a proto-cell toward an actual state of being alive.

Now stop screaming the same chants like a primitive, and start learning.

I've watched it. Neat trick, but that's all it is. You have a lab experiment. You have human intervention, and a controlled environment. Abiogenesis? Hardly. This one is a fail. It's a pretty huge leap to think that a simple blob of chemicals can evolve into something more complex. There is no evidence to support this. Now, Why don't you try to refute my article?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:41:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:29:38 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you're as lazy as you've shown yourself to be, you can jump to 6:00 in the video. I've linked this for you at least twice in recent weeks, and you continually refuse to address it. I suspect that you've refused even to look. And this is a key component in retaining false beliefs - refusing to look at what refutes your beliefs.

Here we have:

1. Water (the medium in the dish)
2. Oil
3. Three chemicals in the oil.

It's not alive. But had you not been told that this isn't alive, could you have established that it isn't? It mimics enough of the properties of life, that without continual study, it's not possible to know.

THAT'S how "impossibly complex" abiogenesis is. And it's important to understand that evolution can begin before a true state of life is achieved. And evolution can then drive a proto-cell toward an actual state of being alive.

Now stop screaming the same chants like a primitive, and start learning.

I've watched it. Neat trick, but that's all it is. You have a lab experiment. You have human intervention, and a controlled environment. Abiogenesis? Hardly. This one is a fail. It's a pretty huge leap to think that a simple blob of chemicals can evolve into something more complex. There is no evidence to support this. Now, Why don't you try to refute my article?

Calling it a "neat trick" does nothing to refute the FACT that these simple arrangements of chemicals are mimicking the chemical properties of life. And since life is a set of chemical reactions, there is nothing more to argue. You're done.

Figure this out; one of us is wrong. And ALL of the evidence... LITERALLY ALL OF IT, speaks to my side and my assertions, not yours.

You're wrong about biogenesis (which itself refutes God).
You're wrong about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
And, you're wrong about claiming that abiogenesis is "random", "chance" or an "accident".

You sit here day after day, repeating claims you lack the intelligence to even understand, and you get your butt kicked (figuratively), time, after time, after time. When is it going to occur to you that you're using arguments which have already been shown to fail for years?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:50:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:23:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here are some scientific facts that evolutionists overlook.

1) The law of Biogenesis: Life comes only from life.
Life is a specific set of chemical reactions. That's really all that it is. As something that is alive, it's hard to encapsulate all of our experiences within such a definition but the definition is accurate. It has been explained to you SEVERAL TIMES, that evolution does NOT address the origin of life. Evolution addresses the origin of species. So you've misplaced this claim.

However, more poignantly, chemical reactions do not occur only among biological materials. And non-biological matter can become biological material in the presence of a strong electrical charge (such as lightning), and a given combination of naturally occurring gasses (See: Urey Miller)

This statement isn't accurate. Let lightning strike a lightning rod and you won't get organic matter. And you would get a possibly fatal electric shock if you stand barefooted on a wet ground when lightning strikes, not organic matter. Besides a strong electrical charge is adverse or fatal to some mammalian lifeforms. Try one from an electric eel.


2) The law of cause and effect: Athiests would like us to believe that life was an accident.
Only theists used the term "accident" here. this shows once again that you've learned nothing by the continual and total refutations levied upon your claims - claims you've obtained from dishonest creationist sites. We do not propose that life was an "accident". An "accident" is an outcome other than intended. We propose no intent. Life happened. It was neither intended, nor unintended. And we do not propose that nothing caused it to happen. Chemical reactions are caused by the interaction of matter/energy based on the properties of that matter/energy. Science DOES NOT disagree with this in any respect. Learn what you're talking about and stop parroting dishonest creationist arguments. Learn to learn.

If you say that "We propose no intent." It is clearly contradictory to say in the next sentence that life is neither intended or unintended; which is an empty statement BTW. Life was either intended by God or it was the unintentional result of natural forces and laws.


And stop telling us "lifeless chemicals can not produce life". Show me a chemical which is not "lifeless". Yet life is a chemical reaction.

Life is not just a chemical reaction; it is a coded system which is based on well-organized and specific organic chemical reactions. A decaying dead body is also a chemical reaction. And poisoning involves chemical reactions.


3) The second law of thermodynamics: Evolutionists are always denying that this law applies to evolution.
This is a common complaint and instantly tags anyone who presents it as both intellectually stunted, and a pure dork. The Second law of thermodynamics - like many other laws, applies under conditions specified within that law itself. The Second Law of Thermodynamics SPECIFICALLY STATES, that it applies only to closed systems. Earth is NOT a closed system.

Free energy does not evolve coded systems. It destroys and not builds. May i ask why we haven't checked Mercury for life ?If the SLOT truly benefits evolution there should be lief there.


So, there you have it.
Here we have three PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). And as long as desperate theists continue to resist learning anything about the arguments they present, they'll be refuted a thousand more times, and a thousand times after that. You'll never win with a collection of failed arguments. But only sane people begin to understand that if you continually utilize the same approach, you'll receive the same response.

You don't appear capable of learning.

It is always a pity seeing believers in evolution being smug in their ignorance of facts. Facts like: coded systems (as life is) have never been built by undirected natural forces . But they have been repeatedly built by intelligent beings, man most of all.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:50:28 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:23:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here are some scientific facts that evolutionists overlook.

1) The law of Biogenesis: Life comes only from life.
Life is a specific set of chemical reactions. That's really all that it is. As something that is alive, it's hard to encapsulate all of our experiences within such a definition but the definition is accurate. It has been explained to you SEVERAL TIMES, that evolution does NOT address the origin of life. Evolution addresses the origin of species. So you've misplaced this claim.

However, more poignantly, chemical reactions do not occur only among biological materials. And non-biological matter can become biological material in the presence of a strong electrical charge (such as lightning), and a given combination of naturally occurring gasses (See: Urey Miller)

This statement isn't accurate. Let lightning strike a lightning rod and you won't get organic matter. And you would get a possibly fatal electric shock if you stand barefooted on a wet ground when lightning strikes, not organic matter. Besides a strong electrical charge is adverse or fatal to some mammalian lifeforms. Try one from an electric eel.


2) The law of cause and effect: Athiests would like us to believe that life was an accident.
Only theists used the term "accident" here. this shows once again that you've learned nothing by the continual and total refutations levied upon your claims - claims you've obtained from dishonest creationist sites. We do not propose that life was an "accident". An "accident" is an outcome other than intended. We propose no intent. Life happened. It was neither intended, nor unintended. And we do not propose that nothing caused it to happen. Chemical reactions are caused by the interaction of matter/energy based on the properties of that matter/energy. Science DOES NOT disagree with this in any respect. Learn what you're talking about and stop parroting dishonest creationist arguments. Learn to learn.

If you say that "We propose no intent." It is clearly contradictory to say in the next sentence that life is neither intended or unintended; which is an empty statement BTW. Life was either intended by God or it was the unintentional result of natural forces and laws.


And stop telling us "lifeless chemicals can not produce life". Show me a chemical which is not "lifeless". Yet life is a chemical reaction.

Life is not just a chemical reaction; it is a coded system which is based on well-organized and specific organic chemical reactions. A decaying dead body is also a chemical reaction. And poisoning involves chemical reactions.


3) The second law of thermodynamics: Evolutionists are always denying that this law applies to evolution.
This is a common complaint and instantly tags anyone who presents it as both intellectually stunted, and a pure dork. The Second law of thermodynamics - like many other laws, applies under conditions specified within that law itself. The Second Law of Thermodynamics SPECIFICALLY STATES, that it applies only to closed systems. Earth is NOT a closed system.

Free energy does not evolve coded systems. It destroys and not builds. May i ask why we haven't checked Mercury for life ?If the SLOT truly benefits evolution there should be lief there.


So, there you have it.
Here we have three PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). And as long as desperate theists continue to resist learning anything about the arguments they present, they'll be refuted a thousand more times, and a thousand times after that. You'll never win with a collection of failed arguments. But only sane people begin to understand that if you continually utilize the same approach, you'll receive the same response.

You don't appear capable of learning.

It is always a pity seeing believers in evolution being smug in their ignorance of facts. Facts like: coded systems (as life is) have never been built by undirected natural forces . But they have been repeatedly built by intelligent beings, man most of all.

Thanks for the back up. Appreciate it. I was feeling a bit outnumbered there.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 2:13:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:50:28 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:23:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:10:06 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Here are some scientific facts that evolutionists overlook.

1) The law of Biogenesis: Life comes only from life.
Life is a specific set of chemical reactions. That's really all that it is. As something that is alive, it's hard to encapsulate all of our experiences within such a definition but the definition is accurate. It has been explained to you SEVERAL TIMES, that evolution does NOT address the origin of life. Evolution addresses the origin of species. So you've misplaced this claim.

However, more poignantly, chemical reactions do not occur only among biological materials. And non-biological matter can become biological material in the presence of a strong electrical charge (such as lightning), and a given combination of naturally occurring gasses (See: Urey Miller)

This statement isn't accurate. Let lightning strike a lightning rod and you won't get organic matter. And you would get a possibly fatal electric shock if you stand barefooted on a wet ground when lightning strikes, not organic matter. Besides a strong electrical charge is adverse or fatal to some mammalian lifeforms. Try one from an electric eel.

You are incorrect. See the Urey/Miller experiment of 1953.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
- "The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle."

One of the sealed flasks was opened in 2007 and contained more forms of amino acid than are present in life. Amino acids are biological material. It was produced by passing current through the aforementioned gases, in the presence of water vapor - all things which would have existed on a pre-biotic Earth.


2) The law of cause and effect: Athiests would like us to believe that life was an accident.
Only theists used the term "accident" here. this shows once again that you've learned nothing by the continual and total refutations levied upon your claims - claims you've obtained from dishonest creationist sites. We do not propose that life was an "accident". An "accident" is an outcome other than intended. We propose no intent. Life happened. It was neither intended, nor unintended. And we do not propose that nothing caused it to happen. Chemical reactions are caused by the interaction of matter/energy based on the properties of that matter/energy. Science DOES NOT disagree with this in any respect. Learn what you're talking about and stop parroting dishonest creationist arguments. Learn to learn.

If you say that "We propose no intent." It is clearly contradictory to say in the next sentence that life is neither intended or unintended; which is an empty statement BTW. Life was either intended by God or it was the unintentional result of natural forces and laws.
Point taken. My point is that no intent is implied. Life simply happened, without any intelligent direction or desire.


And stop telling us "lifeless chemicals can not produce life". Show me a chemical which is not "lifeless". Yet life is a chemical reaction.

Life is not just a chemical reaction; it is a coded system which is based on well-organized and specific organic chemical reactions. A decaying dead body is also a chemical reaction. And poisoning involves chemical reactions.

I didn't suggest that life is "a chemical reaction". I stated that it is a specific set of chemical reactions, which is what it is.


3) The second law of thermodynamics: Evolutionists are always denying that this law applies to evolution.
This is a common complaint and instantly tags anyone who presents it as both intellectually stunted, and a pure dork. The Second law of thermodynamics - like many other laws, applies under conditions specified within that law itself. The Second Law of Thermodynamics SPECIFICALLY STATES, that it applies only to closed systems. Earth is NOT a closed system.

Free energy does not evolve coded systems. It destroys and not builds. May i ask why we haven't checked Mercury for life ?If the SLOT truly benefits evolution there should be lief there.
No one said that if you have energy and matter, you will necessary have life. Yet that it the assertion you're attempting to refute. And we have not ruled out the possibility of life on Mercury, but with what we know at this point, it seems less likely than other locations such as Europa. However, free energy does evolve coded systems. Check the science of chaos theory. It explains how energy flow can isolate the similarities in multiple units (sand grains in a sand dune, water molecules in a snowflake, salt molecules in a salt crystal, etc.).


So, there you have it.
Here we have three PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). And as long as desperate theists continue to resist learning anything about the arguments they present, they'll be refuted a thousand more times, and a thousand times after that. You'll never win with a collection of failed arguments. But only sane people begin to understand that if you continually utilize the same approach, you'll receive the same response.

You don't appear capable of learning.

It is always a pity seeing believers in evolution being smug in their ignorance of facts. Facts like: coded systems (as life is) have never been built by undirected natural forces . But they have been repeatedly built by intelligent beings, man most of all.
Much to the contrary, coded systems are continually being built by undirected natural forces. Take a look at the sky. There is no sign of any intelligent force behind the stars, solar systems, planets and galaxies, or their interactions. Everything is consistent with unintelligent mechanisms which do not make decisions, but react only in response to physical properties.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire