Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Have you ever noticed...

B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 7:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

I will offer you a debate challenge; one in which you can demontrate whether or not you are ignorant; or dishonest

Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true.

I have to simply point out where you are making significant factual errors, omissions, distortions, misrepresentations, or have significantly underplayed how a peice of evidence is used.

It seems you are complaining about people calling you ignorant. Here is your opportunity.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 8:13:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

There is a big difference between having your ignorance explained to you (which has been done countless times) and you accepting your ignorance and modifying your behaviour. Almost everything you post is a variation on the argument from personal incredulity. To my knowledge you have never once acknowledged this fallacy when it has been pointed out to you.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 8:19:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 8:13:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

There is a big difference between having your ignorance explained to you (which has been done countless times) and you accepting your ignorance and modifying your behaviour. Almost everything you post is a variation on the argument from personal incredulity. To my knowledge you have never once acknowledged this fallacy when it has been pointed out to you.

Actually, this seems to be ANY fallacy; when a detailed argument is presented that outline the argument against their position; like many other Creationists here, he simply runs for the hills.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 8:34:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 7:55:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

I will offer you a debate challenge; one in which you can demontrate whether or not you are ignorant; or dishonest

Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true.

I have to simply point out where you are making significant factual errors, omissions, distortions, misrepresentations, or have significantly underplayed how a peice of evidence is used.

It seems you are complaining about people calling you ignorant. Here is your opportunity.

OK. Let's start with the basics. Some definitions.

Family: All of life is grouped by families. This is the largest type of group biologists use.

Genus: This is the next level of classification. It is a way to group related species under one umbrella.

Species: This is the lowest group of association used. Most species in the same group are closely related, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Different species are often confused as examples of Darwinian evolution. This is not the case. Closely related species are the same kind of life. They simply express different genetic traits that exist in their DNA. Different breeds of dogs are not different species, since every breed is fertile with every other breed. They are one species, along with wolves, which can also interbreed with all other breeds of dogs.

Now, regarding evolution. There is no evidence that small changes, over time, can result in a different kind of life. Dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds, despite what scientists say. It is nothing but a story that someone made up. The fossil record does not support it. Scientists claim that they have a intermediate fossil, but it is highly disputed, as is most every bit of evidence for the evolution of species. Unless you can produce a undisputed intermediate fossil, out of the millions of fossils we have found, then there really is no solid evidence for evolution. Evolution is supposed to happen gradually, over millions of years. Why doesn't the fossil record show this? What we see are complete species, like a series of snap shots. Not the gradual change we're supposed to see. How do you explain this?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 8:38:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 8:34:22 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:55:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

I will offer you a debate challenge; one in which you can demontrate whether or not you are ignorant; or dishonest

Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true.

I have to simply point out where you are making significant factual errors, omissions, distortions, misrepresentations, or have significantly underplayed how a peice of evidence is used.

It seems you are complaining about people calling you ignorant. Here is your opportunity.

OK. Let's start with the basics. Some definitions.

Family: All of life is grouped by families. This is the largest type of group biologists use.

Genus: This is the next level of classification. It is a way to group related species under one umbrella.

Species: This is the lowest group of association used. Most species in the same group are closely related, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Different species are often confused as examples of Darwinian evolution. This is not the case. Closely related species are the same kind of life. They simply express different genetic traits that exist in their DNA. Different breeds of dogs are not different species, since every breed is fertile with every other breed. They are one species, along with wolves, which can also interbreed with all other breeds of dogs.

Now, regarding evolution. There is no evidence that small changes, over time, can result in a different kind of life. Dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds, despite what scientists say. It is nothing but a story that someone made up. The fossil record does not support it. Scientists claim that they have a intermediate fossil, but it is highly disputed, as is most every bit of evidence for the evolution of species. Unless you can produce a undisputed intermediate fossil, out of the millions of fossils we have found, then there really is no solid evidence for evolution. Evolution is supposed to happen gradually, over millions of years. Why doesn't the fossil record show this? What we see are complete species, like a series of snap shots. Not the gradual change we're supposed to see. How do you explain this?

That is a rant against evolution that is not a detailed listing of the evidence for evolution and why science finds it compelling. You have listed what "can't happen" and why the evidence is wrong; I am asking for why the scientists think it is correct, and what that evidence is. No rhetoric, no argument against evolution, just outlining the theory and what the evidence is for it without misrepresentation or distortion.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:25:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 8:34:22 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:55:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

I will offer you a debate challenge; one in which you can demontrate whether or not you are ignorant; or dishonest

Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true.

I have to simply point out where you are making significant factual errors, omissions, distortions, misrepresentations, or have significantly underplayed how a peice of evidence is used.

It seems you are complaining about people calling you ignorant. Here is your opportunity.

OK. Let's start with the basics. Some definitions.

Family: All of life is grouped by families. This is the largest type of group biologists use.

Genus: This is the next level of classification. It is a way to group related species under one umbrella.

Species: This is the lowest group of association used. Most species in the same group are closely related, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Different species are often confused as examples of Darwinian evolution. This is not the case. Closely related species are the same kind of life. They simply express different genetic traits that exist in their DNA. Different breeds of dogs are not different species, since every breed is fertile with every other breed. They are one species, along with wolves, which can also interbreed with all other breeds of dogs.

Now, regarding evolution. There is no evidence that small changes, over time, can result in a different kind of life. Dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds, despite what scientists say. It is nothing but a story that someone made up. The fossil record does not support it. Scientists claim that they have a intermediate fossil, but it is highly disputed, as is most every bit of evidence for the evolution of species. Unless you can produce a undisputed intermediate fossil, out of the millions of fossils we have found, then there really is no solid evidence for evolution. Evolution is supposed to happen gradually, over millions of years. Why doesn't the fossil record show this? What we see are complete species, like a series of snap shots. Not the gradual change we're supposed to see. How do you explain this?

For various reasons, I think it is empirically demonstrable that Creationists are either ignorant; in that they do not understand the evidence or the science, how it is applied, it's methodology, what the theory entails, what are the predictions made, and how they have been demonstrated, and how the evidence surrounding this theory fits in and demonstrates evolution has occurred; or they are dishonest in that they know all this but ignore it to focus on straw men.

For example, in your statement, you are skirting around, or even ignoring the evidence.
You do not discuss the nested heirarchy, and how descent is inferred, you do not discuss the chronology of the nested heirarchy, nor geography, and how the measurements for these have shown the progression of life over time and why the order of progression strengths the case for descent. You do not discuss the patterns in genetics, or conserved proteins; including chromosome 2, ERV's, and the nature of the mutational patterns between species inferred to be closely related. Neither does it discuss why transitional fossiles are important for evolution, nor even what transitional forms even are, leave alone discussing why any of the hundreds of species discovered determined to be transitional do not match this criteria. You claim these are disputed, whereas in fact the majority are not disputed within the realms of the scientific establishment. You also claim that DNA can't change more than a certain degree, despite not outlining the reasoning why the science of genetics and molecular biology beleive it can, and how science supports this with evidence concerning the type and nature mutations we can see now occuring today; nor the detailed interpretation of the fossile record and comparative morphology that science uses to indicate that there very few large changes between any two species that do not have innumerable forms showing a clear progression of steps between these two large changes.

(I provided an argument for that last one in response to one of your posts, and pointed out to it several times, but you have ignored it each time it was mentioned).

In short, you have left out the detail of almost all science in your rant above; and as such one can only conclude you don't know what that evidence is, or you know what it is and deliberately distort it.

That is why, before you launch into bold assertions that DNA can't change, or bold assertions that transitional forms are not transitional without citing evidence; it is clear that you need to demonstrate a clear understanding of the science used by scientists to indicate DNA can change, and the science of phylogenics and the nested heirarchy to indicate what makes a fossil transitional.

To argue against evolution, you need to argue against the science that supports it, not the grossly oversimplified and either dishonest or ignorant straw men that almost unanimously misportray the science and the evidence.

I am giving you this opportunity, because if you showed, for example the synamorphies and apomorphies of tiktaliik compared to basal amphibians are not significant as this transitional species itself has significant apomorphies such as nasal crown, limbs that do not conform to the typical pendatacyl limbs of early amphibians, or can be demonstrated to be a post-aquatic amniote due to synomorphies with later reptiles; then I would actually have to start questioning evolution.

As I know you can show none of those things, nor do I think you can actually demonstrate what any of them are, why they are relevant, how they are used in evolution, or why this phylogenic approach is used in an evolutionary context when organising the nested heirarchy, the argument "it's not transitional" is really quite meaningless and indicitive of either dishonesty, or ignorance.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:46:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

For various reasons, I think it is empirically demonstrable that Creationists are either ignorant; in that they do not understand the evidence or the science, how it is applied, it's methodology, what the theory entails, what are the predictions made, and how they have been demonstrated, and how the evidence surrounding this theory fits in and demonstrates evolution has occurred; or they are dishonest in that they know all this but ignore it to focus on straw men.

For example, in your statement, you are skirting around, or even ignoring the evidence.
You do not discuss the nested heirarchy, and how descent is inferred, you do not discuss the chronology of the nested heirarchy, nor geography, and how the measurements for these have shown the progression of life over time and why the order of progression strengths the case for descent. You do not discuss the patterns in genetics, or conserved proteins; including chromosome 2, ERV's, and the nature of the mutational patterns between species inferred to be closely related. Neither does it discuss why transitional fossiles are important for evolution, nor even what transitional forms even are, leave alone discussing why any of the hundreds of species discovered determined to be transitional do not match this criteria. You claim these are disputed, whereas in fact the majority are not disputed within the realms of the scientific establishment. You also claim that DNA can't change more than a certain degree, despite not outlining the reasoning why the science of genetics and molecular biology beleive it can, and how science supports this with evidence concerning the type and nature mutations we can see now occuring today; nor the detailed interpretation of the fossile record and comparative morphology that science uses to indicate that there very few large changes between any two species that do not have innumerable forms showing a clear progression of steps between these two large changes.

(I provided an argument for that last one in response to one of your posts, and pointed out to it several times, but you have ignored it each time it was mentioned).

In short, you have left out the detail of almost all science in your rant above; and as such one can only conclude you don't know what that evidence is, or you know what it is and deliberately distort it.

That is why, before you launch into bold assertions that DNA can't change, or bold assertions that transitional forms are not transitional without citing evidence; it is clear that you need to demonstrate a clear understanding of the science used by scientists to indicate DNA can change, and the science of phylogenics and the nested heirarchy to indicate what makes a fossil transitional.

To argue against evolution, you need to argue against the science that supports it, not the grossly oversimplified and either dishonest or ignorant straw men that almost unanimously misportray the science and the evidence.

I am giving you this opportunity, because if you showed, for example the synamorphies and apomorphies of tiktaliik compared to basal amphibians are not significant as this transitional species itself has significant apomorphies such as nasal crown, limbs that do not conform to the typical pendatacyl limbs of early amphibians, or can be demonstrated to be a post-aquatic amniote due to synomorphies with later reptiles; then I would actually have to start questioning evolution.

As I know you can show none of those things, nor do I think you can actually demonstrate what any of them are, why they are relevant, how they are used in evolution, or why this phylogenic approach is used in an evolutionary context when organising the nested heirarchy, the argument "it's not transitional" is really quite meaningless and indicitive of either dishonesty, or ignorance.

I can't refute what you say, since my understanding of genetics is rather limited. But there are scientists who know a lot more than I ever will. Here's what one scientists says.

Let's start off with something simple. Every living thing has chromosomes. They are essential for life, since they carry our DNA. Moreover, since all types of animals are different, no two species has the same types or amount of chromosomes in their cells. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Anyone who's taken a biology class (and stayed awake for most of it) should know about meiosis.

The reason I'm bringing meiosis up is this: as you can clearly see an offspring recieves half of its chromosomes from one parent and half from another. Because of this an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents. No exceptions.

Here's where we get into the whole man/ape thing.

human beings have 46 chromosomes (13 from each parent), whereas apes and chimpanzees have 48.

Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing two whole chromosomes in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.

Anyone care to prove me wrong?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 9:50:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 9:46:23 PM, B0HICA wrote:

For various reasons, I think it is empirically demonstrable that Creationists are either ignorant; in that they do not understand the evidence or the science, how it is applied, it's methodology, what the theory entails, what are the predictions made, and how they have been demonstrated, and how the evidence surrounding this theory fits in and demonstrates evolution has occurred; or they are dishonest in that they know all this but ignore it to focus on straw men.

For example, in your statement, you are skirting around, or even ignoring the evidence.
You do not discuss the nested heirarchy, and how descent is inferred, you do not discuss the chronology of the nested heirarchy, nor geography, and how the measurements for these have shown the progression of life over time and why the order of progression strengths the case for descent. You do not discuss the patterns in genetics, or conserved proteins; including chromosome 2, ERV's, and the nature of the mutational patterns between species inferred to be closely related. Neither does it discuss why transitional fossiles are important for evolution, nor even what transitional forms even are, leave alone discussing why any of the hundreds of species discovered determined to be transitional do not match this criteria. You claim these are disputed, whereas in fact the majority are not disputed within the realms of the scientific establishment. You also claim that DNA can't change more than a certain degree, despite not outlining the reasoning why the science of genetics and molecular biology beleive it can, and how science supports this with evidence concerning the type and nature mutations we can see now occuring today; nor the detailed interpretation of the fossile record and comparative morphology that science uses to indicate that there very few large changes between any two species that do not have innumerable forms showing a clear progression of steps between these two large changes.

(I provided an argument for that last one in response to one of your posts, and pointed out to it several times, but you have ignored it each time it was mentioned).

In short, you have left out the detail of almost all science in your rant above; and as such one can only conclude you don't know what that evidence is, or you know what it is and deliberately distort it.

That is why, before you launch into bold assertions that DNA can't change, or bold assertions that transitional forms are not transitional without citing evidence; it is clear that you need to demonstrate a clear understanding of the science used by scientists to indicate DNA can change, and the science of phylogenics and the nested heirarchy to indicate what makes a fossil transitional.

To argue against evolution, you need to argue against the science that supports it, not the grossly oversimplified and either dishonest or ignorant straw men that almost unanimously misportray the science and the evidence.

I am giving you this opportunity, because if you showed, for example the synamorphies and apomorphies of tiktaliik compared to basal amphibians are not significant as this transitional species itself has significant apomorphies such as nasal crown, limbs that do not conform to the typical pendatacyl limbs of early amphibians, or can be demonstrated to be a post-aquatic amniote due to synomorphies with later reptiles; then I would actually have to start questioning evolution.

As I know you can show none of those things, nor do I think you can actually demonstrate what any of them are, why they are relevant, how they are used in evolution, or why this phylogenic approach is used in an evolutionary context when organising the nested heirarchy, the argument "it's not transitional" is really quite meaningless and indicitive of either dishonesty, or ignorance.

I can't refute what you say, since my understanding of genetics is rather limited. But there are scientists who know a lot more than I ever will. Here's what one scientists says.

Let's start off with something simple. Every living thing has chromosomes. They are essential for life, since they carry our DNA. Moreover, since all types of animals are different, no two species has the same types or amount of chromosomes in their cells. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Anyone who's taken a biology class (and stayed awake for most of it) should know about meiosis.



The reason I'm bringing meiosis up is this: as you can clearly see an offspring recieves half of its chromosomes from one parent and half from another. Because of this an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents. No exceptions.

Here's where we get into the whole man/ape thing.



human beings have 46 chromosomes (13 from each parent), whereas apes and chimpanzees have 48.

Can anyone tell me how apes could evolve into humans, losing two whole chromosomes in the process? According to the rules of meiosis, that's completely impossible.

Anyone care to prove me wrong?

I asked you:

"Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true."

Are you refusing this challenge?
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 10:23:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I asked you:

"Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true."

Are you refusing this challenge?

Let me get this straight. You're asking my to honestly represent a lie? Take a gander at this.

Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body. Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don't work. In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or sickle cell. "Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost."1 All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules. But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters. "An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners."1 Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove. "Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices." "The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules." "Each of the central processes in a cell... is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins."1 The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins. "The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the basic things necessary for a cell to function. So far they have found 17 general categories1:

Replication, recombination, and repair
Transcription
Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
Defense mechanisms
Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
Signal transduction mechanisms
Intracellular trafficking and secretion
Translation
Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
Energy production and conversion
Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
Amino acid transport and metabolism
Nucleotide transport and metabolism
Coenzyme transport and metabolism
Lipid transport and metabolism
Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism
Each category requires many proteins. All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance. The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time. Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate. Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years. Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush. If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.

So. No matter how evolutionists try to explain things, they are required to ignore reality.

Two prominent "origin-of-life" researchers have laid out their vision of how life arose from chemicals:

1. Start with a molecule capable of copying itself. "The first protocells contained RNA (or something similar to it) and little else".

2. A fatty acid bubble forms around the self-copying molecule, which then makes a copy of itself with nucleotides that filter through the bubble. "Molecules as large as nucleotides can in fact easily slip across membranes as long as both nucleotides and membranes are simpler, more 'primitive' versions of their modern counterparts."

3. The double-strand RNA separates into single strands if it is heated just right. That might happen in an icy pond next to a volcano, where the bubble could circulate between the ice and the hot rocks. "The sudden heating would cause a double helix to separate into single strands. Once back in the cool region, new double strands, copies of the original, could form". At the same time, the bubble is picking up fatty acid molecules and growing. Adding fatty acids makes the membrane grow longer, and a little shaking breaks the bubble into some smaller bubbles, each with some of the self-copying molecules inside, so you have "cell division".

4. "At some point some of the RNA sequences mutated, becoming ribozymes". The "ribozymes (folded RNA molecules analogous to protein-based enzymes) arise and take on such jobs as speeding up reproduction and strengthening the protocell's membrane. Consequently, protocells begin to reproduce on their own." "Other ribozymes catalyze metabolism -- chains of chemical reactions that enable protocells to tap into nutrients from the environment."

5. "Next, the organisms might have added protein-making to their bag of chemical tricks." "Complex systems of RNA catalysts begin to translate strings of RNA letters (genes) into chains of amino acids (proteins)." "Proteins take on a wide range of tasks within the cell."

6. "Protein-based catalysts, or enzymes, gradually replace most ribozymes." "Proteins would have then taken over RNA's role in assisting genetic copying and metabolism."

7. Later, the organisms would have 'learned' to make DNA". "Thanks to its superior stability, DNA takes on the role of primary genetic molecule. RNA's main role is now to act as a bridge between DNA and proteins."

8. "Organisms resembling modern bacteria adapt to living virtually everywhere on earth and rule unopposed for billions of years, until some of them begin to evolve into more complex organisms." --Ricardo, Alonso, Jack W. Szostak. September 2009. Life on Earth. Scientific American, pp. 54-61.

They are currently working on steps 1 and 2 in the laboratory.

Let's compare their "origin of life" ideas to the plans of children making a spaceship out of a cardboard box:

1. Get a large box. Draw controls and gauges on the inside. Cut out a door and round windows. Attach cardboard fins to the sides.

2. Put a chair in the box, sit down and start the countdown.

3. Launch the spaceship towards the Moon. Using the Moon's gravity, fling the spaceship to the outer reaches of the solar system, constantly accelerating with the impulse engines.

4. After passing Neptune, engage the warp drive in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic to avoid the Kuiper belt.

The children are currently working on steps 1 and 2, and are as close to demonstrating their vision as the "origin-of-life" researchers are.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 10:35:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 10:23:03 PM, B0HICA wrote:
I asked you:

"Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true."

Are you refusing this challenge?

Let me get this straight. You're asking my to honestly represent a lie?

I am asking you to describe the scientific theory of evolution, what evidence that the hundreds of thousands of scientists that have worked on that has led them to conclude it is a valid theory.

I am asking you to accurately and honestly portray the evidence science uses to conclude that evolution is true.

I am asking you to demonstrate that you fully understand the scientific depth, evidence, and nature of what is used by these hundreds of thousands of scientists to conclude evolution has occurred.

Whether you accept this evidence, or whether you conclude it is "a lie", is irrelevant. I can do the same for Creationism, flat earth theory, lumineferous Aether theory, and any other "incorrect theory".

Whether you believe it is a lie should not affect whether you can portray what science has to say on the subjective of evolution, in detail or not.

If you can't do that, if you can't look at the details of evolution as a whole, and explain them in depth, and how reality does not match what that evidence concludes, you are forced to do what you do here; misrepresent, distort or misportrary the evidence either by arguing minutae in isolation, making arguments from incredulity, straw men, equivocation or simply misunderstanding what the science is, as you have done before.

If you cannot show you even understand evolution and the nature of the objective evidence that is used to support it (regardless of how wrong it is), then you cannot possibly expect to have an appropriate argument against it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 10:37:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 10:23:03 PM, B0HICA wrote:
I asked you:

"Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true."

Are you refusing this challenge?

Let me get this straight. You're asking my to honestly represent a lie? Take a gander at this.

Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body. Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don't work. In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or sickle cell. "Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost."1 All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules. But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters. "An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners."1 Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove. "Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices." "The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules." "Each of the central processes in a cell... is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins."1 The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins. "The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the basic things necessary for a cell to function. So far they have found 17 general categories1:

Replication, recombination, and repair
Transcription
Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
Defense mechanisms
Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
Signal transduction mechanisms
Intracellular trafficking and secretion
Translation
Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
Energy production and conversion
Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
Amino acid transport and metabolism
Nucleotide transport and metabolism
Coenzyme transport and metabolism
Lipid transport and metabolism
Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism
Each category requires many proteins. All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance. The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time. Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate. Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years. Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush. If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.

So. No matter how evolutionists try to explain things, they are required to ignore reality.

Two prominent "origin-of-life" researchers have laid out their vision of how life arose from chemicals:





1. Start with a molecule capable of copying itself. "The first protocells contained RNA (or something similar to it) and little else".

2. A fatty acid bubble forms around the self-copying molecule, which then makes a copy of itself with nucleotides that filter through the bubble. "Molecules as large as nucleotides can in fact easily slip across membranes as long as both nucleotides and membranes are simpler, more 'primitive' versions of their modern counterparts."

3. The double-strand RNA separates into single strands if it is heated just right. That might happen in an icy pond next to a volcano, where the bubble could circulate between the ice and the hot rocks. "The sudden heating would cause a double helix to separate into single strands. Once back in the cool region, new double strands, copies of the original, could form". At the same time, the bubble is picking up fatty acid molecules and growing. Adding fatty acids makes the membrane grow longer, and a little shaking breaks the bubble into some smaller bubbles, each with some of the self-copying molecules inside, so you have "cell division".

4. "At some point some of the RNA sequences mutated, becoming ribozymes". The "ribozymes (folded RNA molecules analogous to protein-based enzymes) arise and take on such jobs as speeding up reproduction and strengthening the protocell's membrane. Consequently, protocells begin to reproduce on their own." "Other ribozymes catalyze metabolism -- chains of chemical reactions that enable protocells to tap into nutrients from the environment."

5. "Next, the organisms might have added protein-making to their bag of chemical tricks." "Complex systems of RNA catalysts begin to translate strings of RNA letters (genes) into chains of amino acids (proteins)." "Proteins take on a wide range of tasks within the cell."

6. "Protein-based catalysts, or enzymes, gradually replace most ribozymes." "Proteins would have then taken over RNA's role in assisting genetic copying and metabolism."

7. Later, the organisms would have 'learned' to make DNA". "Thanks to its superior stability, DNA takes on the role of primary genetic molecule. RNA's main role is now to act as a bridge between DNA and proteins."

8. "Organisms resembling modern bacteria adapt to living virtually everywhere on earth and rule unopposed for billions of years, until some of them begin to evolve into more complex organisms." --Ricardo, Alonso, Jack W. Szostak. September 2009. Life on Earth. Scientific American, pp. 54-61.

They are currently working on steps 1 and 2 in the laboratory.

Let's compare their "origin of life" ideas to the plans of children making a spaceship out of a cardboard box:

1. Get a large box. Draw controls and gauges on the inside. Cut out a door and round windows. Attach cardboard fins to the sides.

2. Put a chair in the box, sit down and start the countdown.

3. Launch the spaceship towards the Moon. Using the Moon's gravity, fling the spaceship to the outer reaches of the solar system, constantly accelerating with the impulse engines.

4. After passing Neptune, engage the warp drive in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic to avoid the Kuiper belt.

The children are currently working on steps 1 and 2, and are as close to demonstrating their vision as the "origin-of-life" researchers are.

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 11:11:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant?

I'm not one of the people who has refused you, Bohica, but by way of reflection and without meaning insult, I wouldn't debate you formally on most scientific topics either.

Science is a complex and rapidly changing discipline, and it takes real effort to stay abreast of it. Quite a few members here make reasonable effort do so -- including some with views not held by mainstream science.

I'm sorry to say that you haven't struck me as one of them.

Moreover, a good formal debate is a contest of informed, carefully-reasoned, accountable opinion. It takes research, organisation and care in expression. It's best if the participants respect one another's erudition, diligence and eloquence, because that translates into respect for the topic and for the readers.

It's easy to find people with your scientific opinions to argue with, B. One trips over them all the time, and ignorant theological propaganda is always creating more. But harder is to find informed, thoughtful people with your views who scrupulously hold their ideas to evidentiary account as science demands, and as good debate ought to demand too.

You could become such a person if you wanted, because most anyone can, but as far as I've seen in scientific and theological discussions, that's not what you want.

I can't speak for others, but perhaps you're getting the level of intellectual engagement your own scientific indifference has selected?
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory. Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:28:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory.

No it wouldn't. Common Descent via evolution from a single universal common ancestor is not invalidated by how that common ancestor came about.

Now, back to the original request.

You complained that "people" wouldn't debate you because they accused you of being ignorant of science, evolution, and scientific principles.

I have given you the opportunity of engaging in a debate that will allow you to show that you are not ignorant.

Despite, several replies, and my persistent prods to get you back to this debate, you have refused.

Am I therefore correct in assuming that you have no interest in demonstrating that you are not ignorant?
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:30:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory. Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

Did you read what I posted about the requirements for a functioning cell and meiosis? Do you think it's possible for these components to evolve separately and come together? Do you think it's possible for a living creature to give birth to something with a different chromosome count, then somehow have that mutation become fixed in a population? I assure you, it is not possible. Scientists cannot even make up something that is believable. Why don't you read it, if you haven't. If you did, read it again. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you have to support something. If there is incontrovertible evidence that shows it's impossible, what does that tell you? You could have evidence that you will not fall if you step off of a cliff. You could have tons of research proving it's true. Well. Go ahead and test your theory. I'll bring the pop corn. It should be a good show.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:31:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:30:46 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory. Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

Did you read what I posted about the requirements for a functioning cell and meiosis? Do you think it's possible for these components to evolve separately and come together? Do you think it's possible for a living creature to give birth to something with a different chromosome count, then somehow have that mutation become fixed in a population? I assure you, it is not possible. Scientists cannot even make up something that is believable. Why don't you read it, if you haven't. If you did, read it again. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you have to support something. If there is incontrovertible evidence that shows it's impossible, what does that tell you? You could have evidence that you will not fall if you step off of a cliff. You could have tons of research proving it's true. Well. Go ahead and test your theory. I'll bring the pop corn. It should be a good show.

Read my last reply.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:33:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory.

Another bare-faced lie. It wouldn't affect evolution in the least. Evolution of life is completely independent from the origin of life.

Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

And the gish gallop and preaching continues unabated. Do you really wonder why no-one is interested in a debate with you. People look for someone with at least a shred of intellectual honesty when they want a debate.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:35:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory. Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

Also, reported for preaching in the Science forum.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:39:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:33:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory.

Another bare-faced lie. It wouldn't affect evolution in the least. Evolution of life is completely independent from the origin of life.

Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

And the gish gallop and preaching continues unabated. Do you really wonder why no-one is interested in a debate with you. People look for someone with at least a shred of intellectual honesty when they want a debate.

The origin of life is part of evolution. Lifeless chemicals to man. It's all part of the same unbroken process. Evolutionists disowned it because they knew they could never answer the question of how it happened. All of the scientific knowledge we posses tells us that abiogenesis is impossible. What does that tell you?
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:41:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:35:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory. Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

Also, reported for preaching in the Science forum.

LOL! You mean like people are always bringing science into the religion forum? LOL! You funny guy. Get a life.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:43:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:39:08 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:33:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory.

Another bare-faced lie. It wouldn't affect evolution in the least. Evolution of life is completely independent from the origin of life.

Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

And the gish gallop and preaching continues unabated. Do you really wonder why no-one is interested in a debate with you. People look for someone with at least a shred of intellectual honesty when they want a debate.

The origin of life is part of evolution. Lifeless chemicals to man. It's all part of the same unbroken process. Evolutionists disowned it because they knew they could never answer the question of how it happened. All of the scientific knowledge we posses tells us that abiogenesis is impossible. What does that tell you?

Either your reading comprehension is poor or you are wilfully ignoring what anyone has to say. You are a waste of time and energy since you do not wish to learn. Begone troll.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:47:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:41:24 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:35:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory. Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

Also, reported for preaching in the Science forum.

LOL! You mean like people are always bringing science into the religion forum? LOL! You funny guy. Get a life.

No-one is preaching science in the Religion forum. The scientific method is only applied to refute actual claims made by theists. Begone troll.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 2:07:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:30:46 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory. Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

Did you read what I posted about the requirements for a functioning cell and meiosis? Do you think it's possible for these components to evolve separately and come together? Do you think it's possible for a living creature to give birth to something with a different chromosome count, then somehow have that mutation become fixed in a population? I assure you, it is not possible. Scientists cannot even make up something that is believable. Why don't you read it, if you haven't. If you did, read it again. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you have to support something. If there is incontrovertible evidence that shows it's impossible, what does that tell you? You could have evidence that you will not fall if you step off of a cliff. You could have tons of research proving it's true. Well. Go ahead and test your theory. I'll bring the pop corn. It should be a good show.

I have read it.

It is irrelevant to the subject you yourself were trying to raise; that no one would debate you because they claim you to be ignorant.

I have challenged you to a debate to demonstrate you are not ignorant and for some reason you keep absolutely ignoring this demand, and instead have been continually trying to change the subject with these arguments. Arguments which are irrelevant to my request that you:

"Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly."

"To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true."

Are you accepting this challenge? Are you going to reject the opportunity to show that you understand the science that you are rejecting? Or are you going to continue to ignore it?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 5:30:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 7:55:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

I will offer you a debate challenge; one in which you can demontrate whether or not you are ignorant; or dishonest

Demonstrate that you can represent evolutional honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for evolution and how it has been used by science to demonstrate evolution is true.

I have to simply point out where you are making significant factual errors, omissions, distortions, misrepresentations, or have significantly underplayed how a peice of evidence is used.

It seems you are complaining about people calling you ignorant. Here is your opportunity.

Will you do the same so we can vote.

Demonstrate that you can represent creationism honestly.

To do this, you need to present, without straw men, misrepresentation, or equivocation what the evidence is for creationism and how it has been used by creation science to demonstrate creationism is true.

Your opponent would have to simply point out where you are making significant factual errors, omissions, distortions, misrepresentations, or have significantly underplayed how a piece of evidence is used.

It seems you are only taking half of his challenge, I don't see how we can vote if there is only one participant to vote for. You made the ignorance test a matter of how well he can argue something he doesn't believe. If you want a creationist to argue for evolution, then shouldn't you have to argue for Creationism? Here is your opportunity.

That would be an entertaining debate.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 9:33:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:39:08 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:33:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory.

Another bare-faced lie. It wouldn't affect evolution in the least. Evolution of life is completely independent from the origin of life.

Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

And the gish gallop and preaching continues unabated. Do you really wonder why no-one is interested in a debate with you. People look for someone with at least a shred of intellectual honesty when they want a debate.

The origin of life is part of evolution. Lifeless chemicals to man. It's all part of the same unbroken process. Evolutionists disowned it because they knew they could never answer the question of how it happened. All of the scientific knowledge we posses tells us that abiogenesis is impossible. What does that tell you?

That would tell me you're lying. You're only go to see those kinds of statements from the religious, like yourself, who have no idea what science says.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:20:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:43:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:39:08 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:33:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory.

Another bare-faced lie. It wouldn't affect evolution in the least. Evolution of life is completely independent from the origin of life.

Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

And the gish gallop and preaching continues unabated. Do you really wonder why no-one is interested in a debate with you. People look for someone with at least a shred of intellectual honesty when they want a debate.

The origin of life is part of evolution. Lifeless chemicals to man. It's all part of the same unbroken process. Evolutionists disowned it because they knew they could never answer the question of how it happened. All of the scientific knowledge we posses tells us that abiogenesis is impossible. What does that tell you?

Either your reading comprehension is poor or you are wilfully ignoring what anyone has to say. You are a waste of time and energy since you do not wish to learn. Begone troll.

This is MY thread, genius. Why don't YOU get lost? LOL!
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:24:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 10:20:08 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:43:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:39:08 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:33:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:20:40 AM, B0HICA wrote:

A key example showing you are either ignorant, or dishonest about evolution is the fact that you confuse it with Abiogenesis as you do here.

If abiogenesis can be proven to be impossible, then evolution is a falsified theory.

Another bare-faced lie. It wouldn't affect evolution in the least. Evolution of life is completely independent from the origin of life.

Scientists cannot even make up a believable story of how life began. And let's be honest about something here. The vast majority of scientists are atheists. Therefore, they are not open to the idea of a supernatural origin of life. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. I have shown you what is required for the first self replicating organism to exist. All of the things needed for life must exist and come together at the same time. Otherwise the individual components will die. This should be proof, even for someone like yourself, that life must have had help. A Creator is the only logical explanation. You know this, yet you cling to your lies because you cannot admit one simple fact. You are a sinner. You are going to Hell, unless you admit that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent. Your pride will not allow it. It will be your downfall, as it was Satan's. Hopefully you will see the truth before it is too late. This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care.

And the gish gallop and preaching continues unabated. Do you really wonder why no-one is interested in a debate with you. People look for someone with at least a shred of intellectual honesty when they want a debate.

The origin of life is part of evolution. Lifeless chemicals to man. It's all part of the same unbroken process. Evolutionists disowned it because they knew they could never answer the question of how it happened. All of the scientific knowledge we posses tells us that abiogenesis is impossible. What does that tell you?

Either your reading comprehension is poor or you are wilfully ignoring what anyone has to say. You are a waste of time and energy since you do not wish to learn. Begone troll.

This is MY thread, genius. Why don't YOU get lost? LOL!

BOHICA: "This discussion is over. I have provided scientific evidence for the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, thereby proving that evolution is a myth. Believe what you like. I don't care."

Stop preaching in the Science forum. Begone troll.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 5:33:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 8:13:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

There is a big difference between having your ignorance explained to you (which has been done countless times) and you accepting your ignorance and modifying your behaviour. Almost everything you post is a variation on the argument from personal incredulity. To my knowledge you have never once acknowledged this fallacy when it has been pointed out to you.

Not so fast.

You nor anybody else has ever proven how Abiogenesis can occur. Oh, we have some great ideas and hyoptheses, but that is about it. We have, for example, thus far been able to create life in a lab setting which attempted to emulate Primordial Ooze conditions some 3.5 billions years ago.

Miller-Urey, some 50 years ago tried and failed. And in ALL this time nobody has done much better. The best they could do was create amino acids.

No DNA.

This, from Dr. of Pathology Adriana Hegey ay NYU Medical School is the best hypothesis (not yet a theory, mind you!) that you or anybody has........

My summary: the other common property to all life, besides that of having a genetic code, is that energy is stored in the form of ion gradients over membranes. Without this harnessing, energy would be dissipated and could not sustain life. Nick Lane and Bill Martin propose a completely natural origin for this membrane bioenergetics from completely inert materials, basically rocks, carbon dioxide and water.

The origin would have been in hydrothermal wells, where natural proton gradients across the thin ferrous sulfide (FeS) walls that exist in deep-sea alkaline (high PH) hydrothermal vents could drive the assimilation of carbon, giving rise to proto-cells. These proto-cells would have created a proton gradient and concentrated simple organic molecules formed by carbon assimilation.

Once a sodium-proton pump evolved (and these are relatively simple proteins, the proto-cells could close their membranes completely, and still derive energy from the sodium pump. At this point, they could have become left the vent and still capture energy.

(Bolding is mine so as to show you the difference between "did" and "would have.")

So BOHICA has a point. Deal with it. And please refrain from calling him a troll when you cannot disprove his premise.

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 6:08:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 5:33:08 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/5/2015 8:13:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/5/2015 7:47:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
...how some people on this site are always calling people ignorant about science, yet when they are challenged to a debate, they refuse, usually commenting about how said person challenging them isn't worth debating because they are too ignorant? This has happened to me several times now. I just challenged another person. He called me ignorant, yet he refused to tell me HOW I was ignorant. I told him he could choose any scientific discipline, and we'd do our best to explain it in our own words. See who gets the most votes. Still haven't heard from them.

There is a big difference between having your ignorance explained to you (which has been done countless times) and you accepting your ignorance and modifying your behaviour. Almost everything you post is a variation on the argument from personal incredulity. To my knowledge you have never once acknowledged this fallacy when it has been pointed out to you.

Not so fast.

You nor anybody else has ever proven how Abiogenesis can occur. Oh, we have some great ideas and hyoptheses, but that is about it. We have, for example, thus far been able to create life in a lab setting which attempted to emulate Primordial Ooze conditions some 3.5 billions years ago.

Miller-Urey, some 50 years ago tried and failed. And in ALL this time nobody has done much better. The best they could do was create amino acids.

No DNA.

This, from Dr. of Pathology Adriana Hegey ay NYU Medical School is the best hypothesis (not yet a theory, mind you!) that you or anybody has........

My summary: the other common property to all life, besides that of having a genetic code, is that energy is stored in the form of ion gradients over membranes. Without this harnessing, energy would be dissipated and could not sustain life. Nick Lane and Bill Martin propose a completely natural origin for this membrane bioenergetics from completely inert materials, basically rocks, carbon dioxide and water.

The origin would have been in hydrothermal wells, where natural proton gradients across the thin ferrous sulfide (FeS) walls that exist in deep-sea alkaline (high PH) hydrothermal vents could drive the assimilation of carbon, giving rise to proto-cells. These proto-cells would have created a proton gradient and concentrated simple organic molecules formed by carbon assimilation.

Once a sodium-proton pump evolved (and these are relatively simple proteins, the proto-cells could close their membranes completely, and still derive energy from the sodium pump. At this point, they could have become left the vent and still capture energy.

(Bolding is mine so as to show you the difference between "did" and "would have.")

So BOHICA has a point. Deal with it. And please refrain from calling him a troll when you cannot disprove his premise.

Thanks.

Woops!! (Damn we need an "edit" button!

I meant to say..."W have thus far NOT BEEN ABLE to create life in a lab setting which attempted to replicate the perceived enviro conditions of some Three Billion years ago in the Primordial Ooze."

Sorry for the typo.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.