(October 3, 2013 at 2:37 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(October 3, 2013 at 2:13 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I noticed you said theoretically.
What does that mean?

OMFG, now I'm convinced that you have to be reminded to breathe.

---

(October 3, 2013 at 2:33 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I just call it atheistic because God is not allowed to invoked.

And do you know why that is?

Well how does science, which means just knowledge, know that there is no God?

If they cannot know that, how can they exclude God?

It is an unproven assumption.

All real science must state the assumption that it is based on.

If the assumption proves wrong, the conclusions may be wrong.

(October 3, 2013 at 2:37 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Hey, real quick: what's your education level? In case you couldn't tell, I'm not just gonna let that one go.

He gradjeyated from the 6th grade, and it only took him 5 years.

---

(October 3, 2013 at 2:48 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Well how does science, which means just knowledge, know that there is no God?

It doesn't.

Quote:If they cannot know that, how can they exclude God?

Because no evidence has ever been shown that God exists or that he has a hand in running nature. Until that happens, science will go on finding answers that don't involve invoking a magical god.

Quote:It is an unproven assumption.

It's a straw man argument.

Quote:All real science must state the assumption that it is based on.

What science really must do is state the evidence for the assumption. Which it does.

Quote:If the assumption proves wrong, the conclusions may be wrong.

Which is why science works so well. Because once we discard what we know is wrong, it helps us figure out what is right. Too bad religion is so far behind because it only relies on magic.

(October 3, 2013 at 2:33 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I just call it atheistic because God is not allowed to invoked.

It's not that God is not allowed, it's that God is not a useful experimental concept. I know many very good, smart theistic scientists (Christians. Muslims, Buddhists), and God is important to them, but it just isn't something that is useful when you're trying to discover how something in living cells works.

Quote:Thank you for the information. I already knew that the first thing was not observed and remains speculation at this point. I also want to thank you for your honest comment that it may never be known.

Why do you keep asking members when so many of us have pointed out to you that we don't know? Can you move on?

Quote:I just was showing that the answers have yet to be discovered and thus there is no solid proof of abiogenesis.

No concrete evidence, no- but much that is rich for further study, if you look at the very good papers I have linked here. You seem to be suggesting that scientists should simply throw their hands up and not try to explain it. Imagine how much worse off we would all be if that was the response of scientists faced with a difficult question. So let's get on with it, then. Is there another point of yours in your VERY long OP that you would like me, as an evolutionary biologist, to address?

Quote:I may start a topic which will try to get an approximation of the odds of abiogenesis.

Pointless. Since we don't know how many Goldilocks planets are in the universe, and all the possible forms life could take, that cannot be done. So why waste your time on a question no one can answer? There is clearly much you do not know about the mechanisms of genetics, let alone evolutionary biology, so why not learn it instead of throwing out red herrings? It belittles your argument. Let's see some good, answerable, substantial questions.

There is no "atheist creation science". Nice try at creating a strawman.

Everything about "creation" is nonsense.

1. Every argument for a deity, (such as the pathetic nonsense of Kalam) is only an assertion of "proximal" action. In other words, the "cause" they claim in no way ever justifies an "ultimate" claim. An omnipotent deity could have created a race of intelligent robot universe-creators, and there is no reason in Kalam or any other theist argument that the "cause" has to be the "ultimate" cause. Only the "proximate", (or nearest) cause.

2. The word "creation" is an action verb. An "action" REQUIRES the dimension of (space)time, (unless you invoke the fallacy of Special Pleading). A god who REQUIRES anything, (including the dimension of time) for ANYTHING about that god, to make any coherent sense, (even the very word "existence" requires time). As far as we know, at this point, there is only space-time, in this universe. Anything else is pure speculation. Actions have beginnings, and ends. They are processes. The word ONLY makes sense in a temporal context. Time BEGAN at the Big Bang, as far as we know. Saying a deity "acted" "before" time was created is meaningless linguistic incoherence.

3. Any "action" of any deity refutes it's infinity, and it places an "endpoint" / measurement point to the "infinity", which is false, by definition. (As does the very concept of "salvation", as it implies that IN TIME the deity's attitudes CHANGED, after Jebus lived and died). Change requires time. More meaningless nonsense. ((Later I will post a paper I wrote debunking, Biblically, the entire history, of the nonsense Christianity (actually Paulinity) cooked up, and called "salvation")).

4. The very notion of "causality" is preposterous on it's face. If the deity is the creator of Reality, (which also is obviously meaningless, as "existence" itself IS already "reality", and a deity can't create the very Reality in which it is required, by definition, to participate), then Causality had to be part of reality, a priori. A deity "causing" Causality is meaningless. Infinite regression.

BTW, hi kids.
My name is Bucky. You can call me "the Fullerene" if ya like :p
I'm a Physics undergrad at CalTech, and a PhD candidate at an Ivy League Divinity School, (fancy that ...) There are a few atheists in the class and the faculty. My interests are Ancient Near Eastern Culture and Languages. It annoys the living crap out of theists I know more about their holy books than they do.

I live in Cali, (San Diego), go to school in LA.
I come from a rather prominent liberal Catholic family. My gramps was a Vatican diplomat. I saw the bullshit from the inside, BUT I have no "chip on my shoulder" concerning religion. My aunt was a famous nun, (college president), and her community and nun friends were and still are my very dear friends, (as in "nuns on the bus" ... VERY liberal, sweet, intelligent non-judgmental women).

Hope I will be able to contribute something once in a while.


meow

(October 3, 2013 at 2:13 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 3, 2013 at 1:05 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: That's not the point I was talking about at all. RNA have catalytic properties, so the replicable chain doesn't need proteins to replicate, theoretically.

---

SBG, what is the exact sequence of your dna?

What?

Of course they do.

How would they even be protected during the so called replication?
How are they even read correctly?

I noticed you said theoretically.
What does that mean?

---

(October 3, 2013 at 12:32 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: None, it was a protein-based lifeform.

And it was not conscious or sentient either. The first "life" on Earth would have been largely indistinguishable from a redox reaction. With the minor exception of self-replication.

---

If the idea that you descended from apes and other animals ruffles your feathers, understand that you are ultimately the descendant of a chemical reaction (specifically a redox reaction).

Then how many different proteins were there?
How many of each?
What were the amino acid sequences?
What are the odds that that even formed?
How did it evolve to RNA and DNA?
What are the odds of that?

No proteins until life had advanced to the point of synthesizing proteins, so 0.

"How many of each?"
irrelevant question as there were no proteins because this wasn't protein-based "life"

"What were the amino acid sequences?"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...185848.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...134341.htm

Primitive amino acids are still encoded within the genetic sequence of all lifeforms, but each phyla and taxon has built upon it. Meaning you have to get back to the original retroactively.

"What are the odds that that even formed?"

>0
Actually, as life developed on Earth, the odds are 1

"How did it evolve to RNA and DNA?"

Natural selection

"What are the odds of that?"

1 again.

(October 3, 2013 at 2:56 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(October 3, 2013 at 2:13 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What?

Of course they do.

How would they even be protected during the so called replication?
How are they even read correctly?

I noticed you said theoretically.
What does that mean?

---

Then how many different proteins were there?
How many of each?
What were the amino acid sequences?
What are the odds that that even formed?
How did it evolve to RNA and DNA?
What are the odds of that?

No proteins until life had advanced to the point of synthesizing proteins, so 0.

"How many of each?"
irrelevant question as there were no proteins because this wasn't protein-based "life"

"What were the amino acid sequences?"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...185848.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...134341.htm

Primitive amino acids are still encoded within the genetic sequence of all lifeforms, but each phyla and taxon has built upon it. Meaning you have to get back to the original retroactively.

"What are the odds that that even formed?"

>0
Actually, as life developed on Earth, the odds are 1

"How did it evolve to RNA and DNA?"

Natural selection

"What are the odds of that?"

1 again.

Thank you for proving my point that AOS does not have the answers to the simple questions I posted.

(October 3, 2013 at 2:57 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 3, 2013 at 2:56 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: No proteins until life had advanced to the point of synthesizing proteins, so 0.

"How many of each?"
irrelevant question as there were no proteins because this wasn't protein-based "life"

"What were the amino acid sequences?"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...185848.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...134341.htm

Primitive amino acids are still encoded within the genetic sequence of all lifeforms, but each phyla and taxon has built upon it. Meaning you have to get back to the original retroactively.

"What are the odds that that even formed?"

>0
Actually, as life developed on Earth, the odds are 1

"How did it evolve to RNA and DNA?"

Natural selection

"What are the odds of that?"

1 again.

Thank you for proving my point that AOS does not have the answers to the simple questions I posted.

I just gave you answers. Clearly in a matter of minutes you couldn't have possibly even read the articles I linked.

(October 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(October 3, 2013 at 2:33 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I just call it atheistic because God is not allowed to invoked.

It's not that God is not allowed, it's that God is not a useful experimental concept. I know many very good, smart theistic scientists (Christians. Muslims, Buddhists), and God is important to them, but it just isn't something that is useful when you're trying to discover how something in living cells works.

Quote:Thank you for the information. I already knew that the first thing was not observed and remains speculation at this point. I also want to thank you for your honest comment that it may never be known.

Why do you keep asking members when so many of us have pointed out to you that we don't know? Can you move on?

Quote:I just was showing that the answers have yet to be discovered and thus there is no solid proof of abiogenesis.

No concrete evidence, no- but much that is rich for further study, if you look at the very good papers I have linked here. You seem to be suggesting that scientists should simply throw their hands up and not try to explain it. Imagine how much worse off we would all be if that was the response of scientists faced with a difficult question. So let's get on with it, then. Is there another point of yours in your VERY long OP that you would like me, as an evolutionary biologist, to address?

Quote:I may start a topic which will try to get an approximation of the odds of abiogenesis.

Pointless. Since we don't know how many Goldilocks planets are in the universe, and all the possible forms life could take, that cannot be done. So why waste your time on a question no one can answer? There is clearly much you do not know about the mechanisms of genetics, let alone evolutionary biology, so why not learn it instead of throwing out red herrings? It belittles your argument. Let's see some good, answerable, substantial questions.

The odds show that it does not matter if the universe were many trillions of years old and if you allowed the miracle anywhere in the universe. It just never happened.

Atheistic origin science is relying on a multitude of miracles.
It contradicts itself.

(October 3, 2013 at 2:58 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(October 3, 2013 at 2:57 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Thank you for proving my point that AOS does not have the answers to the simple questions I posted.

I just gave you answers. Clearly in a matter of minutes you couldn't have possibly even read the articles I linked.

Of course not. But then, he has no interest in actually absorbing the information we give him; just in preemptively gloating.

The problem is, he can't even do that right, because the thing he's gloating about doesn't prove shit.

(October 3, 2013 at 2:58 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(October 3, 2013 at 2:57 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Thank you for proving my point that AOS does not have the answers to the simple questions I posted.

I just gave you answers. Clearly in a matter of minutes you couldn't have possibly even read the articles I linked.

Just copy the questions from the post and answer all the questions.

Probability = 1 is not a calculation.