(October 4, 2013 at 4:57 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Miller-Yurey experiment produced a few amino acids. They are not living things. No one claims that.

Also the experiment was controlled by an intelligent scientist.

No abiogenesis there.

No it wasn't controlled at all; that was the whole point. They set up essentially a reconstruction based on what was known of the primitive Earth atmospheric conditions, then let the experiment run itself. Any outside interference would totally invalidate the test.

That they managed to produce any amino acids at all, totally spontaneously, is exactly the sort of thing you have been saying is impossible all along.

Now, you can do what you're going to and stick your fingers in your ears and scream "Baby Jesus make the bad thoughts go away!" but you won't change the facts.

wooow.


This is why I don't talk to creationists about evolution. It's basically you giving them an education on evolution because they don't know shit about it. I get paid to do things like that to much more intelligent and much less obnoxious kids.

Grace, you are repeating the same nonsense strawmen again and again. Are you going to listen, or are you just here to demonstrate what you don't know over and over? The best argument I can give you to listen is so you can try to mount a REAL argument against evolutionary theory. You cannot do that effectively if you keep showing us that you don't even know what the theory is.

(October 4, 2013 at 3:39 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Atheistic origin science is false. It cannot account for the life forms that exist. Thus, its opposite, theistic origin science is true.

Repeating mumbo jumbo makes you look even more idiotic than ever. Let's take this step by step.

1. The scientific method is the same for all people, regardless of religious denomination.
2. There have been brilliant theist scientist. All of them have submitted peer reviewed papers on their research.
3. You claim a lot, for anyone to take you seriously, you need to provide proof. And no, the bible is not a scientific research.

(October 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I gave simple facts.

No, you're just plain and simple.

(October 4, 2013 at 4:01 pm)Rationalman Wrote: Surely there's something in the atheistforums.org rules about what Grace is doing. Can't we just ban her and end this embarrassment?

Being an idiot is unfortunately not against the rules. But since Grace here have the IQ and MO of a spambot.. Do you know what we do to spammers on this site, Grace? Hmmm, do you?

EDIT: Oh, and I would wish for you to answer the simplest question in all of your threads, which has not been addressed yet. What is your education?

(October 4, 2013 at 5:15 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 4:57 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Miller-Yurey experiment produced a few amino acids. They are not living things. No one claims that.

Also the experiment was controlled by an intelligent scientist.

No abiogenesis there.

No it wasn't controlled at all; that was the whole point. They set up essentially a reconstruction based on what was known of the primitive Earth atmospheric conditions, then let the experiment run itself. Any outside interference would totally invalidate the test.

That they managed to produce any amino acids at all, totally spontaneously, is exactly the sort of thing you have been saying is impossible all along.

Now, you can do what you're going to and stick your fingers in your ears and scream "Baby Jesus make the bad thoughts go away!" but you won't change the facts.

There was something that made sparks. There was a trap to remove product as it was being made. The gasses used in the experiment were meant to produce product. Nobody knows what the gas composition of early earth was. That is just an assumption.

It was controlled.

I never said that amino acids could not be produced.

I said that they do not form long chains on their own of the order of 100,000 amino acids simultaneously.

Quote:I never said that amino acids could not be produced.

I said that they do not form long chains on their own of the order of 100,000 amino acids simultaneously.

Who ever said they did?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for one shred of evidence of Yahweh's existence.

(October 4, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

Quote:I never said that amino acids could not be produced.

I said that they do not form long chains on their own of the order of 100,000 amino acids simultaneously.

Who ever said they did?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for one shred of evidence of Yahweh's existence.

The life forms that you cannot explain where they came from.

(October 4, 2013 at 5:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: There was something that made sparks. There was a trap to remove product as it was being made. The gasses used in the experiment were meant to produce product. Nobody knows what the gas composition of early earth was. That is just an assumption.

An educated assumption. Not the same thing as a guess.

(October 4, 2013 at 5:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: It was controlled.

No it wasn't.

(October 4, 2013 at 5:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I never said that amino acids could not be produced.

I never said you did.

(October 4, 2013 at 5:22 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I said that they do not form long chains on their own of the order of 100,000 amino acids simultaneously.

I'm afraid they do form long chains all by themselves, but is the condition you set - in your lofty educated wisdom - of 100,000 simultaneous amino acids the only criterion for success? Remember, your original objection was that producing amino acids at all is impossible. How much further are you planning to shift these goalposts?

The fact remains: abiogenesis was accomplished in a lab. The building blocks of life were formed. Whether it was done in this fashion or some other in the distant past is anyone's guess, but it's a good way to show that a god is not a necessary component in producing the first sparks of life.

Seriously, I think I have to call poe on this one... no one is this willfully ignorant. I mean, really.

Until the OP answers two questions:

1. What type of education do you have?
2. What is a "kind"?

... I think we should completely ignore him/her. It's too infuriating otherwise, don't you think?