(April 30, 2010 at 11:43 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter.

Wrong, I saw a documentary sometime ago stating clearly that scientists have managed to isolate amino acids which were produced completely spontaneously under certain cuircumstances, which include both heat and electricity as well as basic elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

Don't waste your time with facts on Angel. He is impervious to them.

He filters everything through his big book of iron age fairy tales.

(June 21, 2010 at 4:28 pm)YellerMetal Wrote:

(April 30, 2010 at 11:43 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter.

Wrong, I saw a documentary sometime ago stating clearly that scientists have managed to isolate amino acids which were produced completely spontaneously under certain cuircumstances, which include both heat and electricity as well as basic elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

The fact is that spontaneous formation of amino acids itself is not producing life out of inanimate matter (unless you have a really loose definition of the word "life", e.g. one where amino acids = life). It may very well be evidence that leads you to the conclusion that abiogenesis is possible but it does not necessitate such a conclusion (at least in my opinion) or establish that abiogenesis happens/happened.

(June 21, 2010 at 4:55 pm)rjh4 Wrote: The fact is that spontaneous formation of amino acids itself is not producing life out of inanimate matter (unless you have a really loose definition of the word "life", e.g. one where amino acids = life). It may very well be evidence that leads you to the conclusion that abiogenesis is possible but it does not necessitate such a conclusion (at least in my opinion) or establish that abiogenesis happens/happened.

True. But I do find the idea of abiogenesis infinitely more plausible than the notion of an invisible being creating the universe out of nothing by willing it all into existence.

Hi Angel,

I've searched the internet for some faith-based entities that are described as being full of mysteries which will be revealed later, since that is your thing. But after an extensive 2 hour search I abandonned the task for the simple reason that I cannot begin to catalogue all the shit that is provided in this category on the net for free. I mean, Xenu, Saturnians, goblins, garden fairies, some +20.000 gods, +100.000 demi gods, sasquatch, bigfoot, small ass pygmees speaking in tongues, voodoo dolls, genetical engineers from the ape planet, poltergeists, shamans and the loch ness monster are just the tip of the shitload you must take in on a daily basis to keep up with mystery.

Well, keep up the good work, but don't count me in.

I hope AngelThMan's claim that atheists consider Richard Dawkins 'a god' is meant to be taken lightly as among atheists.

---

(June 21, 2010 at 4:28 pm)YellerMetal Wrote:

(April 30, 2010 at 11:43 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter.

Wrong, I saw a documentary sometime ago stating clearly that scientists have managed to isolate amino acids which were produced completely spontaneously under certain cuircumstances, which include both heat and electricity as well as basic elements like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

His clarifier is worst: inanimate. All matter is in motion. Have a little more faith in humanity AngelThMan, just think "internet was just invented 20 years ago." Having faith in science, in my opinion, has a more to do with having faith that humanity will continue to progress technologically and in our understanding of the universe.

(June 20, 2010 at 11:08 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Purple Rabbit Wrote:Religious believers...
- They wanna know NOW...

Ironically, I think it is atheists who wanna know NOW. They need to have evidence of God NOW, or they won't believe, nevermind that God is faith-based and is described as a being full of mysteries which will be revealed later. Atheists need to have those mysteries solved right NOW, and need to understand everything right NOW, and have proof right NOW, or they'll deny the existence of God.

You do know just how big of an idiot you sound right now don't you?

You don't have evidence for the existence of the FSM right NOW, but he is a faith-based concept and full of mysteries, so using your own methodology i would be justified in believing in him, and so would you. That is just plain stupid.

If you can't prove there is a God i'm not going to believe in it, it is as simple as that. Having faith that something exists when you have absolutely no rational reasoning behind that conclusion is completely idiotic, i refuse to partake in your fruitless little crusade against reason.

Also, we aren't the ones who are so uncomfortable with admitting that we simply don't know what happened before inflation or any other big question that we simply pick the most convenient answer and stick to it. I would much rather admit i do not know the answer to a question that to be so intellectually spineless that i insist on the existence of "Magic Man" just to satisfy my own urge for conclusion.

(June 21, 2010 at 6:51 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I hope AngelThMan's claim that atheists consider Richard Dawkins 'a god' is meant to be taken lightly as among atheists.

---

He's our knight of science in a lab coat

(June 21, 2010 at 5:09 pm)Thor Wrote: True. But I do find the idea of abiogenesis infinitely more plausible than the notion of an invisible being creating the universe out of nothing by willing it all into existence.

Yeah...I figured that. After all you are an atheist. What I would like to know, if you feel like sharing, why do you find it infinitely more plausible? What is your standard for determining what is plausible and what is not?

(June 22, 2010 at 9:24 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(June 21, 2010 at 5:09 pm)Thor Wrote: True. But I do find the idea of abiogenesis infinitely more plausible than the notion of an invisible being creating the universe out of nothing by willing it all into existence.

Yeah...I figured that. After all you are an atheist. What I would like to know, if you feel like sharing, why do you find it infinitely more plausible? What is your standard for determining what is plausible and what is not?

Not to pre-empt thor's reply rjh4 but it would think it is obvious....plausibility is devoid of a 'skydaddy' getting blamed for everything.