Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[The Grand Nudger]

oh sorry here's a quote from your source
"when Alexander Oparin reasoned that atmospheric oxygen prevents the synthesis of certain organic compounds that are necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. In his The Origin of Life,[18][19] Oparin proposed that the "spontaneous generation of life" that had been attacked by Louis Pasteur did in fact occur once, but was now impossible because the conditions found on the early earth had changed,"

this is wrong on so many levels idk where to begin. well first off the point where you, rhythm, daid my spontaneous generation statement was total bs and mistaking it as spontaneous REgeneration was unjustified as it is listed right here. spontaneous generation is life coming from nonliving material

Perhaps you should reread your own posts, reread the link I gave you, and stop being a twat about typos. I made no mistake about spontaneous generation, I misplaced a letter. You're still misrepresenting the (discredited) theory of spontaneous generation. Here, I'll just copy paste, since you can't be bothered to read, obviously.

"Until the early 19th century, people generally believed in the ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter. This was paired with the belief in heterogenesis, e.g. that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g. bees from flowers).[10] Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on."

I italicized the important bits, and bolded the bits which you seem to be completely ignorant of in your explanation of these theories. Feel free to apologize and retract your garbage misrepresentation whenever it's most convenient for you.

It's not life from non-life that has been discredited by experimentation, it's the rather large body of beliefs that have nothing to do with life from non-life (ongoing, aphids from dew, flies from rotting matter, mice from dirty hay etc). The reason that abiogenesis is accepted as a viable theory for our origins is that we actually do know that this is possible given the right circumstances. It's chemistry, not some cosmic mystery. We have good reason to believe that those circumstances were met at the dawn of life.

and has never been observed and Alexander Oparin reasoned, b/c it does not occure it must not be possible in our current atmosphere. that's bassically saying it must be possible since God is stupid so lets just say our atsmophere did not have oxygen when it developed. does that really sound like science?

No, anytime one invokes god, even to call him a moron, it isn't science. It's usually just a criticism of the god concept being offered by the faithful. Of course that's not what's being said here at all. What's actually being said is that life and time has had a profound effect on the environment, this we know for fact. Under current conditions abiogenesis does not seem to be very plausible, because a massive amount of toxins have been released into the air by all of this life since it began. Toxins which we depend on, but would have made early lifeforms existence a living hell. I've explained this to you pages ago.

the only reason to believe the early earth's atsmophere was methane based and not oxygen based is b/c spontaneous generation cannot occure in an oxygen based atmosphere.

Is that the only reason? LOL. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, or what forms of life we find at the earliest points in it's history, do you? What you need to do is use your connection to the interwebs for something other than arguing for abject ignorance. Google "autotroph", and "oxygen budget", then get back to me. Earths current levels of oxygen are a direct product of life, and oxygen is constantly escaping this planet because we are unable to hold it down. That's why it's unlikely that earths early atmosphere was loaded with oxygen. There was no life to produce it en mass, and earth is not the sort of planet that holds onto oxygen very well. That's twice I've explained this to you now, as I mentioned above. If you're just going to ignore me and repeat yourself tell me now and I won't waste any more time on you. None of this helps me, it's old hat, you're the one that's coming off like a complete mouth breather and you could avoid that if you educated yourself.

not to mention w/o oxygen there's no ozone and nothing to protect amonia from harmful radiation that would be blocked by the ozone layer which it cannot evolve. and many things in that predicted atmosphere are toxic to life. hmmm.... not to mention the experiment only produced 2 of the amino acids and they wouldn't even bond b/c of the eliments. amino acids unbond in water faster than they bond and most of earth is filled of water.

Some fucking design indeed.......

in the experiment they filtered out the product which is not realistic at all. and not to mention brawnian motion is going to drive the amino acids away from eachother not put them together.

You're always free to submit all of this to a peer reviewed journal, or devise an experiment that would call these theories into question as potential explanations. Thing is, "i don't know so goddidit" isn't going to fly. It's utter bullshit, and it can never be made science, no matter how much you complain about actual science.

[chi pan]

"I italicized the important bits, and bolded the bits which you seem to be completely ignorant of in your explanation of these theories. Feel free to apologize and retract your garbage misrepresentation whenever it's most convenient for you."

ok sorry for mistaking your typo for a misunderstanding of what i said but i still represented the theory quite well. i mentioned the theory of common thought that fly's arise from dead meat as listed in your wika quote and stated that if life cannot form from organic matter that is already assembled how much more likely is it to form from completely unconstructed raw materials by itself? and like usual you state i just don't understand the theory when it's not the theory i don't understand but the guessed process of the origin of life.

"It's not life from non-life that has been discredited by experimentation, it's the rather large body of beliefs that have nothing to do with life from non-life (ongoing, aphids from dew, flies from rotting matter, mice from dirty hay etc)."

last i checked Aristotle was in fact a scientist so i don't see where your statement applies. to say this was not thought to be science is to say Democritus' theory of the atom was not scientific. the only difference is that Democritus was right (sort of) and Aristotle was wrong. and not to mention people considered Aristotle's opinions very important at the time.

"No, anytime one invokes god, even to call him a moron, it isn't science"

sure i agree with that, but it is scientific to say things look like they were designed, just not scientific to name the designer. really i think there shouldn't be evolution or creation theories in public school except evolution that has been directly observed none of the speculation or connect the dots with widely spaced gaps sort of thing.

"What you need to do is use your connection to the interwebs for something other than arguing for abject ignorance. Google "autotroph", and "oxygen budget", then get back to me."

well what i found was a big thing on aquarium life saying all organism's need oxygen in order to survive. i know this is not exactly true b/c plants need CO2 in order to survive and oxygen but the oxygen they need can be durived from the CO2. and i know what an autotroph is. i'm just throwing out a guess that it's thought that archaeabacteria were the first organism's however they produce methane and i don't see how that can fill the atmosphere with oxygen. and on top of that why are there no 2 celled organisms? if single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms that does seam like the logical next step.

"not to mention w/o oxygen there's no ozone and nothing to protect amonia from harmful radiation that would be blocked by the ozone layer which it cannot evolve"

sorry this is a quote from myself and i meant to say organisms cannot evolve being exposed to the harmful radiation. my bad

"It's utter bullshit, and it can never be made science, no matter how much you complain about actual science."

i can say the same for evolution. evolution has always been scientists observing something in nature and making a claim blowing the observation way out of proportion. example: evolution started when Darwin went to the galapagos and observed 12 different kinds of finches and concluded that they must have had a common ancestor. well, i concur, they probably did have a common ancestor and it was a bird. then he later published something claiming all animals and plants have a common ancestor. WHAT? that's a bit of a jump isn't it? you get this from finches? just b/c kinds of animals can develope doesn't mean we are related to the bannana. and from my understanding there has never been an observed change in the species of an animal (not including wolves and dog's b/c they can interbreed) and in fact when you take those animals of different species and try to breed them you get hybrids such as mules that cannot reproduce (again excluding wolf dog hybrids).

---

"That would be "observe" and it was true in Aristotle's day but by the 17th century science had moved on."

yes i caught that mistake and tried to correct it before it was caught but i guess i was too late

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, you can say anything you like, and obviously you do. I don't see any reason to continue having this discussion with you. I think you've exhausted the talking points that were provided to you because there doesn't seem to be anything left here but repetition. It's a waste of my time and yours. If you're genuinely interested in these subjects any information you might want is one click of a button away on the web. Good luck.

[KichigaiNeko]

*yawn chimp give it up.

Agree with you Rhythm

[chi pan]

"Look, you can say anything you like, and obviously you do. I don't see any reason to continue having this discussion with you. I think you've exhausted the talking points that were provided to you because there doesn't seem to be anything left here but repetition. It's a waste of my time and yours. If you're genuinely interested in these subjects any information you might want is one click of a button away on the web. Good luck."

well it appears to be what you're saying right now. the only thing i repeated in my last comment was about the "but it is scientific to say things look like they were designed, just not scientific to name the designer" part which was b/c you also repeated the part saying mentioning god is not scientific i also repeated that part which was not refuted and it's a fact. it's scientific to say the piramids were most likely built as well as it is to say life looks like it was designed but we don't exactly know by what. everything else i said was. it seams as if your the one who is closed minded. i have looked at your sources but it seams you did not even glance at the videos i posted. i came with the intent to learn but you just want to act better than me disreguarding valid points i have. i feel that if God went to your house and turned your couch to gold you still wouldn't believe it. it's very common for athiests to say to creationists no matter what their credentionals that they "do not understand science and are stuck to their old fashioned beliefs worshiping something that doesn't exist." it seams this forum is full of that therefore i too conclude this is going nowhere. beleive what you want, i never cared about that but evolution is not science. when you make a hypothesis and build another hypothesis on top of that w/o proving the first that is clearly not science. you cannot guess the second w/o proving the first.

[The Grand Nudger]

If god came to my house and turned my couch into gold, I would not require any belief. I still wouldn't drop to my knees, and I'd be more than a little pissed about my couch. Pillows, comfortable....slab of metal..not so much.

[chi pan]

wow you sure knoow how to take a good thing and turn it into a catastrophe. no wonder why you don't believe in God. i'm just gonna leave it at that.

[The Grand Nudger]

A good thing? Sure, lol. Firstly, it would be difficult to imagine anything worse than discovering that the fairy I've always regarded as the ultimate expression of capriciousness coupled with malice actually existed, and was god. The trouble with your analogy is that this "gift" is as poorly thought out as "god". Clearly neither you nor god (if god would do such a thing) has any idea what a "good thing" is, (and why does it seem as though it always somehow defaults to wealth and riches?). What would I do with that golden couch? Go deposit it in a vault somewhere? Sell it to some buyer who wouldn't ask me where I got it, alert the authorities, or call the padded wagon when I told him it was given to me by god? I'd have agents of our government shoved so far up my ass trying to figure out where the fucking golden couch came from that it would be a literal living hell. Why would I accept a gift from such a creature in the first place? If I was in the habit of accepting large amounts of wealth from malevolent entities I'd be in the money laundering business, which I am not. This is no "good thing" that god might do, and you never took the time to think it through. If you did take the time to think things through, little things like this couch, or big things like god claims, you might be able to offer an effective analogy, or a competent argument. Nonetheless that's what sprung to mind when you went groping in the dark for an intelligent thought wasn't it? The idea that god might just pop into someones living room and give him a pile of treasure. I wonder how many other christians have an internal narrative like this one?

You clearly have no idea why I don't believe in god. I can sum it up in a single word. Evidence. Whether or not I believe in god has absolutely nothing to do with how I would react if god were a reality, instead of this childish fantasy you've presented. Let me repeat this, because I think you need to hear it again. If your god were real, I wouldn't worship it. I find the christian narrative of god repulsive. I could not bring myself to sing praises to your disgusting god, if only to save my "eternal soul", even if we stood face to face.

[KichigaiNeko]

Clearly neither you nor god (if god would do such a thing) has any idea what a "good thing" is, (and why does it seem as though it always somehow defaults to wealth and riches?).

Like all religious peoples everywhere...it comes down to slaves having money. They really don't believe the shit about wealth of spirit for one minute rhythm.

Eternally sing "praises to the lord" is something that only a slave would envisage is master wanting.

Pathetic really when you think about it.

[chi pan]

i was trying to keep is simple but i guess i can't do that here. of course wealth doesn't grant happieness the bible talks all about that. it says things like it's easier to fit a cammel through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of heaven. i proposed wealth b/c that most equates to happieness to most humans. you cannot stereotype all christians that way. everything on this earth cannot grant happieness, that's why it has to come from somewhere else. as i've been told, we all have a God shaped hole inside ourselves. God normally does not treat wealth as a gift, but a responsibility. like david was a shepard but God made him king, not as a gift, but so he could do his will to lead his people. blessed are the poor for greater are their rewards in the kingdom of heaven. so yes, rich does not equal happieness, but i don't think you know what does so i choose the most common view. and putting slavery on christians just dirty. during the civil war was the north athiests and the south christians? no, both were mostly christians so don't give me that BS.