tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4676910579685799698..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: The Greatest SinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36535147440913810022009-08-24T11:02:46.096-05:002009-08-24T11:02:46.096-05:00Clarification: I'm not saying Zach should shut...Clarification: I'm not saying Zach should shut up and not post, that'd be totally out of line. I'm saying he should continue posting but stay on topic, or at least put a good faith effort to.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43235620841940160232009-08-24T11:00:12.529-05:002009-08-24T11:00:12.529-05:00"I'm not yet entirely convinced he's ..."I'm not yet entirely convinced he's not a troll of some kind ;). His arguments seem rather boilerplate to me with not a lot of thought behind them (Ray Comfort-esque as has been noted)..."<br /><br />Oh no I think he is genuine, but his whole point of coming here is, "I IZ GOING TO DEBUNKZ U!!!11!!" and he goes off on way off topic tangents to do so. This thread is on the inherent WTF of Hell, he's spun it off on evolution....then abiogenesis...etc. His whole shtick has been "I can disprove you but come to my site!" And yeah; that's getting dangerously close to spamming. Imagine if we went to random blogs and started harassing Christians encouraging them to read the AE blog while derailing their praising of Jesus and all. That's completely out of line.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51340538092546486682009-08-24T09:37:59.998-05:002009-08-24T09:37:59.998-05:00"Seriously though, Zach, stop cluttering up t..."Seriously though, Zach, stop cluttering up the thread with off topic."<br /><br />I'm not yet entirely convinced he's not a troll of some kind ;). His arguments seem rather boilerplate to me with not a lot of thought behind them (Ray Comfort-esque as has been noted)...<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74329213243183657622009-08-24T08:35:16.810-05:002009-08-24T08:35:16.810-05:00"I read your reasons as to why this does not ..."I read your reasons as to why this does not disprove abiogenesis, but it seems to me until the generation of something living is observed your theories are no more credible than creation."<br /><br />At least you're admitting that your position - creationism - has equivalent credibility to the position you don't accept.<br /><br />Even if abiogenesis were a completely bankrupt avenue of investigation (which the other guys have shown already that it is not) your strategy here of equating your position with it doesn't provide any support for it.<br /><br />The choice of which one to "believe" is completely arbitrary.<br /><br />This, BTW, is the crux of the difference between the approaches religion and science take to the truth (revelation vs. investigation).<br /><br />But critically:<br />a) it is not true that creationism and abiogenesis are equivalent in terms of basis in evidence (as others are showing you here).<br /><br />b) this strategy would NOT support your position in any case.<br /><br />Your task, again, is to demonstrate the truth value of _your_ assertion - there's a god, it created everything, the bible is his revealed word, etc. <br /><br />So again - produce your god and your evidence that your holy book is his/her/its revealed word.<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17486753943855913922009-08-24T07:59:49.648-05:002009-08-24T07:59:49.648-05:00"You caught me. Yes I am trying to legitimize..."You caught me. Yes I am trying to legitimize the likelihood of my belief by discrediting yours. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Besides, I’m not getting much backup,"<br /><br />Well as you probably know by now, that's the wrong way to support your position.<br /><br />As I said, we're not the ones making the claims about the existence of your god, you are. <br /><br />We are discrediting the arguments you've put forth so far, but you still havn't presented your god, or your evidence that the bible is his/her/its revealed word.<br /><br />So your task of doing that remains.<br /><br /><br />"1. Atheism takes as much faith as Christianity."<br /><br />Wrong. Atheism asserts no beliefs. When we talk about "belief" and knowledge, we're centrally concerned only with knowledge that is in evidence. Belief and knowledge are NOT equivalent in atheist thought.<br />Christianity _does_ assert beliefs and equates them knowledge all the time regardless of their basis in evidence.<br /><br />"2. Science and the reactions to the findings of scientist are based on preconceived notions."<br /><br />Rather, scientific inquiry may start with a notion of what a reality might be (a hypothesis) but has no particular devotion to the truth value of that notion. If observation overturns it, scientists will abandon the notion and adopt another notion more aligned with the observations (a theory).<br />Relgion does neither of these. It starts and ends with the notion in the mind and never amends that notion regardless of evidence for or against it.<br /><br />As Matt D. said on the last show, science seeks out knowledge, but relgion merely asserts it.<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71135162323395329332009-08-24T01:05:17.589-05:002009-08-24T01:05:17.589-05:00It also amuses me a lot that Zach's arguments ...It also amuses me a lot that Zach's arguments mimic the Vitalism arguments proposed that denied organic chemistry was science. Look into it if you want, it's an interesting look at the early ancestry of creationism. <br /><br />Seriously though, Zach, stop cluttering up the thread with off topic.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89613913076280223542009-08-24T01:02:57.353-05:002009-08-24T01:02:57.353-05:00Everyone else responded adaquetly to Zach. Which ...Everyone else responded adaquetly to Zach. Which really was the whole point of engaging him, get him to keep digging himself a hole until it's clear he has no leg to stand on. Effectively all he can do to "save us" is throw a hissy fit that we won't believe him.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6860315562153021372009-08-23T23:54:12.385-05:002009-08-23T23:54:12.385-05:00"Atheism takes as much faith as Christianity....<b>"Atheism takes as much faith as Christianity."</b><br />Prove it. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Lacking belief is not the same as denial. If I told you that I traveled to Canada over the weekend, the best that you could do is take my word for it (i.e. "blind faith"). Otherwise you would simply not believe me because you have no reason (no evidence) to make a confident conclusion about whether I am telling the truth. That is certainly not the same as asserting that I made no such trip. Atheists may also deny the existence of certain definitions of God, but that is because those definitions are logically incoherent or impossible. One does not need faith to deny the existence of a circle that has linear sides.<br /><br /><b>"Science and the reactions to the findings of scientist are based on preconceived notions."</b><br />There are only two "preconceived notions" at the heart of the scientific method:<br />1) Assume that any observable phenomenon has a completely naturalistic explanation. This is known to as methodological naturalism. It does not rule out the possibility of supernatural explanations; it's merely a method of operation that has been proven reliable. Without it, we would invite all sorts of crazy explanations like demons being responsible for the attractive force that two masses have on each other ("gravity"). Yes, demons could be responsible, but why accept, without question, that they are? If you can't find your keys tomorrow morning, would you automatically resort to a supernatural explanation (e.g. ghosts moved them)?<br />2) Assume that one's scientific conclusions and theories could be wrong and could eventually be proven wrong. Unlike religion and other supernatural belief systems, science thrives on skepticism and dissent. Evolution is arguably the most empirically well-supported theory or law ever. But if future discoveries somehow manage to overturn that overwhelming body of evidence, scientists and we atheists and "evolutionists" would immediately abandon the theory.Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64742346339499092792009-08-23T23:52:01.279-05:002009-08-23T23:52:01.279-05:00Zach is intellectually dishonest, so I hope that t...Zach is intellectually dishonest, so I hope that this will be my last response (though I might not be able to help myself later).<br /><br /><b>"Soooo…still no creation of life through abiogenesis experiments, right?"</b><br />So far, there have not been any experiments that have spontaneously created cells. But this statements has a few caveats:<br />a) Protobionts, which are considered to be possible precursors to cells, have been spontaneously created in an experiment by Sidney Fox of the University of Miami. As the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protobiont" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia article states,</a> "protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction, metabolism and excitability, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings."<br />b) If/when we are able to spontaneously generate more advanced protocells from non-living matter, the process of evolution would need to occur before they become actual cells. The evidence so far indicates that we can possibly create life (cells) from non-life under conditions very similar to early Earth, but we just haven't done so yet for any number of reasons. That is not grounds to dismiss abiogenesis.<br />c) We do not know the exact conditions under which life would've spontaneously arisen billions of years ago. And even if we did know, we might not be able to reproduce those conditions with absolute precision in the lab.<br /><br /><b>"I read your reasons as to why this does not disprove abiogenesis, but it seems to me until the generation of something living is observed your theories are no more credible than creation."</b><br />Creationism requires positing the existence of a supernatural being with certain supernatural powers. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of any supernatural beings (not just gods), nor is there empirical evidence for magical creation powers. Supposing that they exist doesn't make for a reasonable hypothesis. I could equally suppose the existence of an invisible pink unicorn that intervenes in worldly affairs, but that is no less a reasonable hypothesis than the creator-god one. On the other hand, there is empirical evidence, which has been cited above, demonstrating that protocells can spontaneously form from spontaneously generated organic compounds. And those protocells can evolve into cells. That makes abiogenesis hypotheses infinitely more credible than creationism.<br /><br /><b>"Aren’t the conditions set all over the world all the time? Why don’t we see life constantly springing up from nothingness?"</b><br />Where did you get this assumption? The answer to the first question is no. The planet is a much different place now than it was billions of years ago. The initial conditions that caused abiogenesis no longer exist. That's why we don't see abiogenesis all the time today.Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85822024530611847102009-08-23T23:43:02.811-05:002009-08-23T23:43:02.811-05:00"2. Science and the reactions to the findings..."2. Science and the reactions to the findings of scientist are based on preconceived notions."<br /><br /><b>You are done.</b> This is the ultimate proof that you are completely ignorant of science. Preconceived notions? Seriously man, what the fuck. Have you ever read a science book? There are many scientific theories that existed for centuries that have been completely scrapped and replaced with better, more accurate ones. Take for example Newtonian physics. It worked well for several decades, and then Einstein came along with his theory of relativity and showed that Newtonian mechanics was completely incorrect (it just happened to seem to work in our world because we don't live in "extremes" of high speed, gravity, size, etc). But I'm not going to even try and teach you why you are wrong, because its obvious you don't give a shit whether or not you are wrong. You only care about trying to find whatever scraps of "evidence" you can to prop up your own preconceived notions of "reality". And that's what I find truly sad about you.<br /><br /><br />There's a comic panel I once saw relevant to this point. I couldn't find it, but basically it goes as follows.<br /><br />Panel 1:<br /><br />Scientist: "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from it?"<br /><br />Panel 2:<br /><br />Theologian: "Here are the conclusions. What facts can we find to support them?"<br /><br /><br />Do you realize which method of truth discovery is wrong?<br /><br />-----<br /><br />By the way Zach, I thought your purpose in coming here was to try and "save" us non-believers from the eternal torment of hell? (Paradoxically, the one who will condemn us to and torture us in hell is none other than your god, which you want us to worship). Well guess what? <b>You are failing miserably.</b> All that you are doing now is trying to say things that make yourself feel comfortable and increase your gullibility, which you refer to as your "faith". Honestly, I have a strong suspicion now that this was your motivation from the very beginning. (If I'm right, then screw you). I'm beginning to regret giving you the benefit of the doubt and initially assuming you were an intelligent, thoughtful, and caring human being. Honestly, now you are just coming off as an ignorant asshole as you keep making blanket assertions and rejecting everything that contradicts what you have already been preconditioned to believe is true with no real support behind the reason for your rejections.<br /><br /><br />Look, it should be obvious now that the only thing that is going to convince anyone here that your god is real and that your religion is correct is cold, hard evidence. This type of evidence never comes from religious leaders, and quite frankly I don't trust any theologian because every one I've listened to just tried to feed me false information (much like you like to think that rabbis feed their Jewish followers false information about Jesus). Do not rely on emotion to convince us. Or faith. Or some bullshit, idiotic reasoning by a zealot for why the mountains of evidence that we do have for many of our scientific truths, including evolution, are invalid. If you can't produce the kind of evidence that we require, then you are done talking to us.Tyler Olsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02266867686223090208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57701102344477644202009-08-23T20:57:28.487-05:002009-08-23T20:57:28.487-05:00Ls,
You caught me. Yes I am trying to legitimize...Ls,<br /><br />You caught me. Yes I am trying to legitimize the likelihood of my belief by discrediting yours. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Besides, I’m not getting much backup, I have to attack from different angles to make myself seem bigger. ;) That’s the first time I’ve ever used the semicolon smiley thing.<br /><br />Ing,<br /><br />"Does this mean that a living organism was created?"<br /><br />"No, but..."<br /><br />I looked up the Miller-Urey experiment.<br />At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.<br /><br />Soooo…still no creation of life through abiogenesis experiments, right? I read your reasons as to why this does not disprove abiogenesis, but it seems to me until the generation of something living is observed your theories are no more credible than creation. Aren’t the conditions set all over the world all the time? Why don’t we see life constantly springing up from nothingness? <br /><br /><br />What am I getting at? Two things.<br /><br />1. Atheism takes as much faith as Christianity.<br /><br />2. Science and the reactions to the findings of scientist are based on preconceived notions.Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14319325584799416205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44994254364775801692009-08-23T13:15:41.019-05:002009-08-23T13:15:41.019-05:00People, go to his blog.
I have already recommende...People, go to his blog.<br /><br />I have already recommended talkorigins to him when he asked there the old "where are the transitional fossils?". I linked to the exact page dealing with this issue, to which he responded, "I read it and it doesn't show anything". Seriously.<br /><br />He's now on a crusade to debunk evolution, posting whatever youtube videos he finds with evolution experts (!!!!!1!) talking about how evolution is wrong.<br /><br />I and others have had it with this guy and I'm warning you right away: you're wasting your time. He's almost a Ray Comfort-type of Christian. He will reject whatever you say, because he's not interested in debating.<br /><br />Believe me, we wrote entire books commenting on his blog and he avoided responding most of them. Worst, he would post another entry and completely ignore everything we said.<br /><br />Like I said there, he's quick to dismiss evolution based on "lack of evidence", but he literally believes in a 2,000 years old book. I wonder where he found the evidence for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses or the creation-week itself.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11274422963713833294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82431729754588616942009-08-23T11:02:16.776-05:002009-08-23T11:02:16.776-05:00"His source is "everyone."
From m..."His source is "everyone." <br /><br />From my minor classes in writing and communication I've observed that when someone says "Everyone" in that context they really mean "About one other person"Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26887194682150188692009-08-23T10:54:31.259-05:002009-08-23T10:54:31.259-05:00Weren't you paying attention, ydgmdlu? His so...Weren't you paying attention, ydgmdlu? His source is "everyone." Duh!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8880845636579633332009-08-23T09:05:11.223-05:002009-08-23T09:05:11.223-05:00I'll bet that Zach is lying about his supposed...I'll bet that Zach is lying about his supposed research into abiogenesis. I think that he's expecting us to take him at his word that the only evidence that he could find debunked any abiogenesis hypotheses. That's how he could make such a bold (and outrageous) assertion without bothering to cite his sources.Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91908577242797538652009-08-23T06:40:59.799-05:002009-08-23T06:40:59.799-05:00The idea that science and knowledge in general, in...The idea that science and knowledge in general, incarnated very well in the evolution phobia, is a moral issue fascinates me. This is a great example of thought crime. To people like Zach, believing evolution over creation puts your soul in jeporady. Knoweldge (or in their POV the "wrong" knowledge) is bad, currupting, sinful. It's clear to most people that this is a great system for keeping people/peasents ignorant and their minds enslaved. Zach's insane notion that "if i can disprove evil evolution than they'll have god proven to them" illustrates this bizarre dichotomy between knowledge and faith. This system is great for the person in charge of the religion as he has plenty of loyal saps, but clearly detrimental to people like Zach who have had their fundamental mental processes retarded and arrested by the fear of heresy. He can't even consider evolution seriously as he's already convinced it is bad to accept evolution. Even if he found the evidence convincing his mind has to convince him it's not convincing least he put his soul in danger.<br /><br />Fascinating.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44056926668747432902009-08-23T06:25:40.817-05:002009-08-23T06:25:40.817-05:00"Does this mean that a living organism was cr..."Does this mean that a living organism was created?"<br /><br />No, but it means the potential for a living organism was created (to steal pro-life terms). Chemically this is the equivalent of creating an embryo instead of a full human. Once these building blocks are present they naturally arrange into coplex forms and shapes which can lead to life. <br /><br />There are several reasons why the lack of actually creating life does not disprove abiogenesis<br /><br />a) Time: without an enzyme many processes in the human body take hundreds to thousands of years. Enzymes increase chemical reactions by many many fold. There is no enzyme for abiogenesis (obviously there were no proteins). Thus is is not outrageous to note that the chemical process to create life is spontaneous (chemically) but goes to completion on a geological time scale. <br />b) life is chemically an electric gradient created largely by imbalances of Na and K as well as other ions such as Cl. The difference between a living cell and one that is irreparably dead is this gradient. Once this state is lost the cell's mater can be classified as inanimate. It is though very possible to make this gradient yourself using an artificial membrane and some salts. However, this 'life' would lack the ability to self regulate. But in the most literal sense, yes we can create life.<br />c) I'm going to go as far as to say, that yes. The experiments that created long strands (about 70 monomers) of proteins and self replicating RNA, did create the simplest precursors of life that it is not that big a stretch to say "yes they recreated abiogenesis"<br />d) Your question is based on technology level. It is perfectly possible to take a cell, lance is, and then reassemble it on the molecular level. However, that would require nano-tech beyond what we have today. however, this does not make it impossible. We lack the technology to go to Mars today, but that does not make it impossible to do. There is no vitialistic characteristic of life. If you destroyed a cell and put it back together identically to how it had been, it would be 'resurrected' <br /><br />"Ing,<br /><br />Everything objective that I can find says abiogenesis has been disproven."<br /><br />Everything you found is probably not much. Again, having taken the freaking class I'm offended you say "my google search on ask origins is better than your fancy smancy education". *raise middle finger* In this case you are wrong.<br /><br />"Have you actually seen it in action?"<br /><br />Did you see Jesus die and come back to life? Did you see the abiogenesis of dirt --> Adam? Not to be too defensive, the answer is, yes science has observed the Miller-Urey experiment AND the plethora of other fine work that verified it and expanded on it. <br /><br />Look, it's obvious you don't know enough about the subject to "single handily debunk it" so drop the act. Everyone's been MORE than kind to you, even I the curmudgeonly snarker that I am have tried to play along and be civil, largely since abiogenesis is a topic I find very interesting due to it's epic scale.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-836915794386999822009-08-23T05:30:37.703-05:002009-08-23T05:30:37.703-05:00"Everything objective that I can find says ab..."Everything objective that I can find says abiogenesis has been disproven.<br /><br />Have you actually seen it in action?"<br /><br />Remember guys - Zach is the one making claims about the origin of life (his god did it), not us. <br /><br />Beware the shifting of the burden of proof here.<br /><br />A better response might be something along the lines of:<br /><br />"Has anyone ever observed a god creating life out of nothing?" or "Demonstrate the actions of your god underlying the diversity and evolution of life". <br /><br />This is the theist claim and the theists need to defend it.<br /><br />Otherwise, it's quite right that <br /><br />- we have pretty good knowledge about how life has proceeded since it began.<br /><br />- evolution is established fact because we can observe it and its affects in action.<br /><br />So we're right to correct Zach on these points.<br /><br />But lets not get distracted - he needs to support his position because he's the one making claims to knowledge about the origin of life, not us.<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41358716576208183582009-08-23T04:04:50.282-05:002009-08-23T04:04:50.282-05:00Also, please read the Wikipedia articles on abioge...Also, please read the Wikipedia articles on abiogenesis and the Miller-Urey experiment for overviews on the topic:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment<br /><br />I personally believe that the reason why many theists reject the idea that life can spontaneously arise from non-life without the intervention of a supernatural entity is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what "life" is. Remember that a single-cell organism is alive. A cell is merely a collection of organic structures (where "organic" refers to the chemical make-up). The functions and behaviors of the cell natural consequences of their composition and form. Their composition and form arose naturally out of chemical evolution. The "creation" of these living things is no more supernatural than that of a waterfall: It's the expected result of the coincidental combination of certain conditions, forces, and substances.<br /><br />Over time, microorganisms evolved into more complex organisms, and after billions of years, mankind was born. Life from non-life, there you have it. There's no magic in it.Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78323878820914258162009-08-23T03:37:43.833-05:002009-08-23T03:37:43.833-05:00Zach:
I can disprove the existence of air. It'...Zach:<br /><br />I can disprove the existence of air. It's not something that either of us can see, is it?<br /><br />I can disprove the notion that your family loves you. You don't have direct knowledge of how they actually feel, only their words and actions. How do you know that those words and actions are not part of an elaborate deception intended as a set-up for some great sadistic act against you someday?<br /><br />I can disprove the notion that Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews. You didn't witness him do it, so how would you know?<br /><br />I can disprove the words, teachings, miracles, and perhaps even the very existence of Jesus. You weren't alive when he supposedly was; you didn't hear his words with your own ears; you didn't see his miracles with your own eyes. So much for Jesus.<br /><br />Here's an idea that I'm sure that you'll approve: Let's release every convicted rapist and murder whose trial evidence did not include eyewitness testimonies to the alleged crimes.<br /><br />Honestly, though you try to be civil and articulate, your posts have not made a good case for your intelligence. So please show us your objective evidence that "disproves abiogenesis."Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68100871703829434772009-08-23T02:00:01.194-05:002009-08-23T02:00:01.194-05:00Ing,
Everything objective that I can find says ab...Ing,<br /><br />Everything objective that I can find says abiogenesis has been disproven. <br /><br />Have you actually seen it in action?Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14319325584799416205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18322645692175822632009-08-23T01:20:36.080-05:002009-08-23T01:20:36.080-05:00@ Ing
"Such experiments showed that even rel...@ Ing<br /><br />"Such experiments showed that even relatively long polymers assemble themselves! (protein chain of 70 monomers if I'm remembering right)." <br /><br />Does this mean that a living organism was created?Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14319325584799416205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24991224681379983142009-08-22T20:26:45.248-05:002009-08-22T20:26:45.248-05:00Yes evolution is nonsense...but animating a clay f...Yes evolution is nonsense...but animating a clay figure and then making a rule 62 clone out of his rib makes PERFECT sense. mean...yeah it's obviousInghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39200879185849432532009-08-22T19:13:09.273-05:002009-08-22T19:13:09.273-05:00"I have actually read a lot since no one can ..."I have actually read a lot since no one can seem to tell me in their own words how we evolved from non-living matter or why we can't prove evolution by the fossil record. I wrote some about it on my blog if you care to check it out.<br /><br />The whole process has actually increased my faith in Jesus by seeing what nonsense evolution really is."<br /><br />Not sure what you were reading, but if it led you to these conclusions it was almost certainly bunk. <br /><br />In addition to what the other guys provided, more good information specifically about evolution and biology can be found here:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/<br /><br />Again, it's probable that you'll run across the ideas you hold now and find them addressed there.<br /><br />LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34618611659566625032009-08-22T15:20:10.340-05:002009-08-22T15:20:10.340-05:00Also why the fuck would you even need to tell peop...Also why the fuck would you even need to tell people wandering around a desert not to eat shellfish?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.com