19 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…you have dismissed the very words of the originator of the experiment as being outdated when quite clearly i gave you a progressive chronological summation of the conclusions of eminent scientists,.…
look Andrew there are so many holes in these arguments that it makes black beetles socks look downright respectable, you have dismissed the very words of the originator of the experiment as being outdated when quite clearly i gave you a progressive chronological summation of the conclusions of eminent scientists, you have switched the location now fr ...[text shortened]... rgumentation, you have effectively switched the goal posts. alright so be it, the oceans it is!
What about the “eminent scientists” of modern times that have all the most up-to-date scientific facts available to them?
There must have once existed some “eminent scientists” that believed that the Earth was flat -does this mean it is scientific heresy to suggest the earth isn’t flat because of the up-to-date evidence that it is round?
The majority of “eminent scientists” in this modern era wouldn’t reject the scientific up-to-date facts such as the fact that the early atmosphere of the Earth had little or no free oxygen etc.
…you have switched the location now from the atmosphere, which formed the very basis of his original experiment to the oceans because it did not fit the criteria of your presupposition which now forms the basis for the rest of your argumentation, you have effectively switched the goal posts. alright so be it, the oceans it is!
.….
When and where did I say that life started in the atmosphere? -answer -I didn’t.
I said there was little and no free oxygen in the early atmosphere -how does that imply that life started in the atmosphere? -answer -it doesn’t.
I have moved no “goal posts“. Nobody here ever claimed nor implied in any way that life started in the atmosphere.
19 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCrazily
look Andrew there are so many holes in these arguments that it makes black beetles socks look downright respectable, you have dismissed the very words of the originator of the experiment as being outdated when quite clearly i gave you a progressive chronological summation of the conclusions of eminent scientists, you have switched the location now fr ...[text shortened]... rgumentation, you have effectively switched the goal posts. alright so be it, the oceans it is!
gazing up at my socks
ole rrrob🙂
19 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have looked him up and cannot find one single reference that says that he thought life arose in the atmosphere. So, can you produce such a reference?
yes, the originator of the experiment that Mr Hamilton, a fine Scottish name that, and i were having a discussion about, Stanley Miller (you may want to do some research on his 'classic', experiment), oh and all the other scientists and writers that also previously were quoted, i hope i wont have to remind you again.
Can you produce a single reference from any other scientist who makes that claim?
and whats the matter, don't you feel comfortable when someones pokes around and tests the validity of the tenets of your 'faith', why , that's a little surprising considering it is a practice you yourself are well versed in.
I have made it quite clear that life arising in the atmosphere, and abiogenesis are not tenets of my faith.
What is really interesting is that you claim to simultaneosly know the tenets of the faith of atheists, and the fact that atheists don't exist. Rather self defeating don't you think?
What other things are tenets of my faith as you clearly think you know better than me?
19 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadlol, is their no length that you guys will go to , to deny even science your own god. im not providing anymore references for your beliefs, if you want to, go get them yourself, what am i some type of comforter for you. anyhow it has been fun talking, really it has, but i am spending so much time on this forum trying to get both the atheists and the Christians to look at what it is they are actually putting faith in, that i have completely neglected my games of chess, no doubt i will be back, so until then stay clean and keep those references sound, cause you never know the day that you may be called upon to defend your beliefs, i wish you well -
I have looked him up and cannot find one single reference that says that he thought life arose in the atmosphere. So, can you produce such a reference?
Can you produce a single reference from any other scientist who makes that claim?
[b]and whats the matter, don't you feel comfortable when someones pokes around and tests the validity of the tenets of ...[text shortened]...
What other things are tenets of my faith as you clearly think you know better than me?
regards Robbie, son of a thousand opening traps, usually placed there by his opponents.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs usual you back out and refuse to talk rather than admit you were wrong. You are certainly not a good ambassador for Christianity.
lol, is their no length that you guys will go to , to deny even science your own god. im not providing anymore references for your beliefs, if you want to, go get them yourself, what am i some type of comforter for you.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Why wouldn't it be 24 hour time period? You have something you'd
An evolutionary process is totally consistent with creation unless you believe like those fanatical creationists that the earth was created in six consecutive 24hr periods. I could have been, but you cant know for for sure. You cannot know if the word 'day' meant a 24hr period or an unspecified period of time. The creation could very easily have been over six 1,000,000 year periods of time.
like to add to this to show the words used meant something else?
I guess it would be in keeping with Andrew Hamilton attempts to say
the word "design" does not really mean life was designed by a
designer.
Kelly
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999You should quote the verses you are refering to, otherwise you have
So one minute you accept the literal words of Christ to be true but when it suits your argument you dont.
What do you have to say about Christ' story about the Rich man and Lazarus. The rich man went to eternal torment. Christ spoke several times of eternal torment and eternal fire.
But ... forget it .. I know your type.
Tell the Pakistani wifey I said Hello. Our ancestors are from the same region. 🙂
no real complaint here if you do not show the words and why they are
wrong.
Kelly
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis coming from a guy who does not believe words have any real
[b]…how can they be Christian, when they deny the teachings of Christ…
How do you know that your particular interpretation of the teachings of Christ is the “correct” one?
What non-arbitrary criteria do you use to judge which interpretation is the “correct” one?
How do you know that their interpretation cannot be the “correct” one and yours must be?[/b]
meaning.
Kelly
20 Oct 08
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayOnly a creationist would insist on denying this by refusing to except that a word can have a different meaning in a different context when and where it convenient for them to do so.
Why wouldn't it be 24 hour time period? You have something you'd
like to add to this to show the words used meant something else?
I guess it would be in keeping with Andrew Hamilton attempts to say
the word "design" does not really mean life was designed by a
designer.
Kelly
In everyday English the word “on” means “physically just above and in contact with”.
So, if somebody said to a golfer “keep your eye on the ball” would you insist that what that MUST mean is for the golfer to physically place his eye just above and touching the ball? -answer -no. why not? Answer - because looking at the ball from a distance isn’t against you religious beliefs.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn other words, you cannot produce such a reference -you lied.
lol, is their no length that you guys will go to , to deny even science your own god. im not providing anymore references for your beliefs, if you want to, go get them yourself, what am i some type of comforter for you. anyhow it has been fun talking, really it has, but i am spending so much time on this forum trying to get both the atheists and th ...[text shortened]... ll -
regards Robbie, son of a thousand opening traps, usually placed there by his opponents.
20 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonno, the references are plenty, what i cannot do, is be bothered anymore reproducing them for you, and you may want to check your erroneous assertion that there are only 20 or so amino acids and the rather blatant and obvious lie that i misrepresented science in claiming that there were more, dig!
In other words, you cannot produce such a reference -you lied.
well ok, must i do everything for you?
you stated with regard to a query of whether there were more than twenty known amino acids when i correctly stated that there were hundreds and i quote
You are correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
robbie carrobie
Please get your basic scientific facts correct before making quotes about it -it is not nice misrepresenting science.
I do not misrepresent the Bible by quoting fictitious “Bible verses” that don’t exist in the Bible!
well now, isnt that interesting, considering the very same article has the following to say
'Hundreds of types of non-protein amino acids have been found in nature and they have multiple functions in living organisms. Microorganisms and plants can produce uncommon amino acids. In microbes, examples include 2-aminoisobutyric acid and lanthionine, which is a sulfide-bridged alanine dimer. Both these amino acids are found in peptidic lantibiotics such as alamethicin. While in plants, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid is a small disubstituted cyclic amino acid that is a key intermediate in the production of the plant hormone ethylene.',
taken from the same article i believe,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
how did these believers if the god of science fail to to read this, simply because it does not fit into their absurd preconceptions and scientific dogma, you guys really should do your homework before posting accusations of misrepresentation, and i would be pleased if YOU would get your basic scientific facts correct, or is the God of science so infallible that he doesn't need to get his facts correct he can quite easily get by on suppositions and hypothetical scenarios!
and what is more i want a public apology for what was quite clearly a slanderous attempt to bring the value of my post into disrepute!
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you didn't produce them even once. You made a false statement then told me to go look up the references. I did so, and discovered that your claim was false. Your refusal to back up your claim, (which really only requires you to copy and paste one sentence from some website that you must have already visited as you claim to know the facts surrounding the case), is nothing short of an admission that you were wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an honest mistake and not deliberate deception, but unless you can admit that it was a mistake, then you are certainly creating a deception now that you have been challenged, ie if you did not lie at first, your excuse of laziness when refusing to provide references is most certainly a lie.
no, the references are plenty, what i cannot do, is be bothered anymore reproducing them for you,
And whats more it seems to be your general modus operandi, ie make a false claim and when challenged find some excuse for not backing up your assertions.
20 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…'Hundreds of types of non-protein amino acids have been found in nature ..…
no, the references are plenty, what i cannot do, is be bothered anymore reproducing them for you, and you may want to check your erroneous assertion that there are only 20 or so amino acids and the rather blatant and obvious lie that i misrepresented science in claiming that there were more, dig!
well ok, must i do everything for you?
you state for what was quite clearly a slanderous attempt to bring the value of my post into disrepute!
I honestly didn’t read that far and I didn’t know that fact -so I apologise for saying to you that you lied about that. 🙂
-I have to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Note the words “non-protein”; that I presume means they cannot spontaneously combine to form proteins.
… you stated with regard to a query of whether there were more than twenty known amino acids when i correctly stated that there were HUNDREDS and i quote ..…. (my emphasis)
But not, I assume, “HUNDREDS” that could spontaneously combine to form proteins.
The twenty known standard amino acids are the only one relevant here to
your original argument which was that it would be absurdly unlikely for 20 amino acids of the correct type to spontaneously combine from a pool of, say, different 2000 amino acids -well, only those 20 can spontaneously combine in the right conditions thus it would inevitable be that only those 20 would combine -this, of course, assuming that, say, 2000 amino acids where originally present and not just the 20 or just 100 etc.
… how did these believers if the god of science fail to to read this, simply because it does not fit into their absurd preconceptions and scientific dogma,..…
Those that read it would have noticed it. They would have believed it because it is proven scientific fact by the evidence -so no “dogma” there.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAndrew you have went up in my estimations no end, really, and i myself feel a little remorseful for mocking in the way i do, please forgive me for that, you guys are awesome really, and in future if i may, i will do my research and run it past you for confirmation, as you are really sincere in your beliefs and incredibly well informed as to the mechanics in question, hopefully we shall debate at some other point, right now i am awaiting a siege from the trinitarians and must prepare the castle accordingly - kind regards robbie carrobie
[b]…'Hundreds of types of non-protein amino acids have been found in nature ..…
I honestly didn’t read that far and I didn’t know that fact -so I apologise for saying to you that you lied about that. 🙂
Note the words “non-protein”; that means they cannot spontaneously combine to form proteins.
… you stated with regard to a query of ...[text shortened]... uld have believed it because it is proven scientific fact by the evidence -so no “dogma” there.