origin of life creation vs evolution [total relism] vs [J.Philp]

[total relism]

The topic of this discussion will be who better explains the origin of life creation or evolution.
The rules are short posts, consistent text size, and one point at a time as well as alternating posts.


So as a brief opening as asked by philp i will not get into detail with my opining statements or even back them up until challenged or until asked to clarify. I will simply state a few of the reasons that i do not believe life arose by some random chance process with no creator involved, but had to be created by a intelligent designer.

First is that despite millions of dollars and many many intelligent scientist trying to create life in the lab they have only failed over and over again [even in imaginary "primitive" atmospheres that there is no evidence for] showing even with intelligence life is to complex to create still. If someday intelligent scientist in a controlled lab create life it will prove it takes intelligence to create life


Second is no were in earths history do we see the chemicals needed to create life together to even give a chance of life arsing in nature, there is no evidence for the supposed primitive earth with no oxygen, or some complex chemical soup or ocean that would be needed to even give a chance of life arsing. Even when we do have all the chemicals together and intelligent scientist trying to create life we still cannot. There are many chicken and egg problems like life cannot arise with Oxygen so they always leave it out of these lab experiments. The bad part though is it cant without either because Oxygen makes up the ozone layer and that blocks uv light radiation etc that would kill anything trying to begin life


"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.
"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.



Third is the impossibility of matter producing information the dna code, material cannot do this matter alone cannot its impossible. This is a death neel to the origin of life for me and atheism


‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.



fourth is the complexity of life the cell, our dna, biological machines, and there functions dna code all cannot be explained I believe by matter alone or lightning hitting dirt, to say that atheism or matter alone can produce things, like a eye that sees in 3d or a brain or organism with non material things like memory love laws of logic etc cannot be the result of dirt



There are many more problems with the belief in the origin of life i may very well bring up some more later in discussion as this is allowed but these will be the main points I will stick to.
I believe the best explanation for life on earth is
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth
genesis 1.1

we both have faith you believe in the beginning dirt i believe in the beginning god


"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
Horgan, J. Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

First, I request that we start with the presense of chemicals, since that is the starting point in atheistic abiogenesis, and also request that each side refrains from using quotes. All discussion will be in a socratic manner.

All of life's fundemental chemicals have been found in nature. Phosphates aren't particularly rare. Ribose can form with the right catalysts (acids or bases if i remember correctly) from simple hydrocarbons, and amino acids have also been found. Some amino acids have even been found in meteorites. A soup of these and the correct conditions = a nucleotide. Oxygen isn't necessary. The first bacteria were not aerobic, and aerobic life only developed after cyanobacteria started photosynthesising, hence oxygen is not necessary for basic life.

I shall wait until this point has been argued until we move on to the next stage, the origins of nucleic acids.

Edit:
Good luck, and lets keep this polite. Nothing demeaning, such as words like "delusional" or "BOOM! EVERYTHING IS HERE CUZ NOTHING EXPLODED YEAH!" to quote Rebel Jeb.

[total relism]

First, I request that we start with the presense of chemicals, since that is the starting point in atheistic abiogenesis, and also request that each side refrains from using quotes. All discussion will be in a socratic manner.

All of life's fundemental chemicals have been found in nature. Phosphates aren't particularly rare. Ribose can form with the right catalysts (acids or bases if i remember correctly) from simple hydrocarbons, and amino acids have also been found. Some amino acids have even been found in meteorites. A soup of these and the correct conditions = a nucleotide. Oxygen isn't necessary. The first bacteria were not aerobic, and aerobic life only developed after cyanobacteria started photosynthesising, hence oxygen is not necessary for basic life.

I shall wait until this point has been argued until we move on to the next stage, the origins of nucleic acids.

Edit:
Good luck, and lets keep this polite. Nothing demeaning, such as words like "delusional" or "BOOM! EVERYTHING IS HERE CUZ NOTHING EXPLODED YEAH!" to quote Rebel Jeb.

first to the commentary thread, as always i offer to debate 1v1 anyone on any topic related to creation vs evolution, many posters there i already have tried to debate, the reason i do not like commentary threads is because the statements there go unchallenged were over here i would love to challenge anyone 1v1.
I will be willing to debate with anyone what i have said here, or anywhere before on this forum. There are so many false statements and misunderstandings alredy over there i do not want to take time to correct all of them so if anyone thinks they have something to offer to the discussion for the evolution side pm j phillip and tell him to use your idea over here and i will respond or your various atacks etc.


on to phillip you want to start with chemicals i already gave you the sun moon stars a earth fit for life just to get here takes alot of evolutionary magic.
The starting point for atheist evolution is nothing, before big bang way down the line and alot of faith later is chemicals, I also see no reason why not to use qoutes every debate i have ever seen between phd vs phd [not saying we are] just saying real debates both sides always use qoutes to back up what there saying. Aslo it was not part of your rules before joining debate.
I never said life's chemicals have not been found in nature i said the primordial soup is never been see or observed this is taken on faith evolutionist must believe by faith in the unseeen there was such a thing.

"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.


please reference your amino acid in meteorite so i know witch you are referring to please as these are usually found to be false or contaminated from earth

you than claim a soup witch is based on faith that there was a soup, could somehow form with no inelegance a nucleotide do you have scientific evidence to back this up? there is alot more to life than a nucleotide as well.
you say oxygen is not necessary i agree life could not form with it yet oxygen is needed for the ozone to block uv light witch would kill anything in this imagined soup of yours.
You than want to talk about first life, so i have a few questions about the first life. How did this first life reproduce? with what? how did it eat what did it digest? The simplest cell has 482 genes thats 580,000 base pairs 387 protein coding 43 RNA coding and this organism cannot live on its own or eat.
Protein machines are needed to read dna,but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the dna as well as many other necessary machines its another chicken in a egg problem.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

on to phillip you want to start with chemicals i already gave you the sun moon stars a earth fit for life just to get here takes alot of evolutionary magic.

off with the magic crap.It's got nothing to evolution. Is the difference between evolution and abiogenesis too damn hard for you to comprehend? Don't you call it magic when you believe in a sky fairy with less than no evidence.

I never said life's chemicals have not been found in nature i said the primordial soup is never been see or observed this is taken on faith evolutionist must believe by faith in the unseeen there was such a thing.

Oh dear. You've totally got me. It's just impossible that existent molecules could be in the same place at the same time. Now I'll convert to Christianity and worship an invisible man in the sky.

you than claim a soup witch is based on faith that there was a soup, could somehow form with no inelegance a nucleotide do you have scientific evidence to back this up? there is alot more to life than a nucleotide as well.
you say oxygen is not necessary i agree life could not form with it yet oxygen is needed for the ozone to block uv light witch would kill anything in this imagined soup of yours.

Firstly, let me point out that you have the grammar of a small child. When I copied that quote, I thought I accidentally cut out half of it. Being an atheist, I find it funny being lectured on faith by a theist. Do you have scientific evidence to back up the existence of god?
Plenty of things other than ozone can block UV light. Plenty of people think that life originated in the oceans, an area plenty protected from UV light. Perhaps cyanobacteria evolved before life on land?

You than want to talk about first life, so i have a few questions about the first life. How did this first life reproduce? with what? how did it eat what did it digest? The simplest cell has 482 genes thats 580,000 base pairs 387 protein coding 43 RNA coding and this organism cannot live on its own or eat.
Protein machines are needed to read dna,but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the dna as well as many other necessary machines its another chicken in a egg problem.

Straight to complex life, skipping everything in between. Have you considered that it did not need to have started with hundreds of thousands of base pairs, or even as a cell? A small sequence of nucleotides could quite easily multiply passively in a warm environment, and being a small set of nucleotides, it does not need to eat or code for proteins. Bacteria lack nearly all "machinery" yet they do just fine with only a cell wall, nucleic acids, ribosomes, proteins, and sometimes flagellae.

Let us digress for the moment and hear the evidence for intelligent design (not rebuttals against scientific origins).

[total relism]

off with the magic crap.It's got nothing to evolution. Is the difference between evolution and abiogenesis too damn hard for you to comprehend? Don't you call it magic when you believe in a sky fairy with less than no evidence.

I thought we weren't going to name call thats 2, when evolutionist tell me everything came from nothing it very much reminds me of magic tricks etc i dont know what else to call it. There origin of galaxy planets theories involve magic, very much so even assuming this thing went bang for them.
To me you dont have a full theory unless you can go back all the way to origins of life planets etc as that is what evolutionist claim to be able to explain no?
But wait here i have a theory that everything was created say 27 years ago. But you cannot ask me about anything that happened more than say 5 minutes ago because that is not part of the theory that everything was made 27 years ago that's just not part of my theory, actually wait nah just only the last minute you cannot ask me on before that is totally different and not part of my beliefs
also the evidence is consistent with this belief in the invisible man in the sky, however it is not with a your beliefs.

Oh dear. You've totally got me. It's just impossible that existent molecules could be in the same place at the same time. Now I'll convert to Christianity and worship an invisible man in the sky.

I enjoy your sense of humor i mean that to, no its not imposible to get the chemicals needed for life together it just did not happen this premordial soup idea, belief.
Hey guys we need a ocean of complex chemical soup so we can say there may have been a chance for life to arise by itself. wait but sir there is no evidence for any such thing, just have faith my friend its magic poof

Firstly, let me point out that you have the grammar of a small child. When I copied that quote, I thought I accidentally cut out half of it. Being an atheist, I find it funny being lectured on faith by a theist. Do you have scientific evidence to back up the existence of god?
Plenty of things other than ozone can block UV light. Plenty of people think that life originated in the oceans, an area plenty protected from UV light. Perhaps cyanobacteria evolved before life on land?

know i said bad grammar and all,again i do like your attitude this shall be fun your a good guy me thinks [could b wrong though]

so i said before
you than claim a soup witch is based on faith that there was a soup, could somehow form with no inelegance a nucleotide do you have scientific evidence to back this up? there is alot more to life than a nucleotide as well.
you say oxygen is not necessary i agree life could not form with it yet oxygen is needed for the ozone to block uv light witch would kill anything in this imagined soup of yours.


you did not back up what you claimed with evidence so is this to be taken by faith?
I believe it is you atheist that need to lecture many Christians today about faith today many Christians lack it. you have no problem believing in oceans of complex soup that there is no evidence for and evidence against, since if there was one would see evidence for it no?
I have evidence constant with a creator witch i will debate you on right after this if you want titled say "is there any evidence for a creator or more important the god of the bible".
But i do admit i have faith everyone does its just you put your faith in some ocean that you have never seen as our ancestor i put my faith in a creator.
what blocks uv light? did they have sunscreen? im so damn funny I think it universally believed that life began in the ocean by evolutionist.
Whant to know something funny i was reading a paper kinda on this subject last night, it included references that im looking for on why amino acids could not have formed in water or a "warm pond"
Noticed your "perhaps" maybe. could have. possibly. that is the common answer by many evolutionist they believe in there head they know its true in there heart they just lack scientific evidence. In fact one failed experiment after another does not deter them from the "truth"

Straight to complex life, skipping everything in between. Have you considered that it did not need to have started with hundreds of thousands of base pairs, or even as a cell? A small sequence of nucleotides could quite easily multiply passively in a warm environment, and being a small set of nucleotides, it does not need to eat or code for proteins. Bacteria lack nearly all "machinery" yet they do just fine with only a cell wall, nucleic acids, ribosomes, proteins, and sometimes flagellae.

Let us digress for the moment and hear the evidence for intelligent design (not rebuttals against scientific origins).

first you brag ht up first life not me i was responding to you. You admit it is complex this is the simplest organism known and it cannot live on its own or eat.
You say that it did not need all this to start yet this is straight from the evolutionist trying to find the least complex organism needed to reproduce

Glass J I et al Essential genes of a minimum bacterium proc nat acad sci USA 103 [2] 425-430 2006


"there is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA>RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code , ribosomes ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP the detailed mechanisms for reading off dna and converting genes into proteins were also in place, in short then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell"
Lane nick,was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? new scientist 204[2730] 38-42 17 oct 2009

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

To me you dont have a full theory unless you can go back all the way to origins of life planets etc as that is what evolutionist claim to be able to explain no?
But wait here i have a theory that everything was created say 27 years ago. But you cannot ask me about anything that happened more than say 5 minutes ago because that is not part of the theory that everything was made 27 years ago that's just not part of my theory, actually wait nah just only the last minute you cannot ask me on before that is totally different and not part of my beliefs
also the evidence is consistent with this belief in the invisible man in the sky, however it is not with a your beliefs.

First of all, astrophysics has nothing to do with life. Debate this with someone else, but, In the meantime, could we keep on topic?

I enjoy your sense of humor i mean that to, no its not imposible to get the chemicals needed for life together it just did not happen this premordial soup idea, belief.
Hey guys we need a ocean of complex chemical soup so we can say there may have been a chance for life to arise by itself. wait but sir there is no evidence for any such thing, just have faith my friend its magic poof

Thankyou, at times I enjoy your sense of humor too, but please stop saying magic. I associate creationism with Catholicism, but I don't call your beliefs paedophile magic. I request that we only use the correct terms i.e. creationism and abiogenesis.
Firstly, let me clear up that the "primordial soup" is purely theoretical, however it is the best theory out there in my opinion, and if you dispute it, provide evidence for your alternative, and if not that, provide consistencies with modern knowledge of biology and/or chemistry. It needed only to be a very small, enough for a short sequence of nucleotides, and in a warm area, which there are plenty of at the bottom of the ocean, where self replicating molecules would also be protected from light radiation. It could also be in warm, tropical water. After the formation of a short chain, the chain could perhaps just drift, chancing upon it's components for replication, under the right conditions splitting in two and repeating the process, with millions of years to mutate and develop into something remotely resembling life.

you than claim a soup witch is based on faith that there was a soup, could somehow form with no inelegance a nucleotide do you have scientific evidence to back this up? there is alot more to life than a nucleotide as well.
you say oxygen is not necessary i agree life could not form with it yet oxygen is needed for the ozone to block uv light witch would kill anything in this imagined soup of yours.

All parts of this have been addressed above

you did not back up what you claimed with evidence so is this to be taken by faith?
I believe it is you atheist that need to lecture many Christians today about faith today many Christians lack it. you have no problem believing in oceans of complex soup that there is no evidence for and evidence against, since if there was one would see evidence for it no?
I have evidence constant with a creator witch i will debate you on right after this if you want titled say "is there any evidence for a creator or more important the god of the bible".
But i do admit i have faith everyone does its just you put your faith in some ocean that you have never seen as our ancestor i put my faith in a creator.
what blocks uv light? did they have sunscreen? im so damn funny I think it universally believed that life began in the ocean by evolutionist.
Whant to know something funny i was reading a paper kinda on this subject last night, it included references that im looking for on why amino acids could not have formed in water or a "warm pond"
Noticed your "perhaps" maybe. could have. possibly. that is the common answer by many evolutionist they believe in there head they know its true in there heart they just lack scientific evidence. In fact one failed experiment after another does not deter them from the "truth"

Care to share any of this evidence of creation right now? Perhaps it is something more than rebuttals alone?
The oceans need not be a complex soup, nor do it's solutes need to be in great concentrations.
I have not put faith into this "ocean" theory, I will abandon it as soon as someone comes up with something with evidence, however, it in my opinion is the most likely solution for now.
Do you too wish to know something funny? There are more environments in the oceans than warm ponds, for instance, hot volcanos, which are great places for chemical reactions (heat is the universal catalyst). That, coupled with the abundance of hydrocarbons, makes the area perfect for amino acid production. I assume that you will criticise this, and my rebuttal in advance for a lack of evidence is, other than it's consistency with modern chemistry knowledge, is that life flourishes down there and would quite obviously consume whatever usable resources form down there. Theres that, and the possibility of "importing" amino acids from
space i.e. with meteorites.

first you brag ht up first life not me i was responding to you. You admit it is complex this is the simplest organism known and it cannot live on its own or eat.
You say that it did not need all this to start yet this is straight from the evolutionist trying to find the least complex organism needed to reproduce

Glass J I et al Essential genes of a minimum bacterium proc nat acad sci USA 103 [2] 425-430 2006


"there is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA>RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code , ribosomes ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP the detailed mechanisms for reading off dna and converting genes into proteins were also in place, in short then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell"
Lane nick,was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? new scientist 204[2730] 38-42 17 oct 2009

Firstly in this part, could you please use references that don't require subscriptions to read, this is a magazine I read but I don't buy it regularly and most likely don't have that issue, not do I have an online subscription (I prefer the feeling of paper to that of a computer mouse).
I dispute your accusation of me bringing us to complex life. My hypothesised drifting nucleic acid is not by any means complex, nor is it life (if you include homeostasis in you criteria). It does hypthetically reproduce, and did so just fine.

I would like a copy of the complete text (if that is legal), or the same thing from a different source, but until then I dispute, the "pretty much like a modern cell" bit. I will assume that by modern cell eukaryote is what is meant, so correct me if I'm wrong. The modern cell is not a common ancestor, faulty phagocytosis is far more likely, i.e. a prokaryote swallowing another prokaryote but for some reason not digesting it, and by luck posessing a mutation that facilitates the symbiotic relationship. It's a strange coincidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts resemble prokaryotes.

Well there goes the short, concise posts I was hoping for. I'm getting tired and might have missed something.

[total relism]

First of all, astrophysics has nothing to do with life. Debate this with someone else, but, In the meantime, could we keep on topic?

i agree but you braght this up by saying atheism/evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of earth and chemicals etc to try to create life. You do need a planet to try to create life on no?

Thankyou, at times I enjoy your sense of humor too, but please stop saying magic. I associate creationism with Catholicism, but I don't call your beliefs paedophile magic. I request that we only use the correct terms i.e. creationism and abiogenesis.
Firstly, let me clear up that the "primordial soup" is purely theoretical, however it is the best theory out there in my opinion, and if you dispute it, provide evidence for your alternative, and if not that, provide consistencies with modern knowledge of biology and/or chemistry. It needed only to be a very small, enough for a short sequence of nucleotides, and in a warm area, which there are plenty of at the bottom of the ocean, where self replicating molecules would also be protected from light radiation. It could also be in warm, tropical water. After the formation of a short chain, the chain could perhaps just drift, chancing upon it's components for replication, under the right conditions splitting in two and repeating the process, with millions of years to mutate and develop into something remotely resembling life.

im sorry i will try not to use the word magic it would be easier if evolution did not need it, but i shall try to refrain.
Creation has nothing to do with Catholics im not sure why you think this way? maybe you could explain for me not because its on topic just because im curious.
You say that the primordial soup is best theory, well then your best theory is not based on science but faith alone with strong evidence aginst it, like there would be evidence for it if there was one, we find worm tracks, rain drops, minute things like that but no primordial soup also in labs they use best conditions not real world conditions have all the chemicals needed yet cannot create life. You see you don't believe evolution because of the scientific evidence you believe because you have faith. Also your needs for the first life [short sequence of nucleotides] disagrees with perr reviewed evolutionist
My alternative is creation i thought we understood that, you than go into what i call bedtime story telling, that is all evolution is story telling, with no evidence to back any of what you said up and much evidence that your story could never happen and absolutely no evidence it did ever happen.
May i ask why we have not been able to create life if all it takes is a worm pond? than [im sorry i have to] magic a short chain than poof magic it happens to drift on to components for replication than poof magic the "right conditions" spliting the two and repeting.
Im sorry but why accept all this imagination? why believe it? have you ever considered life was created?

or do you agree with this evolutionist?


"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.




than i do see a glimpse of your creator god


"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

All parts of this have been addressed above

you did not answer them you simply told me your story

Care to share any of this evidence of creation right now? Perhaps it is something more than rebuttals alone?
The oceans need not be a complex soup, nor do it's solutes need to be in great concentrations.
I have not put faith into this "ocean" theory, I will abandon it as soon as someone comes up with something with evidence, however, it in my opinion is the most likely solution for now.
Do you too wish to know something funny? There are more environments in the oceans than warm ponds, for instance, hot volcanos, which are great places for chemical reactions (heat is the universal catalyst). That, coupled with the abundance of hydrocarbons, makes the area perfect for amino acid production. I assume that you will criticise this, and my rebuttal in advance for a lack of evidence is, other than it's consistency with modern chemistry knowledge, is that life flourishes down there and would quite obviously consume whatever usable resources form down there. Theres that, and the possibility of "importing" amino acids from
space i.e. with meteorites.

I dont want to get way off topic unless that is what you really want? why not start a new debate after this and you can just respond to me ill give evidence for creation you respond sound good?
You say you will abandon your soup theory when something better comes with evidence, you will not abandon your faith in evolution you dont care how evolution happened just that it did, you dont care how dirt came alive as long as god did not do it. You dont care that there is evidence at all for it, you will believe it as you believe in this soup know that there is no evidence for
Phillip by the way i was wondering if you would later debate me on if there is a god is he good like the one you were in b-4 but were obliviously not on the side you represented.
Again with volcanoes meteorites from space you dont care how it happened the evidence means nothing your just damn sure god did not do it, you know something, nowere better than a lab to produce amino acids, however this does not create life either as i said first post. Information non material is needed for life not just material.
Were did the amino acids from space form? how did they survive coming into out atmosphere? what planet better than earth to try to create life? know by faith im to believe some unobserved planet created life here?
The thing is you can come up with hundreds of maybes possible could haves but none will actually do what you want them to.
I do feel bad a little for you i know i use to be in your position

This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and faceless theory is termed by them a "religion."
"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."—*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).



20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 1 19-25

Firstly in this part, could you please use references that don't require subscriptions to read, this is a magazine I read but I don't buy it regularly and most likely don't have that issue, not do I have an online subscription (I prefer the feeling of paper to that of a computer mouse).

I dispute your accusation of me bringing us to complex life. My hypothesised drifting nucleic acid is not by any means complex, nor is it life (if you include homeostasis in you criteria). It does hypthetically reproduce, and did so just fine.

I cannot help were the references come from sorry, ask them to offer their material free online
I also prefer paper im sorry i thought we were talking about the origin of life i thought that was the discussion.

I would like a copy of the complete text (if that is legal), or the same thing from a different source, but until then I dispute, the "pretty much like a modern cell" bit. I will assume that by modern cell eukaryote is what is meant, so correct me if I'm wrong. The modern cell is not a common ancestor, faulty phagocytosis is far more likely, i.e. a prokaryote swallowing another prokaryote but for some reason not digesting it, and by luck posessing a mutation that facilitates the symbiotic relationship. It's a strange coincidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts resemble prokaryotes.

Well there goes the short, concise posts I was hoping for. I'm getting tired and might have missed something.

i will try for copy today see if i can get it to you online. what is meant by modern cell is it has all the functions [and complexity] of a modern cell all these different biological machines are needed for first life.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Oh for s sake, show us the evidence against the possibility of a minute primordial soup, or the evidence for creation. I don't want to start a new debate, the evidence which is perpetually around a corner belongs in this debate. A lack of worm tracks sure as hell isn't anywhere near a disproof, or evidence for that matter.

I would like to point out that we agreed "no quote bombing", as a part of one of the first agreements, which was to comply to the rules of your debate with Tankbuster.

"You see you don't believe evolution because of the scientific evidence you believe because you have faith. Also your needs for the first life [short sequence of nucleotides] disagrees with perr reviewed evolutionist"

I don't believe anything. I said that it is all theoretical, and in my opinion the best theory out there. I shall convert on the spot once you provide the mind blowing evidence for creationism you have yet to post. I couldn't care less what a "perr" reviewed evolutionist thinks, for I am offering a rational hypothesis which is quite feasible, yet you have failed to explain how your god creating life is any better.

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

I know that there sure as hell is a lot more glory in being existant than being the fantasy of a group who are afraid of being worthless, insignificant specks in the universe and have gladly killed to keep the fantasy running.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.
"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

Well it'

Well it's a damn good thing that theres hundreds of meters of water covering 2/3 of the planet to protect things from cosmic rays. It's also convinient that oxygen in the air is not a prerequisite for amino acid production, only the presence of specific hydrocarbons, heat and maybe a acidic or alkaline catalyst (I forget if the reaction needs one). I don't quite know about the "only taking place under reducing conditions" part, but I know damn well that under the ocean the there is only a negligible amount of atmospheric oxygen, primarily because it is several hundred meters below water. I'm curious as to whether or not you actually understand the word reduction and aren't clasping at quotes from famous names. You should try googling the Miller-Urey experiment, which Stanley Miller took a part in.

Did you read the link that you provided to Scientific American? My favourite part was:
"[The creationist's] explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God."

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

Nobodys saying that time did anything.



If you refuse to post this incredible, mind blowing evidence for creationism, don't post at all. You know damn well that it is relevant and belongs on this thread.

[total relism]

Oh for s sake, show us the evidence against the possibility of a minute primordial soup, or the evidence for creation. I don't want to start a new debate, the evidence which is perpetually around a corner belongs in this debate. A lack of worm tracks sure as hell isn't anywhere near a disproof, or evidence for that matter.

first your suppose to show evidence for your faith
have u not read any of this post? if there was a primordial soup or ocean we would have evidence for it, we dont, so no evidence is evidence against. also we create these soups and even better conditions in labs no life so far.
when you say evidence for creation do you mean the creation model? that is what i took it as, or creation of life? this would very much be a totally difrent debate i want to stay on this one topic and will gladly do a debate on that topic next.
Also i said we do find worm tracks but no primordial soup again you need alot more than a soup and the right chemicals for life.

I would like to point out that we agreed "no quote bombing", as a part of one of the first agreements, which was to comply to the rules of your debate with Tankbuster.

I am very sorry i truly forgot we agreed on that ive been trying to set up about a dozen debates with different people i thought we agreed on the last pm for rules i am sorry.
but in my defense i really dont think i have been doing it that much never more than one for the point i was making.

"You see you don't believe evolution because of the scientific evidence you believe because you have faith. Also your needs for the first life [short sequence of nucleotides] disagrees with perr reviewed evolutionist"

I don't believe anything. I said that it is all theoretical, and in my opinion the best theory out there. I shall convert on the spot once you provide the mind blowing evidence for creationism you have yet to post. I couldn't care less what a "perr" reviewed evolutionist thinks, for I am offering a rational hypothesis which is quite feasible, yet you have failed to explain how your god creating life is any better.

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.
One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’

Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.




why do you get in a debate about origins of life if you dont know what you believe? j i know this will sound very gay but i have prayed for you, i really think you may consider creation maybe down the line[not because me] and the posiblity of a god. If at any time later down the line or anytime im still on these forums ask me any question you want if your truly seeking for truth.

a good starting point would be debates real debates not twcenter im going to give some in spoiler if you are interested

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

why debates are good and important
http://www.icr.org/article/how-do-cr...affect-people/






here are many non media debates that give equal time to both sides and are qualified for both sides


found some free online also
kent hovind debates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng very good debate well done on both sides
http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=debates free online
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGDVf...watch_response free onlinehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95968386591557 free online dr kent hovind at wayne state collage debate
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...72945069976156
3 way debate old earth creation young earth creation and atheist evolutionist
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...68472809350444
another free online kent hovind debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k
free online kent hovind vs


http://shopping.drdino.com/category-...d/36/nm/Debate 20 creation vs evolution debates dr kent hovind vs dr Matthew rainbow


http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/debates
Kent hovind Berkeley finally here's the truth


The Genesis Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDEPSZSdx2k 11 part debate free online
"The Genesis Debate: Skeptic vs Creationist" is a debate between Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland over the topic of Creation (more specifically, "Does scientific evidence support a literal Genesis?"). Dr. Paul Willis was the former winner of Australia's "Skeptic of the Year" award, and Dr. Carl Wieland is Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (Australia). www.Creation.com
free online








Oregon state university debate
kevin Anderson obtained his Ph.D. from Kansas State University in Microbiology. He held an NIH postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Illinois and was Professor of Microbiology at Mississippi State University, where he taught graduate level courses in molecular genetics. He later served as a research microbiologist for the U. S. Department of Agriculture before accepting his current position as Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center in Chino Valley, Arizona. He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.


Vs


Andy Karplus is Professor and Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at OSU, where he has taught since 1998. He holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Washington and was twice an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the University of Freiburg in Germany. He has received several awards for his research and has authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed articles on protein structure-function relationships.


http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socrat...ristian-belief
free online





Dr Ian Plimer
Geologist and skeptic

vs.

Dr Duane Gish
Biochemist and creationist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1xzi...eature=related



http://creation.com/images/pdfs/skep...eationists.pdf read for free online creation ministries vs atist




http://www.americanvision.com/debate...ftheearth.aspx


https://store.creation.com/us/produc...p?sku=30-9-538

https://store.creation.com/us/produc...p?sku=30-9-554 most boring debate ever but here you go
https://store.creation.com/us/produc...abbff55413622d




http://creationresearch.org/Merchant...roduct_Count=0






Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[246][247] In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[247] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[247] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.[248] Also, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists. In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute states the following:
“
Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.[249]
”
In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:
“
During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.
Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.[250]

Again the evidence for creation would be a totally different debate covering many areas. you said you would convert on the spot if a better model was given, what evidence can you give that is inconsistent with a creator creating life? know i have given many reason problems with life arising by itself that you have yet to respond to, and you have only given me dead end possibilities maybe outer space deep oceans long ago far away fairy tales, that dont match what we observe and are proven wrong in lab experiment after another.
So tell me what makes your model of atheism a better explanation?
you claim you model is rational and feasible, yet it is proven wrong time and again in the lab, with no evidence to back it up at all, your origins of life and what is needed is laughable who am i to trust phds published in peer review that makes sense or j on twcenter forum, i don't want to sound mean [i really do like you your my number 2 behind tb] but i find your ideas not based on science but imagination , like i said evolutionist know it to be true in there heart but lack any kind of evidence[no shortange of imagination thogh].

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.

I know that there sure as hell is a lot more glory in being existant than being the fantasy of a group who are afraid of being worthless, insignificant specks in the universe and have gladly killed to keep the fantasy running.

not sure what you mean here,actually Christianity is alot about recognizing your weakness and not being prideful the opposite of what you claim it is, i would also ad i believe atheist are afraid of things like [though shalt not] as i am as well, not enough for me to not see the truth. You really think we like geting up early for church donating our money not going to parties or the bar being faithful to my wife? does this sound fun? all so i can make myself believe im not worthless, honestly? how cool would it be to do what ever the hell you want, than when you die its over thats it party and die.
You are aware atheist have killed hundreds of times as many people in the last century than Christians throughout history yes? im gusing your liberal teachers never told you that
But killing is not justified[ innocent killing] in the bible, so if Christians kill for there faith its not because the bible, its because they like all people are sinful and in need of a savior
know how does a atheist such as yourself see killing as a bad thing? strongest survive right killing is bad only if there is a absolute authority a standard given by,if we are just chemicals why get mad? Would you get mad at backing soda mixing with vinegar? were just the result of dirt and random mutations how can you say killing dirt is wrong or its wrong to kill other dirt? evolved pond scum?
after all they had no choice in the matter the chemicals in there brain made them there is no free will

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.
"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

Well it'

Well it's a damn good thing that theres hundreds of meters of water covering 2/3 of the planet to protect things from cosmic rays.

today there is, so great you have a very big lab to work with go show me were anyone has found life evolve.
than this assumes that all uv light was blocked out, there is no way to know this and things break down not build up thermodynamics

It's also convinient that oxygen in the air is not a prerequisite for amino acid production, only the presence of specific hydrocarbons, heat and maybe a acidic or alkaline catalyst (I forget if the reaction needs one). I don't quite know about the "only taking place under reducing conditions" part, but I know damn well that under the ocean the there is only a negligible amount of atmospheric oxygen, primarily because it is several hundred meters below water. I'm curious as to whether or not you actually understand the word reduction and aren't clasping at quotes from famous names. You should try googling the Miller-Urey experiment, which Stanley Miller took a part in.

no they cannot form in the presents of oxygen is what he is saying, im very surprised you have not bra ught his exsperiment up i was waiting for it, im very familiar with and have talked on this before on this forum and have muchto say about it.
reduction do you mean reducing?

Did you read the link that you provided to Scientific American? My favourite part was:
"[The creationist's] explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God."

first yes and this is not the point i was quoting it for this also is off topic this is usually used as a counter to what caused the big bang not origin of life,we obviously have a answer to that it was created, so than were did the creator come from is like were did big bang come from you started with earth etc
but there are 3 possibilities universe was always here is was created by outside intelligence or big bang know i believe we can look at the laws of nature to answer that question for us.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...ower-questions

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

Nobodys saying that time did anything.



If you refuse to post this incredible, mind blowing evidence for creationism, don't post at all. You know damn well that it is relevant and belongs on this thread.

you said time did last post give it time you said and magic will happen, read above if you want to start new debate i will right away just one more post hear some closing remarks im game bitc

“Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions.”
“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”

Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 336.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I posted rebutals for the whole thing but after half an hour of typing the posting did not work and everything is gone, so I shall post some highlights so you can get the gist.

• Since you had to ask me "by reduction do you mean reducing", I conclude that you have no knowledge of chemistry and are blindly grabbing at quotes.
• The paragraph about morals and such things like atheism and killing has nothing to do with the debate.
• Water reflects UV light, stop bringing UV light up.
• The bit about thermodynamics was too much gibberish for me to decipher.
• The universe did not necessarily have to have a point of origin. I did not bother debating this before, and will not now. I have debated this elsewhere: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=420145
• My primordial soup is small, and consumible, and best of all, consistent with modern biological and organic chemistry knowledge. You have yet to provide me with a justification as to why your hypothesis is better than mine.
• Unless I missed a part of one of your gigantic posts, (not including quotes), I have responded to all points you have raised.

Now this next bit is extra important, so I am posting it extra big. I don't care about our rules, because apparently you're above them.

If you do not post your evidence for creationism, I will acknowledge the absence as you forfeiting.
As I said before, post your evidence or don't post at all.

[total relism]

I posted rebutals for the whole thing but after half an hour of typing the posting did not work and everything is gone, so I shall post some highlights so you can get the gist.

• Since you had to ask me "by reduction do you mean reducing", I conclude that you have no knowledge of chemistry and are blindly grabbing at quotes.
• The paragraph about morals and such things like atheism and killing has nothing to do with the debate.
• Water reflects UV light, stop bringing UV light up.
• The bit about thermodynamics was too much gibberish for me to decipher.
• The universe did not necessarily have to have a point of origin. I did not bother debating this before, and will not now. I have debated this elsewhere: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=420145
• My primordial soup is small, and consumible, and best of all, consistent with modern biological and organic chemistry knowledge. You have yet to provide me with a justification as to why your hypothesis is better than mine.
• Unless I missed a part of one of your gigantic posts, (not including quotes), I have responded to all points you have raised.

Now this next bit is extra important, so I am posting it extra big. I don't care about our rules, because apparently you're above them.

If you do not post your evidence for creationism, I will acknowledge the absence as you forfeiting.
As I said before, post your evidence or don't post at all.

first point
what quote are you referring to? s miller? reducing means no oxygen he imagined a "primitive" earth free of oxagen he also asumed things like He assumed methane ammonia in atmosphere, methane should be stuck to ancient clays but is not found. there are many other problems with his experiment.


second point- I agree however you brought it up no? you have done this a few times bring something up i reply than you accuse me of being off topic


third point- this is true but know you are supporting a small pond idea not a ocean miles deep to protect from uv light. also oxygen has been found in all rock "layers" and "ages" so your still screwed, and this pond or ocean is only in your head and heart not in the real world.



fourth point- yeah real hard to understand that everything breaks down and decays i mean we dont see that anywhere happing only all around us and every experiment ever done.


fifth point- no beginning no origin of life how did it all get here but yes off topic



sixth- your soup is know small pond not deep ocean what do you mean by constant with chemistry and biology? that there are small ponds? i agree, that there is some small pond that we have found matching yours with everything needed for life together no, that even if there was such a pond that it would mean life created itself or that that is even possible no. This pond idea has no evidence for being able to produce life.


seventh- did you read my first post? kinda made my main points right off the bat that you have not responded to, as well as a few others like chicken and egg problems like biological systems are needed to decode dna yet its the dna that codes for the biological systems you cannot have one without the other, and there are many examples of this.


eighth- i will gladly when you tell me what you mean by this? as i have asked 2 times before please reply to this question if you want answer, are you asking for evidence for creation as it refers to this debate? origin of life? it witch case my last post[and all b-4] i pointed out the evidence inconstant with atheism beliefs, you have not done so with creation. So how can you claim you have a better model?
If your asking for evidence for the bible creation etc there is nothing more i would like to debate with you but this is off topic to this debate, so stop trying to bring me off topic if this is indeed what you mean.
Finish this first as this was your preferred topic of discussion if you remember i did not even want to do this topic at all.
I will gladly start new topic with you on evidence for creation after, would you also be willing to present evidence for evolution on a third debate with me? i define evolution as all life evolved from one or a few common ancestors over billions of years from a primitive form to today's life. [Witch would include the offer if you can give any scientific evidence for evolution as i defined it above that cannot be explained by creation i would forever leave these forums] Please do not ignore this question again and answer it







you broke a rule by posting big letters

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I shall make one more post after reading your first line and educate you a bit about chemistry.
Reduction does not mean no oxygen. Heres a quick acrostic poem explaining redox.

Oxidation
is
loss of electrons
Reduction
is
gain of electrons

Now enlist yourself in the nearest local school and get the scientific knowledge of a child before you come back. Since you have not posted your evidence, I cannot be bothered reading the rest, so bye for now.

[total relism]

I shall make one more post after reading your first line and educate you a bit about chemistry.
Reduction does not mean no oxygen. Heres a quick acrostic poem explaining redox.

Oxidation
is
loss of electrons
Reduction
is
gain of electrons

Now enlist yourself in the nearest local school and get the scientific knowledge of a child before you come back. Since you have not posted your evidence, I cannot be bothered reading the rest, so bye for now.

I really cannot believe you name called again 3-0 your are winning
Thanks for the poem, however your last post that im quoting has nothing to do with why i quoted in the first place, and what miller believed about the "early earths atmosphere" or answer the problem, or answer what his qoute was saying either..
"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

notice what left wing wiki says on this
The same principal applies to planets. Early earth had a reducing atmosphere, along with Mars and Venus. Later events stabilized earth's atmosphere to permit the evolution of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_atmosphere

what the qoute said what i said you missed the point again that i was making "later events" happened so life could arise they say.
Know its hard for me to truly believe you did not read my whole post, im going to asume you did here, so you for the third time will not anwser me about what you mean by my evidence for creation i believe something is going on here? but what could it beIve plainly asked 3 times, yet he wont answer hmm, or my over 3 debate offers and you ignore all my points i make again thogh i do love you J



for the hell of it every time you post your ill post this

eighth- i will gladly when you tell me what you mean by this? as i have asked 2 times before please reply to this question if you want answer, are you asking for evidence for creation as it refers to this debate? origin of life? it witch case my last post[and all b-4] i pointed out the evidence inconstant with atheism beliefs, you have not done so with creation. So how can you claim you have a better model?
If your asking for evidence for the bible creation etc there is nothing more i would like to debate with you but this is off topic to this debate, so stop trying to bring me off topic if this is indeed what you mean.
Finish this first as this was your preferred topic of discussion if you remember i did not even want to do this topic at all.
I will gladly start new topic with you on evidence for creation after, would you also be willing to present evidence for evolution on a third debate with me? i define evolution as all life evolved from one or a few common ancestors over billions of years from a primitive form to today's life. [Witch would include the offer if you can give any scientific evidence for evolution as i defined it above that cannot be explained by creation i would forever leave these forums] Please do not ignore this question again and answer it

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I really cannot believe you name called again 3-0 your are winning
Thanks for the poem, however your last post that im quoting has nothing to do with why i quoted in the first place, and what miller believed about the "early earths atmosphere" or answer the problem, or answer what his qoute was saying either..
"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

notice what left wing wiki says on this
The same principal applies to planets. Early earth had a reducing atmosphere, along with Mars and Venus. Later events stabilized earth's atmosphere to permit the evolution of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_atmosphere

what the qoute said what i said you missed the point again that i was making "later events" happened so life could arise they say.
Know its hard for me to truly believe you did not read my whole post, im going to asume you did here, so you for the third time will not anwser me about what you mean by my evidence for creation i believe something is going on here? but what could it beIve plainly asked 3 times, yet he wont answer hmm, or my over 3 debate offers and you ignore all my points i make again thogh i do love you J



for the hell of it every time you post your ill post this

eighth- i will gladly when you tell me what you mean by this? as i have asked 2 times before please reply to this question if you want answer, are you asking for evidence for creation as it refers to this debate? origin of life? it witch case my last post[and all b-4] i pointed out the evidence inconstant with atheism beliefs, you have not done so with creation. So how can you claim you have a better model?
If your asking for evidence for the bible creation etc there is nothing more i would like to debate with you but this is off topic to this debate, so stop trying to bring me off topic if this is indeed what you mean.
Finish this first as this was your preferred topic of discussion if you remember i did not even want to do this topic at all.
I will gladly start new topic with you on evidence for creation after, would you also be willing to present evidence for evolution on a third debate with me? i define evolution as all life evolved from one or a few common ancestors over billions of years from a primitive form to today's life. [Witch would include the offer if you can give any scientific evidence for evolution as i defined it above that cannot be explained by creation i would forever leave these forums] Please do not ignore this question again and answer it

Oh, but my short post had everything to do with your posts. It shows you don't have any clue as to what you're talking about and rather than argue yourself you are relying on Google to find quotes. And I didn't name call. Telling someone that they have an attribute of a small child isn't calling them a child.

Since you are having so much trouble wondering which creationism I want, give the evidence which is relevant, i.e. god created the first life form. Nothing to do with evolution, or how relatively complicated life exists today, but just the first organism(s).

Care to explain your point with the Miller quote? I assumed that it was the square bracketed bit, because that's generally what square brackets are used for. Anyhow, the square brackets are your own, and incorrect, and anyway it I have said that life may not have begun several hundred meters below the ocean (not a warm pond, an ocean), quite free from atmospheric conditions.

"notice what left wing wiki says on this
The same principal applies to planets. Early earth had a reducing atmosphere, along with Mars and Venus. Later events stabilized earth's atmosphere to permit the evolution of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_atmosphere"

How the hell is Wiki left wing? I've seen pages critical the Catalonian Anarchists, Marxist thoughts and the like. Notice how it says "and other oxidizing gases and vapours", using oxygen only as an example, presumably because oxygen is the most famous. Once again no knowledge of chemistry.

Please use your own words for once. I will disregard any quotes from now on since you have shown yourself to be incapable of using quotes responsibly.

[total relism]

Oh, but my short post had everything to do with your posts. It shows you don't have any clue as to what you're talking about and rather than argue yourself you are relying on Google to find quotes. And I didn't name call. Telling someone that they have an attribute of a small child isn't calling them a child.

this qoute is from a book i own and you can read for free online science vs evolution
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo..._vs_ev_TOC.htm
your right about the name calling 2-0 your still wining.

Since you are having so much trouble wondering which creationism I want, give the evidence which is relevant, i.e. god created the first life form. Nothing to do with evolution, or how relatively complicated life exists today, but just the first organism(s).

as i said before this topic i did for you because you wanted it, i dont believe in creation because the evidence for god creating life [first life] i believe it for many other reasons that i would love to debate you on, however as i said before there is nothing inconsitant with this belief.
While believing in atheism, and life creating itself, has many many problems with this belief and inconsistencies, making me conclude creation has the much better argument on this topic. Im not sure what textbooks you have read, what shows you have watched, or what articles and books you have read, or what debates you have watched, but according to the evolutionist i know they all believe life arose from matter, non living life, [the law of Biogenesis be damned] if it interferes with story telling. Ask any evolutionist were evolution started what the first life to "evolve" was like they'll all tell you similar bedtime stories, evolution cannot start if it has no life to"evolve" so how can you say it has nothing to do with evolution?
I pointed out the complexity a little, of what the first life would need, chicken and egg problems dna information things that matter has no way of explaining, things that are consistent with original life being created not evolved.

Care to explain your point with the Miller quote? I assumed that it was the square bracketed bit, because that's generally what square brackets are used for. Anyhow, the square brackets are your own, and incorrect, and anyway it I have said that life may not have begun several hundred meters below the ocean (not a warm pond, an ocean), quite free from atmospheric conditions.

brackets not my own from book, however you know believe in a ocean again we have gone from a unknown never observed no evidence for ocean, to a pond to small to leave a track to a ocean free from oxygen again It would help me personally if you could stick to one story at a time, need to be free of uv light ocean, no evidence for ocean,pond than back again
As i said this ocean would leave evidence for it no? and we do have a ocean and warm ponds as well today, as well as intelligent scientist [and millions of our tax money]trying to create life with everything needed in a lab, and better than nature environments better than any warm pond or ocean imaginable with even intelligence trying to create. Where is this newly created life? what causes the faith you have in a unobserved "pond" to create life?

"notice what left wing wiki says on this
The same principal applies to planets. Early earth had a reducing atmosphere, along with Mars and Venus. Later events stabilized earth's atmosphere to permit the evolution of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_atmosphere"

How the hell is Wiki left wing? I've seen pages critical the Catalonian Anarchists, Marxist thoughts and the like.

interesting i did not know that, but with all my dealings with wiki [mostly regarding atheism Christianity] its bias, even my very liberal brother told me it was, he introduced me to it, but it is a valuable tool for quick search generally not most reliably source.


"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions.

In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640


bias at wiki
http://www.conservapedia.com/Example...s_in_Wikipedia
read this source
Abortion

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion
Anti-Christianity

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity
Conservapedia smears

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears
Conservative personalities and politicians

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities
Global warming

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming
Homosexuality

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality
Liberal Politicians

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians
Obama

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama
Science and Evolution

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debateoes_bias_impair_Wikipedia%27s_reliability%3F

Notice how it says "and other oxidizing gases and vapours", using oxygen only as an example, presumably because oxygen is the most famous. Once again no knowledge of chemistry.

Please use your own words for once. I will disregard any quotes from now on since you have shown yourself to be incapable of using quotes responsibly.

? what do you mean because i used oxygen as example i have no knowledge? did you want me to list the dozens of examples of chicken and egg problems for you? or do i not understand that as well.

i used my own words right off you seem incapable of responding to my own words, i used that to back up what i said
You have not answered what i used the quote for unless you do know stick with this deep ocean idea, is that what you will go with from know on?
This is like me saying your pond has no evidence for it, therefore what ever evidence you try to present for atheism origin of life i will not listen to

I believe we are getting lost in this discussion lets recap, i brought up many problems with life not being able to create itself, you have answered one if you stick with deep ocean and only if, but you keep bouncing back and forth between pond ocean i dont know were you stand.
I pointed out we have the best possible pond or ocean in labs and cannot create life, you have not even tried to address most all accept one problem i brought up, and your answer has much evidence against it as well the ocean.
You have not been able to challenge my belief on this topic. Or been able to give any scientific reason to believe your story telling

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Lets first get the irrelevant things out of the way.

How is Wikipedia biased? Anybody can edit it, as long as they properly reference it. More importantly, if it is such an unreliably biased source, why did you quote it? Besides, there's a good reason stated above that any respectable institution doesn't allow Wikipedia in it's authors references: Anybody can edit it. Conservapedia is the biased one, it's administrators/moderators delete not on the basis of referencing, but depending on whether or not it agrees with their beliefs. How biased it is has nothing to do with me, you're the one quoting it.

If the Miller quote is not your own, while you believe it to be correct, this is in effect the same thing as you putting in the square brackets yourself.


This ocean very well could have left evidence, but that evidence is consumable, may have sunk into the crust, and would take many billions of dollars to trawl the ocean floor searching for it, as well as plenty of time.

About my position with the pond and the ocean, I have not once stated that it was a pond. I only stated that it required a small amount of area and a lot of heat. Volcanoes aren't usually found in ponds.

Most importantly, I have not challenged your beliefs as there is nothing to challenge. The presence of a god alone is logic defying, let alone a god creating life. Give me your evidence and I will rebut it. I have taken the time to point out that my hypothesis is consistent with chemistry and that the conditions do exist and have existed on earth. Not persuade me of the correctness of your belief. This is a debate of abiogenesis (not evolution) vs. creationism, not a debate on the validity of abiogenesis, Wikipedia, or anything else.

[total relism]

Lets first get the irrelevant things out of the way.

How is Wikipedia biased? Anybody can edit it, as long as they properly reference it. More importantly, if it is such an unreliably biased source, why did you quote it? Besides, there's a good reason stated above that any respectable institution doesn't allow Wikipedia in it's authors references: Anybody can edit it. Conservapedia is the biased one, it's administrators/moderators delete not on the basis of referencing, but depending on whether or not it agrees with their beliefs. How biased it is has nothing to do with me, you're the one quoting it.

i thought i showed how its bias liberal bias athist bias evolution bias. yes conservapedia is bias i think there name gives that away, the thing is wiki does the same, evryone is bias, i was just showing that a liberal bias website even agreed with what i was saying.

If the Miller quote is not your own, while you believe it to be correct, this is in effect the same thing as you putting in the square brackets yourself.

i think the point of quoting is that it is not your own lol, i agree with what your saying here.

This ocean very well could have left evidence, but that evidence is consumable, may have sunk into the crust, and would take many billions of dollars to trawl the ocean floor searching for it, as well as plenty of time.

see this is what is called a theoretical rescuing devise, you invent reasons why the evidence does not match the story. Does not mean you are wrong, but it sure is not going to convince someone who does not share your faith in the unobserved such as my self. Of course i could challenge this rescuing devise as well with problems actually some serious ones know that i think of it.

About my position with the pond and the ocean, I have not once stated that it was a pond. I only stated that it required a small amount of area and a lot of heat. Volcanoes aren't usually found in ponds.

im sorry my bad if that is true

Most importantly, I have not challenged your beliefs as there is nothing to challenge. The presence of a god alone is logic defying, let alone a god creating life. Give me your evidence and I will rebut it. I have taken the time to point out that my hypothesis is consistent with chemistry and that the conditions do exist and have existed on earth. Not persuade me of the correctness of your belief. This is a debate of abiogenesis (not evolution) vs. creationism, not a debate on the validity of abiogenesis, Wikipedia, or anything else.

please tell me, ill accept this as on topic why its unlogical to believe in god? to witch i will tell you why its illogical to believe in atheism.
As i pointed out everything is constant with it being created [ you have not challenge this], and many things that you ignore that are inconstant with athism or evolutionary origins of life. You have not shown how a pond could create life do you really believe so? you have not shown evidence for your pond,you have admitted twice its theoretical and there is no evidence for it
Than i ask over and over lets all get real imaginative believe in this ocean that never was,and start to ask questions i know evolutionist dont like questions asked of there religion, but lets do it anyways.
What magic ability [sorry] did this ocean have that todays does not? why in lab experiments are we unable to create life with the best conditoins posible? why is there no evidence for this magic [sorry] ocean? why despite the imposiblities of life being created from matter, does this ocean have this ability? why long ago and far away? why no observation of this type of magic ever happen? Why despite your claims is this against know chemistry and biology? In fact its a law that life comes from life.
Again i did not want this topic and it is not the reason i believe in creation i did this for you
The evidence is constant with creation not with evolution, i have given many reasons you have ignored why. Coplexity multiple components needed at same time dna code information non material. You belive in something with no evidence for and much against, proven wrong all the time everyday in labs, with many problems that you have not answered so who has better explanation? a invented ocean with magic powers? or a intelligent designer creating a complex replication system?
When you happen to a car do you say to the owner were did that come from? oh i dont know some guy in japan made it, that's to easy you say some magic creator we try to figure how it really was made it made itself. [hey at least were trying to find a explanation] instead of just saying some guy in japan did it.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

i thought i showed how its bias liberal bias athist bias evolution bias. yes conservapedia is bias i think there name gives that away, the thing is wiki does the same, evryone is bias, i was just showing that a liberal bias website even agreed with what i was saying.

If it's so damn biased against your beliefs then don't quote it.

see this is what is called a theoretical rescuing devise, you invent reasons why the evidence does not match the story. Does not mean you are wrong, but it sure is not going to convince someone who does not share your faith in the unobserved such as my self. Of course i could challenge this rescuing devise as well with problems actually some serious ones know that i think of it.

The theoretical rescuing device is better than refusing to show evidence where it is needed.

please tell me, ill accept this as on topic why its unlogical to believe in god? to witch i will tell you why its illogical to believe in atheism.
As i pointed out everything is constant with it being created [ you have not challenge this], and many things that you ignore that are inconstant with athism or evolutionary origins of life. You have not shown how a pond could create life do you really believe so? you have not shown evidence for your pond,you have admitted twice its theoretical and there is no evidence for it
Than i ask over and over lets all get real imaginative believe in this ocean that never was,and start to ask questions i know evolutionist dont like questions asked of there religion, but lets do it anyways.
What magic ability [sorry] did this ocean have that todays does not? why in lab experiments are we unable to create life with the best conditoins posible? why is there no evidence for this magic [sorry] ocean? why despite the imposiblities of life being created from matter, does this ocean have this ability? why long ago and far away? why no observation of this type of magic ever happen? Why despite your claims is this against know chemistry and biology? In fact its a law that life comes from life.
Again i did not want this topic and it is not the reason i believe in creation i did this for you
The evidence is constant with creation not with evolution, i have given many reasons you have ignored why. Coplexity multiple components needed at same time dna code information non material. You belive in something with no evidence for and much against, proven wrong all the time everyday in labs, with many problems that you have not answered so who has better explanation? a invented ocean with magic powers? or a intelligent designer creating a complex replication system?
When you happen to a car do you say to the owner were did that come from? oh i dont know some guy in japan made it, that's to easy you say some magic creator we try to figure how it really was made it made itself. [hey at least were trying to find a explanation] instead of just saying some guy in japan did it.

• I have not challenged creationism as you have given me nothing to challenge.
• You are not sorry for saying "magic".
• Lab experiments have synthesized an entire genome. I think it's safe to say that people are well on the way to synthesizing the whole thing.
• It is not a law that life can only come from life. If any self replicating molecule achieves homeostasis, it becomes life.
• Cars aren't only produced in Japan. I know that cars are produced in Australia, which is where I live. I can also interact with the people who build them, but when's the last time god said hello to you?

[total relism]

If it's so damn biased against your beliefs then don't quote it.

u missed the point i quoted it showing even liberals agree with me, if you watch any of my past debates i will quote evolutionist, all the time showing them to agree with me on a specific argument.

The theoretical rescuing device is better than refusing to show evidence where it is needed.

The thing is, is this is just what you have been doing, inventing oceans with no evidence,claiming all sorts of things about first life with no evidence.
There cannot be evidence for creation of first life that is outside of the realm of science, it can not be tested or demonstrated or repeated, but everything we know is consistent with it.
Meanwhile atheism if true, should be able to be proven repeatable we have all we need according to evolutionist, yet it is demonstrably wrong, not to mention the many things that make it impossible i have mentioned just a few here.

• I have not challenged creationism as you have given me nothing to challenge.
• You are not sorry for saying "magic".
• Lab experiments have synthesized an entire genome. I think it's safe to say that people are well on the way to synthesizing the whole thing.
• It is not a law that life can only come from life. If any self replicating molecule achieves homeostasis, it becomes life.
• Cars aren't only produced in Japan. I know that cars are produced in Australia, which is where I live. I can also interact with the people who build them, but when's the last time god said hello to you?

-you can challenge the idea that god created life, yes i admit very hard to do, but than what reason do you have for rejecting creation? and instead going with the problem riddled imaginative magic ocean?
-true that sister
-well a genome is kinda the whole thing of a organism, this totally misses the point that they copied a already existing genome. I thought we were discussion origin of first life from non life?
-
The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.[5][6] Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").

what was it you said earlier? oh yes

"Now enlist yourself in the nearest local school and get the scientific knowledge of a child before you come back. Since you have not posted your evidence, I cannot be bothered reading the rest, so bye for now."

you have still not provided evidence for anything you have said other than it could happen i believe.

- yes if any nonliving matter comes alive it created life i agree.
- you seriously thought i was saying that cars are only produced in japan?really? seriously? really? no seriously? wow
so you admit than that there is a intelligent designer than? you are no longer a atheist? so life did come from intelligence? i actually interact with god on almost a daily bases, not to mention god has made himself know through creation. everyone is born a creationist you have to convince yourself later in life that the word was not created even evolutionist admit this.

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 1 19-25

your probably not up on your theology so god is not here because there is separation from god, sin caused separation that is why this world is falling apart [according to the bible] god is perfect and cannot be around sin that is why he is in haven he must judge sin so its a good thing hes not here.
also if you debate me is there evidence for creation i will show you some
god is spirit also that is why communication with god is in spirit not physical. in fact in the ot it says no one can see god in exodus


14:1　The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
psalm 14.1


u fit in this category
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 timothy 4.4

aka a big ocean creating life

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

• What does liberality have to do with this? stick to the point. I can quote plenty of "liberals" disagreeing with you, but I prefer to argue with my own words. Don't answer the question, it was rhetorical, and stay on topic.
• I haven't been inventing anything. Oceans exist. Volcanoes exist beneath them. Life flourishes there.
• How exactly do I prove a supernatural being does not exist? Need I ask you to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a rebuttal?
• I don't need a reason to reject creationism as you have given me no reason to accept it.
• The genome of the synthetic bacteria was not copied. Genomes have been copied as a part of forensics for quite a while now.
• I couldn't care less what Louis Pasteur said. Back then he would have said that televisions are just a dream. Aristotle said that everything is made of 5 elements, but that is hardly a good reason to dismiss chemistry, and he also dismissed atom theory. Try arguing with your own words.
• No I was not born a creationist. Are you going to dismiss every psychological theory of learning?
• I did not think that you thought all cars are made in Japan, I was pointing out that your analogy is flawed.
• The bible is not the basis for a rational argument. It is an outdated book. If I quoted a Richard Dawkins book you would be screaming "liberal bias" only because you disagree with it.
• The world is not falling apart. That statement is subjective.

Now then, in again in extra big font for extra importance:
Show me your evidence already! Also, please argue with your own words, so long as they are remotely coherent.