Meleeman, on 24 May 2011 - 04:10 AM, said:
2)i'm not lying. i could tell he serious in his actions. but you probably won't be convinced because you are just as prejudiced as i am.
3)Creationism/Intelligent design is a valid theory, compared to the big bang theory, it makes more sense because if a cell was to be made by primordial soup, a living cell needs at least 250 proteins to survive, and in an enviorment of the time earth was formed. impossible. anywhere else is impossible. my reason beliving in intelligent design/creationism is this. My link
i would like to explain further. but this tells my beliefs better
4)some criminals have families. do you still think it's not wrong to kill people? and i was trying to make a point about morality if you didn't notice my sarcasm.
5) there is no way for a cell with only 250 proteins at the simplest be able to survive anywhere in space. even if the temperature and conditions were perfect. the genetic material would have to have come from somewhere maybe a race from another dimension, crazy as it sounds, maybe from a material we haven't discovered yet, maybe even from an omnipotent god.
2) You're absolutely right. I am extremely prejudiced against idiots and bigots. I guess you caught me.
3) I'll get back to this one; I figure I owe it to you to watch that video so I can better explain why you're wrong, it's wrong, and how gullible you must have been to believe it. I'd like to get through the other points first though.
4) I suppose you must have had trouble reading through my sarcasm, or I misjudged yours. So I'll lay out two scenarios of what's been said so far, nice and straightforward:
You said "if you judge by what hurts people, killing criminals is right" by which you meant "killing is wrong, so utilitarianism (sorry but big words mean less redundant typing; look it up if you must) is wrong." I responded "killing criminals hurts them. Problem solved." You responded "killing criminals hurts their families. Why do you want to kill them?" I now respond "were you even listening?"
You said "if you judge by what hurts people, killing criminals is wrong" by which you meant "killing criminals is okay, so utilitarianism is wrong." I still responded "killing criminals hurts them. Problem solved." You then said (actually in this scenario I have no idea what you were trying to say just now). I now respond "your morals are seriously messed up; seek help."
5) I could bring up the fact that some life, including for example tardigrades which are multicellular, can survive in space, or that you don't need nearly so much complexity to have something capable of replicating itself, but it seems like a waste of time to elaborate on those ideas unless you give me some reason to believe you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about here, or at least that you have the slightest idea what point you are even responding to.
Oh, and while I'm watching that video, you can get to work on explaining the story with human sacrifice. I remember it's in Genesis somewhere. You know, the guy who has to be general against some invading group and sacrifices his daughter in gratitude for God having him win the battle. If you know the Bible so well I'm sure you remember his name, so I don't have to go to the trouble of looking it up.
Alright, watched those ten minutes. I hope you are linking the most important parts, by the way, since I'm probably not going to bother searching through the whole thing without any indications of what to focus on rebutting, and of course if I don't know in what ways you're wrong I can't even try to help you become less wrong.
So, anyway, a clip of a fortune-teller with a crystal ball. That's quite a convincing rebuttal of life forming on crystals. I may just have to change my mind right now. Okay, fine, that is the most egregious example, but simply saying "Ha, that's ridiculous!" does not constitute a proper counterargument. And if it does, I'm going to say right now, "Intelligent design? Ha, that's ridiculous!" And just like that you are convinced.
And let's see, the points put forward . . . first of all, we've got the statement that evolution is less mathematically rigorous than physics. Congratulations, you've just figured out that biology is as hard a science as physics! As the six billionth currently living person to do so, you win the fabulous prize of a slow clap, absolutely free! Now what do I win for noticing the lack of precise math in the origin of life as we know it being "a wizard did it"?
And next, we come to the willingness of scientists to admit when they don't know something. I'm glad that the video is balanced enough to point out the scientist's virtues. I think I can count myself with them, too; I don't know how such stupid ideas originate and will freely admit this, but still am happy to believe empirical evidence that you exist. Now tell me, where did the intelligent designer originate from?
Unfortunately, this now brings us to the blatant lies. Such as that Miller's experiments were a failure; quite the opposite in fact. He successfully created organic molecules, some quite complex, just by putting a little lightning through our best guess of the early Earth's atmosphere. Anybody who was expecting life to spring out of it clearly doesn't understand the difference between a bottle over the course of days and a planet over the course of millions of years (give or take; it is a little hard to determine precisely when the first life evolved since single cells seldom leave fossils, so as much as a billion years for the first successful cell to happen to form is not out of the question). I would think the difference would be obvious, but then again I'm not very good at estimating the extent of human stupidity. Or that life requires 250 proteins; fatty acids like the ones that make up modern cell membranes will naturally form spherical structures in water, and will destabilize and divide in two when they get too big from incorporating molecules picked up from their surroundings. A strand of RNA will tend to replicate a mirror copy of itself assuming there are individual bases floating around, and we've figured out how such bases would spontaneously form from smaller organic molecules. Put that RNA strand inside a pocket of fatty acids, and put it in a solution holding various raw organic molecules, such as say any pool of water on the primordial Earth, and you've got yourself a very simple example of life, and all for the low low cost of zero proteins. Sure, it can't control its motion, interaction with its surroundings, or how often it replicates in any way, but it can replicate and that's all it needs to be able to evolve. Evolution has plenty of time to provide everything else we're used to seeing in cells today.
And finally, I am a bit dubious about the credentials of those scientists, since it was only mentioned that they had them. Even if we are kind enough to just assume they all have PhDs in something related in some way to biology, thus making two unwarranted assumptions, we still run into the problem that you can always find people who got an extensive education, then subsequently suffered brain damage as long as you spend enough time looking. If you take the time to pick out the correct biased sample, you can get any consensus you like. By the way, I do not support a double standard. I have no credentials you know of; I make my arguments from memory mostly and never bother to cite my sources. I offer no proof beyond my stated allegiance to truth that I'm not making everything I say up. I do this because I don't actually care about convincing you; I doubt I could, you struck me immediately as being extremely set in your views. I just like having someone I can be sarcastic at without having to worry about thus blunting the effectiveness of my actual arguments.
And for your next trick, I suggest you bring up eyes. Eyes are quite possibly my favorite anti-evolution argument to rebut.
This post has been edited by Borg Lord: 24 May 2011 - 08:58 AM