Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Case for a creator
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 31 of 46 (184851)
02-13-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by CK
02-11-2005 5:38 PM


Re: I'm sorry we need to remend you but we've been over this before.
CK writes:
The same will happen here.
Yes... after another 150 posts.

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by CK, posted 02-11-2005 5:38 PM CK has not replied

  
JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 46 (185577)
02-15-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
02-11-2005 3:29 PM


Different thing
In the lies of the miller experiment, which I learned not to say yes to something too quickly, I thought (and to a point still do) that my textbook said that the miller experiment was proof of evoloution instead of abioginisis. Now I am just saying that what ever it is trying to prove, they twisted the facts. Even my favorite magizine, popular science did this as well when talking about the miller experiment. My point is that you shouldn't say that creationists know nothing about science. In biblical terms, take out the log in your own eye before pointing at the spec in anothers.
This message has been edited by JESUS freak, 02-24-2005 14:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 02-11-2005 3:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 02-15-2005 2:43 PM JESUS freak has not replied
 Message 34 by CK, posted 02-15-2005 3:04 PM JESUS freak has not replied
 Message 35 by CK, posted 02-15-2005 3:12 PM JESUS freak has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 33 of 46 (185582)
02-15-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by JESUS freak
02-15-2005 2:27 PM


Re: Different thing
Jesus Freak writes:
In the lies of the miller experiment, which I learned not to say yes to something too quickly, I thought (and to a point still do) believed that my textbook said that the miller experiment was proof of evoloution instead of abioginisis.
I'm greatly confused by your approach. Wasn't it clear to you from the The lies behind the Miller experiment thread that you should support your assertions with evidence? We questioned this point from you over and over again, and you never provided any support. If you're going to repeat this assertion in this thread then you should support it with evidence. Either post an image of the page or type the text from that page in or make this the last time you ever make this assertion.
No I am just saying that what ever it is trying to prove, they twisted the facts.
Who twisted the facts? People here? Articles you read? What? Please follow the Forum Guidelines and support your assertions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by JESUS freak, posted 02-15-2005 2:27 PM JESUS freak has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 34 of 46 (185590)
02-15-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by JESUS freak
02-15-2005 2:27 PM


Re: Different thing
quote:
In the lies of the miller experiment, which I learned not to say yes to something too quickly, I thought (and to a point still do) believed that my textbook said that the miller experiment was proof of evoloution instead of abioginisis. No I am just saying that what ever it is trying to prove, they twisted the facts. Even my favorite magizine, popular science did this as well when talking about the miller experiment. My point is that you shouldn't say that creationists know nothing about science. In biblical terms, take out the log in your own eye before pointing at the spec in anothers.
I'm sorry but I just have to say this - you are full of shit.
You have NEVER produced ant evidence for your claims - I'll not speak for other creationists but YOU know nothing about science. That in itself is not the saddest thing, it is sad that you dishonour your religion and those who share it with you by telling some open falsehoods.
Do you think Jesus wants you to tell Lies for him? If Jesus appeared to you now, what do you think he would said to you?
Are you really wanting to try and pull this when any of us can check the old thread and read what you actually said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by JESUS freak, posted 02-15-2005 2:27 PM JESUS freak has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 35 of 46 (185592)
02-15-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by JESUS freak
02-15-2005 2:27 PM


Re: Different thing
From the old thread:
quote:
Message 8
quote: Yes I am, at least in EVERY non-Christian text book that talks about it. And the media (popoular science, Feb 2004)
quote:
Message 9
quote:I think that it is a part of evoloution, but whatever my opinion is about it, the miller-urly experiment is being used extensively to premote evoloution everywhere from my textbooks to National Geograpic.
quote:
Message 33
quote:Yes thank you, but my point still stands that whether or not the miller experiment has to do with evoloution, it is being used that way.
quote:
Message 42
quote:good I can be the first at something. I have not said evoloution is wrong in this forum. I have said that the miller experiment is being used as a basis of fact along with a bunch of other things that are not the topic of this forum to premote the theory of evolution. Not to mention the fact that the miller experiment was a failere.
quote:
Message 66
quote: Fine, let's say that the miller experiment has nothing to do with evoloution. This doesn't change the fact that it is being used as evidence in school courses. My point remains.
quote:
Message 67
quote:That was my point, it may not have anything to do with evoloution, but IT IS BEING USED AS PROOF OF evolution.
You are a liar, plain and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by JESUS freak, posted 02-15-2005 2:27 PM JESUS freak has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 02-15-2005 3:42 PM CK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 36 of 46 (185607)
02-15-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by CK
02-15-2005 3:12 PM


Re: Different thing
Hi Charles,
I initially had the same visceral reaction as you, but I think JF may have been trying to distance himself a bit from the other thread. I think he garbled it a bit (note the confusion of the two consecutive verbs separated only by the parenthetic clause), so I thought that perhaps he didn't quite end up saying what he intended. I agree that it sounds like he's trying to rewrite the history of the other thread, but that may not have been his intent:
Jesus Freak writes:
In the lies of the miller experiment, which I learned not to say yes to something too quickly, I thought (and to a point still do) believed that my textbook said that the miller experiment was proof of evoloution instead of abioginisis.
Regardless, in the other thread Jesus Freak was incredibly frustrating in repeating charges of misrepresentation about the Miller experiment in his textbook, and he said over and over and over again that he was going to present this information to us (usually next Thursday), but he never did. He was very cavalier about the time invested by others at trying to address his points, often missing the point of many of the responses. I believe he spent some time in Boot Camp. I hope we don't see a repetition of this behavior.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by CK, posted 02-15-2005 3:12 PM CK has not replied

  
JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 46 (189816)
03-03-2005 3:00 PM


Satisfied yet, or do you want a million bucks too?
Ok Charles here is the proof, so you can stop dissing me now. One of the reasons that I didn't post this on the last one is that from what others have said, it is too long.(Other reasons included that as you can see, it does not say exactly what said it did in lies of the miller experiment and I didn't have it typed in) I may be wrong on this, but I will put it up quick so you can read it and stop calling me names. The part I mentioned in this thread is at the bottem where it states the results of the miller experiment.
This message has been edited by JESUS freak, 03-03-2005 17:22 AM

  
JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 46 (189817)
03-03-2005 3:01 PM


Continued
Experimental Evidence.
During the first half of the twentieth century, scientists hypothesized that the early atmosphere contained carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor, methane, and ammonia, but no free oxygen. They also theorized that numerous storms produced lightning and that the surface of Earth was relatively warm. Molecular biologists in the 1920s also suggested that an atmosphere containing abundant ammonia and methane but lacking free oxygen would be an ideal setting for the primordial soup in which life may have begun. A young graduate student named Stanley Miller, who was working with his graduate advisor, Nobel prize-winning chemist Harold Urey in 1953, was aware of these hypotheses.
Miller and Urey decided to create their own primordial soup. They set up an apparatus, like that shown in Figure 22-12, that contained a chamber filled with hydrogen, methane, and ammonia to simulate the early atmosphere. This atmospheric chamber was connected to a lower chamber that was designed to catch any particles that condensed in the atmospheric chamber.
Miller and Urey added sparks from tungsten electrodes to simulate lightning in the atmosphere. Only one week after the start of the experiment, the lower chamber contained a murky, brown liquid — the primordial soup! The soup that formed in this experiment contained organic molecules such as cyanide (CN), formaldehyde (H2CO), and four different amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are the basic substances from which life is built.
Continued experiments showed that 13 of the 20 amino acids known to occur in living things could be formed using the Miller-Urey method. Further experiments demonstrated that heat, cyanide, and certain clay minerals could cause amino acids to join together in chains like proteins. Proteins provide structure for tissues and organs, and are important agents in cell metabolism. Thus, the discovery that amino acids could be formed in this way was amazing. What Miller and Urey demonstrated, is that however life first formed, the basic building blocks of life were most likely present on Earth during the Archean.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Loudmouth, posted 03-03-2005 4:11 PM JESUS freak has replied
 Message 40 by Trixie, posted 03-03-2005 4:15 PM JESUS freak has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 46 (189831)
03-03-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by JESUS freak
03-03-2005 3:01 PM


Re: Continued
JF,
Thanks or supplying the section from that text book. Let's take a closer look at it.
quote:
What Miller and Urey demonstrated, is that however life first formed, the basic building blocks of life were most likely present on Earth during the Archean.
So the textbook leaves the door open for aliens planting life on earth, or even special creation of the first life forms. All that phrase is saying is that amino acids can form through processes that don't involve living organisms. This is what the Miller-Urey experiment showed. Before this time it was thought that only life could produce amino acids, or that the formation of amino acids required a stringent mechanisms. Miller-Urey proved that idea was wrong. Amino acids can be formed in very simple reactions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JESUS freak, posted 03-03-2005 3:01 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by JESUS freak, posted 03-03-2005 5:18 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 40 of 46 (189835)
03-03-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by JESUS freak
03-03-2005 3:01 PM


Where's the evolution?
Nowhere in the text you posted is there ANY mention of evolution or evidence of evolution. The text is referring to the very beginnings of abiogenesis.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but in case it helps, abiogenesis deals with how the very first life may have arisen. Evolution deals with how this life then changed in response to various factors and doesn't even consider where it originally came from.
An analogy to what you seem to be saying is "I can't bake a cake because I don't personally know the chicken that laid the eggs I'll need". If I'm baking, I don't give a toss which particular chicken laid the eggs, I crack 'em into a bowl and get working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JESUS freak, posted 03-03-2005 3:01 PM JESUS freak has not replied

  
JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 46 (189856)
03-03-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Loudmouth
03-03-2005 4:11 PM


Re: Continued
But the experiment that produced the amino acids did not have the right atmosphere. My whole point to begin with was that they gave the atmosphere of the first experiments with the results of the latter ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Loudmouth, posted 03-03-2005 4:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coragyps, posted 03-03-2005 5:31 PM JESUS freak has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 42 of 46 (189861)
03-03-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JESUS freak
03-03-2005 5:18 PM


Re: Continued
That's possibly because the textbook author didn't check facts very well. Experiments since 1953 using what are thought to be more realistic atmospheres make amino acids, too. Amino acids have been found in the chunks of asteroids that we call meteorites, and their mode of synthesis in the vacuum of space has been worked out. So yes, the text is possibly misleading about the Miller-Urey results - but that doesn't change the fact that there are known abiogenic routes to amino acids - and to simple sugars, purines, niacin....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JESUS freak, posted 03-03-2005 5:18 PM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by JESUS freak, posted 03-04-2005 3:07 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
JESUS freak
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 46 (190076)
03-04-2005 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coragyps
03-03-2005 5:31 PM


Re: Continued
Nope tests with the real atmosphere give you tar, cyinide and formaldahyde which, through a deffinatly unnatual process, might be able to be turned into amino acids. However, that is not what this thread is about. For more info, see Lies of the miller experiment

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coragyps, posted 03-03-2005 5:31 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 46 (211236)
05-25-2005 4:58 PM


Good Book
I will defend Lee Strobel's case in the books which he has written.
1. Lee Strobel, when writing his first book Case for Christ, was trying to disprove the things in the Bible. The sources he picked were sources that he thought would know the information in the Bible correctly and be able to answer in a logical, knowledgable way. He was not 'picking sides' but was in fact trying to get the best info on the topics available.
2. If you have not read the book, do not bash the book. You are being prejudice. Thank you.
3. The books which Lee Strobel wrote concern Christian theology and basic beliefs, and although he uses science, history, archeology, and other sources, to use these things as relevant claims to knock science is a bad idea. The initial purpose was to show Christianity wrong, instead it gave evidence for it, the purpose was not to prove science wrong.
Therefore, although the book has some evidences (scientifically) for Christianity, one must be wary to use it on this forum and must have additional evidence to support it. I hope this post also eases the tension off of Jesus freak.
This message has been edited by Namesdan, 05-25-2005 04:59 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2005 5:25 PM Namesdan has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 45 of 46 (211246)
05-25-2005 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Namesdan
05-25-2005 4:58 PM


Re: Good Book
Strobel didn't write The Case for Christ trying to DISprove Christianity - it's a case FOR - not a case against.
And you can't take pressure off anyine by resurrecting a dormant thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Namesdan, posted 05-25-2005 4:58 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Namesdan, posted 05-25-2005 5:28 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024