View Poll Results: Does water have a taste?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 68.57%
  • No

    11 31.43%
Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 252

Thread: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

  1. #221
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    This is wrong. Life did not all stem from the 1 single cell that magically came to life. Abiogenesis is fundamentally flawed, implausible, and even if possible could not prove that this is how life first started. Life did not rise from primordial ooze.
    Are you even remotely serious? Abiogenesis is flawed? Improbable? On what grounds please?

    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth arose from inanimate matter. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

    In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication, and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.
    Yes it does. Why does it not?
    Because you're taking evidence and non-sequituring it to mean what you want it to mean.

    And neither can you prove that all things rose from abiogenesis. You can't go years into the past and see it happening. Even if remotely plausible (which it isn't) no one can prove that this is how life started. What is the physical property of gravity? It's like time, it isn't physical but it does indeed exist. You can't put time and gravity in a test tube. They aren't physical things. Regardless, even the test tube itself in my opinion proves God exists. Where did the atoms come from that comprise it? Why is it there? How were those atoms created? By the Creator.
    This is silly now:

    Miller

    The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

    At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, liquids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

    In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."[9]

    As observed in all subsequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

    The original experiment remains today under the care of Miller and Urey's former student Professor Jeffrey Bada at the University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.[10]
    Again, you have no evidence for a creator so claiming there is one is quite useless. Where is this creator? What scientific experiments can one conduct to prove the existence? How can one observe it? As I said before, you might as well be claiming furry creatures came to the earth and made everything.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #222
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    Digsbe, you can argue all the day that the 'evidence' shows there is a creator but it simply doesn't. That's not how science works at all. You don't simply get to look at evidence and because there is complexity within a mechanism you claim that it was created. The evidence will simply show that there was complexity in a mechanism and offer explanations for how this complexity came to be. Now we can go back and forth all day and you can argue that your creator works above the realm of nature but then doesn't that just show that you're arguing from ignorance? There is very little within the natural world which can't be explained through the rational observations of science. The fact that most of nature is connected through various systems simply shows that nature is connected through various systems. That's it.

    But I must ask, do you also believe in every magical creature which has been proven to be mythical because little evidence supports their existence? I can claim all day that horses and bulls support a claim for the existence of unicorns but that doesn't make it so. Horses and bulls support claims for the existence of well, horses and bulls. The fact that abiogenesis has been proven to be not only be probable but possible within a lab shows that the conditions for a (let's call it) "spontaneous" existence to life are there. Seriously, scientists don't just make up stuff.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #223
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Are you even remotely serious? Abiogenesis is flawed? Improbable? On what grounds please?

    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Tell me how believing millions of random DNA sequences survived a harsh environment and aligned themselves in the right order to code for sequences within a membrane that also so happened to have all the right amino acid sequences lined up and stable enough to function within the presence on tRNA to code for functional proteins. Also, how the life giving energy sparked the cell into life and not destroying it. It's vastly improbable.


    Because you're taking evidence and non-sequituring it to mean what you want it to mean.
    Aren't you doing the same?
    This is silly now:

    Miller
    Really? Why the Miller-Urey research argues against abiogenesis
    Again, you have no evidence for a creator so claiming there is one is quite useless. Where is this creator? What scientific experiments can one conduct to prove the existence? How can one observe it? As I said before, you might as well be claiming furry creatures came to the earth and made everything.
    From personal experience I know that God exists. From scientific truths I know a Creator exists. I have explained how Creation points to a creator and have already said that God is not a physical piece of matter/energy that we can experiment with and test. God is above matter and created it. He isn't matter and cannot be manipulated. Similarly. You can't say all life started via abiogenesis even if by some chance it is proven true. You can't prove that life started that way devoid of a creator.

    Digsbe, you can argue all the day that the 'evidence' shows there is a creator but it simply doesn't. That's not how science works at all. You don't simply get to look at evidence and because there is complexity within a mechanism you claim that it was created. The evidence will simply show that there was complexity in a mechanism and offer explanations for how this complexity came to be. Now we can go back and forth all day and you can argue that your creator works above the realm of nature but then doesn't that just show that you're arguing from ignorance? There is very little within the natural world which can't be explained through the rational observations of science. The fact that most of nature is connected through various systems simply shows that nature is connected through various systems. That's it.
    It does. You haven't disproven how because science and energy cannot be created nor destroyed that it doesn't point to something beyond science (God) to have created it. I look at evidence and what we know and make conclusions. I'm not arguing that complexity demands a creator. I am arguing that scientific law and order demands the need for a creator. The universe is limited. It can't create matter or energy, it also cannot destroy matter and energy. Matter and energy can change forms and are governed by laws. Rational observation has proven that energy and matter cannot be created. Thus is it also rational to believe something beyond science must have created energy and matter (God).
    But I must ask, do you also believe in every magical creature which has been proven to be mythical because little evidence supports their existence? I can claim all day that horses and bulls support a claim for the existence of unicorns but that doesn't make it so. Horses and bulls support claims for the existence of well, horses and bulls. The fact that abiogenesis has been proven to be not only be probable but possible within a lab shows that the conditions for a (let's call it) "spontaneous" existence to life are there. Seriously, scientists don't just make up stuff.
    I will not respond to this. And also, abiogenesis has not been proven.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #224
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I will not respond to this. And also, abiogenesis has not been proven.
    Nope, abiogenesis has not been proven. There's a lot about the primordial earth and the conditions we don't know yet. Doesn't mean we won't know, doesn't mean something like abiogenesis (a natural process by which life arose) wasn't present. Without the data we sit at a fork in the road and can say one of two things. A) We don't know yet, but the most plausible answer is that there was some natural mechanism which gave rise to life. B) God did it. That's the choice. Science does not say that B has to be the answer. No part of the scientific method would point to B. The scientific approach would merely state that we do not know at this point.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #225
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Nope, abiogenesis has not been proven. There's a lot about the primordial earth and the conditions we don't know yet. Doesn't mean we won't know, doesn't mean something like abiogenesis (a natural process by which life arose) wasn't present. Without the data we sit at a fork in the road and can say one of two things. A) We don't know yet, but the most plausible answer is that there was some natural mechanism which gave rise to life. B) God did it. That's the choice. Science does not say that B has to be the answer. No part of the scientific method would point to B. The scientific approach would merely state that we do not know at this point.
    That isn't true. That's only true for naturalism, which locks God out of everything. Let me propose this. If mankind is the process of evolution, can we comprehend everything? If our brains are the product of random mutations why should we suppose that every mystery can be comprehended and understood? Animals have their limitations. A dog can't understand science, humans can. But like a dog, can we understand higher concepts? Isn't there a limit to our understanding and our capacity? The human mind is the greatest out of all living things, but who are we to understand everything and claim that our science and method can know all? I think science will come to the undoubted conclusion that life did not occur naturally to which we will have to give a reason whether it be God, a random self propagating energy force beyond natural limitations, and the like.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #226
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Tell me how believing millions of random DNA sequences survived a harsh environment and aligned themselves in the right order to code for sequences within a membrane that also so happened to have all the right amino acid sequences lined up and stable enough to function within the presence on tRNA to code for functional proteins.
    STOP! STOP! One gross misunderstanding of basic scientific principles at a time.

    The First Cell

    After allowing the experiment to continue for a week, the results where startling. The previously colorless solution inside the apparatus had turned red. Upon analyzing the solution, Miller found many organic molecules present, some of which couldn't be readily identified. The most important of created compounds, however, where amino acids. This, in effect, proved Oparin's theory that organic compounds could have been created in the early atmosphere. Further studies showed that some amino acids would have combined with hydrogen cyanide (HCN), which is a byproduct of volcanic activity. This combination would form purines and pyrinidines, which are used to make nucleic acids, which in turn create DNA
    DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Deoxyribonucleic acid (en-us-Deoxyribonucleic_acid.ogg /diːˌɒksɨˌraɪbɵ.n(j)uːˈkleɪ.ɪk ˈęsɪd/ (help·info)) (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms with the exception of some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.
    Seriously, what are you going on about?

    Also, how the life giving energy sparked the cell into life and not destroying it. It's vastly improbable.
    Life giving energy didn't spark any cell into life. Seriously kid, read up on your science. That's not what the Urrey experiment shows.

    Aren't you doing the same?
    No. You are attributing a process to a creator. I am explaining a process without the need for a creator or any other unprovable origins.

    Yes. Really. The argument they are making is the same as yours. One based on statistics and yet this is where you fail to understand a very basic principle of nature. As many possibilities are there might be the probabilities of events happening a single way are usually 1 to 1. Example, take a glass of water. Now pour it on the floor. What do you think is the probability that the water will not fall to the ground and stay floating in the air? There's probably a chance of it but it won't happen. What will happen nearly 100% of the time is that the water will simply fall to the ground and make a mess. Take a leaf from a tree. Say the leaf fell off a branch. What is the probability that it will turn into a bird and fly away? There's probably a chance but it's highly unlikely. The same explanation is given for why life needed to exist. The atmospheric and environmental conditions lent themselves for life to happen every time, all the time. Why don't we find life on Mars? What about Pluto? If there is a creator who can engineer life on earth why can't he do it elsewhere?

    From personal experience I know that God exists. From scientific truths I know a Creator exists. I have explained how Creation points to a creator and have already said that God is not a physical piece of matter/energy that we can experiment with and test. God is above matter and created it. He isn't matter and cannot be manipulated. Similarly. You can't say all life started via abiogenesis even if by some chance it is proven true. You can't prove that life started that way devoid of a creator.
    This is all a subjective view of abiogenesis. It's not verifiable. You can't prove it in any way.

    It does. You haven't disproven how because science and energy cannot be created nor destroyed that it doesn't point to something beyond science (God) to have created it. I look at evidence and what we know and make conclusions. I'm not arguing that complexity demands a creator. I am arguing that scientific law and order demands the need for a creator. The universe is limited. It can't create matter or energy, it also cannot destroy matter and energy. Matter and energy can change forms and are governed by laws. Rational observation has proven that energy and matter cannot be created. Thus is it also rational to believe something beyond science must have created energy and matter (God).
    The amount of misinformation in this is ridiculous. You're essentially arguing FROM IGNORANCE. The scientific evidence showing that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed shows just that, that it can't be created or destroyed. You make the illogical conclusion that if it can't be explained through physical means then there must be something else. Which you call a creator. This however is not a rational conclusion by any means. It's mysticism. It's no different than a viking being unable to explain lightning and saying that Thor made it. It's an argument F.R.O.M. I.G.N.O.R.A.N.C.E.

    I will not respond to this. And also, abiogenesis has not been proven.
    Dude, it has. Learn some science. Please, for the love of God.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #227
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    STOP! STOP! One gross misunderstanding of basic scientific principles at a time.

    The First Cell
    How does this apply to anything that I said? I am not talking about the structure of DNA molecules, I'm talking about DNA sequences and the amino acid makeups of proteins. Re-read what I posted.
    DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Seriously, what are you going on about?
    Again, re-read what I said. What you posted doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I know what DNA is and how it works, and because I know what it is and how it works I understand how fragile it is and how important a correct DNA sequence is in coding for functional proteins.

    Life giving energy didn't spark any cell into life. Seriously kid, read up on your science. That's not what the Urrey experiment shows.
    The Urrey experiment is flawed. See my link.
    No. You are attributing a process to a creator. I am explaining a process without the need for a creator or any other unprovable origins.
    That process cannot happen and cannot be proven as the stem of all life though. The process may exist in theory, but it's implausible.
    Yes. Really. The argument they are making is the same as yours. One based on statistics and yet this is where you fail to understand a very basic principle of nature. As many possibilities are there might be the probabilities of events happening a single way are usually 1 to 1. Example, take a glass of water. Now pour it on the floor. What do you think is the probability that the water will not fall to the ground and stay floating in the air? There's probably a chance of it but it won't happen. What will happen nearly 100% of the time is that the water will simply fall to the ground and make a mess. Take a leaf from a tree. Say the leaf fell off a branch. What is the probability that it will turn into a bird and fly away? There's probably a chance but it's highly unlikely. The same explanation is given for why life needed to exist. The atmospheric and environmental conditions lent themselves for life to happen every time, all the time. Why don't we find life on Mars? What about Pluto? If there is a creator who can engineer life on earth why can't he do it elsewhere?
    Did you read the link? There is no possibility of a leaf turning into a bird under any natural circumstances. There is such a thing as impossible regardless of how many random chances you get. If life can randomly spawn, why don't we see it on other planets? You say that if there is a God who can create life on earth then why isn't life other places? What if it wasn't God's will to create life on other planets? Sure God can do it, that doesn't mean he has to and the absence of life on other planets does not mean that God didn't create life on earth and that all is just a random process.
    This is all a subjective view of abiogenesis. It's not verifiable. You can't prove it in any way.
    Then why completely rule out that God could have created life? Why claim that abiogenesis did happen when you admit that it isn't verifiable?
    The amount of misinformation in this is ridiculous. You're essentially arguing FROM IGNORANCE. The scientific evidence showing that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed shows just that, that it can't be created or destroyed. You make the illogical conclusion that if it can't be explained through physical means then there must be something else. Which you call a creator. This however is not a rational conclusion by any means. It's mysticism. It's no different than a viking being unable to explain lightning and saying that Thor made it. It's an argument F.R.O.M. I.G.N.O.R.A.N.C.E.
    I'm interested in having a respectful and rational discussion. I'd rather not continue this debate. You aren't addressing my points and I'm tired of being personally attacked. I respect you, I respect your views, but I am not interested in being attacked and having my points being ignored and substituted with how ignorant I am of science.
    Dude, it has. Learn some science. Please, for the love of God.
    No it hasn't. Abiogenesis has not been proven. Even within the realm of the theory scientists still debate how the mechanism may have happened. As you said yourself, we can't verify that life started via abiogenesis. I am done here. I will say again that I respect you and your views. I have no animosity towards you, but I am not interested in this type of debate.
    Last edited by digsbe; 10-19-10 at 08:58 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  8. #228
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,217

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. A personal experience of a supernatural nature can never be evidence as it is subjectively based on the individual's interpretation of their experience.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  9. #229
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    There are no evidence for a God, but there are no evidence for atheism either. Atheist are just as religious as Christians, because they deny the possibility of a supernatural figure, souls or reincarnation.

  10. #230
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    There are no evidence for a God, but there are no evidence for atheism either. Atheist are just as religious as Christians, because they deny the possibility of a supernatural figure, souls or reincarnation.
    Just as religious for not having religious beliefs. You guys make a bundle of sense.

Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •