the origin of the living cell
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:51 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You've shown yourself to be quite wilfully ignorant, so I don't suppose there's much point in attempting discussion, but sometimes I have nothing better to do.

I'll go point by point. Let me know when I get to something you disagree with.

1. There are observable differences between individuals of any given species.
2. Offspring differ from their parents, because they carry a mix of their parents' hereditary traits.
3. Some individuals are more likely to reproduce, based on the traits they exhibit.
4. The effect of 1-3 is: traits are propagated through a population.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. You accept evolution. If that's not how you define evolution then you're wrong. It's that simple. Read a book.

As to human evolution:

4. Fossils exist.
5. Fossils of modern human beings are only found in the last several hundred thousand years.
5A. This age is attested by all known geological factors and radiological testing.
6. From 5: modern human beings did not exist prior to that time.
7. Fossils of very similar humans have been found which date immediately prior to that.
8. Repeat step 7 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
9. Fossils of modern species of apes are found only in the last several hundred thousand years.
10. Fossils of very similar apes have been found found which date immediately prior to that.
11. Repeat step 10 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
12. Steps 7 and 10 lead to converge on a single set of ancestors.

So which part of reality do you reject?

Protip: if you actually wanted answers, you could very easily do your own search. Refusing to do so suggests malice, dishonesty, or plain stupidity. I'd bet on all three.
If fossils of modern human beings go back hundreds of thousands of years why is it recorded the history of human civilization only goes back about 4,300 years with the cradle of civilization being located in Mesopotamia and ancient Babylon? This is exactly what the bible book of Genesis states in chapters 10 and 11. This is called the science of ARCHEOLOGY and ANTHROPOLOGY. The next time you're in London I suggest you visit the British Museum. Archeology confirms the bible record regarding places, cities, people world powers etc.

Sorry, your little fairy tale doesn't expalin anything but ignorance, hatred, supperession of outsiders and viloence.

People here are willing, and I would venture to say eager to converse with theists in an open and honest manner. Instead of that, we get this rehash of crap.

You have proven you are here to spout your Ken Hamm/AIG/Kent Hovind/Ray Comfort view of a science that has a vast array of evidence to back it up. If some of us seem a little terse and less that thrilled with you being so obtuse all I can say is too bad.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
10-06-2013, 11:20 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 11:10 AM)JAH Wrote:  Recorded history and fossil history are two different things.

And oh yes the British Museum, home of stolen goods. Often in the name of the empire and the "church of england".

You forgot "white man's burden". Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-06-2013, 12:28 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:51 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You've shown yourself to be quite wilfully ignorant, so I don't suppose there's much point in attempting discussion, but sometimes I have nothing better to do.

I'll go point by point. Let me know when I get to something you disagree with.

1. There are observable differences between individuals of any given species.
2. Offspring differ from their parents, because they carry a mix of their parents' hereditary traits.
3. Some individuals are more likely to reproduce, based on the traits they exhibit.
4. The effect of 1-3 is: traits are propagated through a population.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. You accept evolution. If that's not how you define evolution then you're wrong. It's that simple. Read a book.

As to human evolution:

4. Fossils exist.
5. Fossils of modern human beings are only found in the last several hundred thousand years.
5A. This age is attested by all known geological factors and radiological testing.
6. From 5: modern human beings did not exist prior to that time.
7. Fossils of very similar humans have been found which date immediately prior to that.
8. Repeat step 7 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
9. Fossils of modern species of apes are found only in the last several hundred thousand years.
10. Fossils of very similar apes have been found found which date immediately prior to that.
11. Repeat step 10 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
12. Steps 7 and 10 lead to converge on a single set of ancestors.

So which part of reality do you reject?

Protip: if you actually wanted answers, you could very easily do your own search. Refusing to do so suggests malice, dishonesty, or plain stupidity. I'd bet on all three.
If fossils of modern human beings go back hundreds of thousands of years why is it recorded the history of human civilization only goes back about 4,300 years with the cradle of civilization being located in Mesopotamia and ancient Babylon? This is exactly what the bible book of Genesis states in chapters 10 and 11. This is called the science of ARCHEOLOGY and ANTHROPOLOGY. The next time you're in London I suggest you visit the British Museum. Archeology confirms the bible record regarding places, cities, people world powers etc.

We do have human fossils dating back 195,000 years. How much proof that you lived will be preserved and recognized 200,000 years from now? Do you really think all our paper and plastics will still be around? Do you think my 1967 camero will be around? It's an interesting thought that future generations will be piecing together how we live today. Even in my own family history that has been traced to the late 1600s in Norway. I don't know how they lived really, only that they did. Through birth, death and marriage records. I don't know what their thoughts were. I can only presume by other recorded and accepted histories on how they lived.

Archeology does confirm some, but not all of the bible. Much of the bible was derived from myths that existed long before. Most it does confirm is inconsequential and doesn't establish any type of proof of the veracity of the bible.

I've actually toured the British museum years ago and to the natural history museum before they officially split (which i believe was in the 90s i read -- tho it began earlier) Both are great places. it was actually at the British Museum that I learned and realized that civilizations had made their own huge advancements only to forget about them later on. Things like indoor plumbing. I've also been to Greece -- another amazing place. Coin operated water fountains in the days of socrates -- of course those were for paying tribute to the gods they believed in. How times haven't changed so much.

Shoo fly!


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
10-06-2013, 12:37 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2013 12:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 09:36 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 09:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I see he knows as little History as he knows his science.
1. First of all, the word is "UNconditionally". The Vatican in no way "unconditionally" supported Hitler. NO historian would agree with that crap. Pius XII could have done more, but he had a line to walk, and in retrospect he maybe didn't do a very good job, but "unconditionally support", is bullshit.. At some point people's grammar and spelling DO indicate a general education level. His refusal to read, view, or comment on ANYTHING speaks volumes.
2. We have asked for evidence of any god, or which one, and he's failed, even while demanding evidence for his nonsense.
3. He calls up "Piltdown" which is totally irrelevant. There are mountains of deceiving believers, one could cite.
4. Evolution is confirmed by DNA, s, including the genetic bottleneck with "Lucy". IE mitochondrial DNA. (He doesn't know what that means). He's just too ignorant to even discuss the subjects he *flits* about. He's also a 110% hypocrite. If he or his butt-buddy Creationists were in prison, and could get out by using DNA they would. They *do* believe in evolution, they are just too stupid, and uneducated to know why. There are confirmed DNA lines which have found remnants of Neanderthals in Homo sapiens. We don't need "cavemen" fossils. (However there are some, he's just too stupid and has only read "Answers in Genesis" as his ONLY source to actually know any facts).

My dear Mr. Buckyball. Hitler's vice-chancellor, Franz Von Papen, mediated a condordat between the Nazis and the Vatican in 1933 regulating relations between Hitler's Germany and the Vatican. The Catholic Church together with the rest of false religion has always prostituted itself before world leaders and taught a pack of lies to the people. Two examples of this are a mystical trinitarian god and eternal torment of the wicked in a burning hell. In that sense, Mr. Buckyball, I also am an atheist: I don't believe in a three-headed monstrosity they call the Holy Trinity. By the way, Neanderthals were actually humans and not a link between primates and modern man. You should know that.

The Concordat was hardly "unconditional support" for the Nazi's. It was an attempt to keep the church out of an impending war. Pius XII at the time of the Condordat had no way of knowing the atrocities they were going to commit. Your hyperbole does not serve you well. In fact, its a lie. Your nonsense generizations are false. You have no clue what the various church bodies did or did not do, and during what period they did them. You seem to NEED to espouse a childish, simplistic, black and white view of everything. Not unusual. The failure of most fundie Creationists to recognize reality, usually comes down to mental health.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-06-2013, 12:39 PM
Re: the origin of the living cell
The creationist, the only creature known to man who requires evidence for a position counter to their own but claims no evidence is needed for their own position, just faith and special pleading.

How about this for the origin of the cell? We don't know. Also, this has no bearing on the position of atheism.

And who said the very first "living" thing had to be something with a structure that could be definitively labeled as a cell? Viruses have been looked at as potentially be a key to understanding the very first "life" on Earth. And you will find a debate today as to whether or not they even qualify as life today. Why? Because the boundary between life and non-life at that scale is not as clear-cut and well-defined as you might think. Which makes your presumptions preposterous.

Also, not having an answer, doesn't make a god necessary. Drinking Beverage

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
10-06-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
[that this has happened? If they cannot present evidence that the cell came into existence without a designing Creator their atheistic beliefs are without foundation and are born dead, without any basis.[/u]
[/quote]

its not up to the atheist to prove that something doesn't exist.. its up to the believer to prove that is does.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like donna's post
10-06-2013, 12:57 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 12:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The creationist, the only creature known to man who requires evidence for a position counter to their own but claims no evidence is needed for their own position, just faith and special pleading.

How about this for the origin of the cell? We don't know. Also, this has no bearing on the position of atheism.

And who said the very first "living" thing had to be something with a structure that could be definitively labeled as a cell? Viruses have been looked at as potentially be a key to understanding the very first "life" on Earth. And you will find a debate today as to whether or not they even qualify as life today. Why? Because the boundary between life and non-life at that scale is not as clear-cut and well-defined as you might think. Which makes your presumptions preposterous.

Also, not having an answer, doesn't make a god necessary. Drinking Beverage

It's strange how they seem to think that our earth just came in its present form complete with current oxygen levels. I can't explain how people fail to reason that out. A cell is actually evolved. It's a fair supposition that whatever was before it, wasn't so neatly evolved. I find it amazing that we are discovering life in places (on our planet) we thought couldn't support life...yet there it is.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
10-06-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:51 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 10:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You've shown yourself to be quite wilfully ignorant, so I don't suppose there's much point in attempting discussion, but sometimes I have nothing better to do.

I'll go point by point. Let me know when I get to something you disagree with.

1. There are observable differences between individuals of any given species.
2. Offspring differ from their parents, because they carry a mix of their parents' hereditary traits.
3. Some individuals are more likely to reproduce, based on the traits they exhibit.
4. The effect of 1-3 is: traits are propagated through a population.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. You accept evolution. If that's not how you define evolution then you're wrong. It's that simple. Read a book.

As to human evolution:

4. Fossils exist.
5. Fossils of modern human beings are only found in the last several hundred thousand years.
5A. This age is attested by all known geological factors and radiological testing.
6. From 5: modern human beings did not exist prior to that time.
7. Fossils of very similar humans have been found which date immediately prior to that.
8. Repeat step 7 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
9. Fossils of modern species of apes are found only in the last several hundred thousand years.
10. Fossils of very similar apes have been found found which date immediately prior to that.
11. Repeat step 10 for several million years worth of fossils and strata.
12. Steps 7 and 10 lead to converge on a single set of ancestors.

So which part of reality do you reject?

Protip: if you actually wanted answers, you could very easily do your own search. Refusing to do so suggests malice, dishonesty, or plain stupidity. I'd bet on all three.
If fossils of modern human beings go back hundreds of thousands of years why is it recorded the history of human civilization only goes back about 4,300 years with the cradle of civilization being located in Mesopotamia and ancient Babylon? This is exactly what the bible book of Genesis states in chapters 10 and 11. This is called the science of ARCHEOLOGY and ANTHROPOLOGY. The next time you're in London I suggest you visit the British Museum. Archeology confirms the bible record regarding places, cities, people world powers etc.

Provide one shred of evidence that anything in the Old Testament occured before 9th Century BCE when the Tel Dan Stele makes an obscure reference to the "House of David."

Any archeological or anthropological evidence from Genesis? I am aware of none. There is the Merneptah Stele that mentions Israel being laid to waste by the Egyptians, but there is little dispute that there were a people called Israelites living in Canann, probably indigenous to the region. The pictures on the stele show people that are characteristic of Canaanites, the people who were allegedly ethnically cleansed by Joshua, but there is nothing to connect this rendering of Israel to anything in the Old Testament.

Any archeological or anthropological evidence from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy? I am aware of none. One million people supposedly left Egypt after all the first born, including the Pharaoh's son, were slaughtered by God. No mention in Egypt's history. Nor is there any history of the Egyptian army being wiped out by the sea. You'd think stories like these would have made headlines around the region. One million people supposedly moved across the Sinai penisula for 40 years. No encampments have been found. No pottery, no weapons, no nothing.

Any archeological or anthropological evidence from Joshua? I am aware of none. The city of Jericho has been found. It did have walls. There are indications of many, many battles over the centuries, but in no case were the walls flattened.

I could go on, but as others have pointed out, you seem more intent on pushing your agenda rather than learning about viewpoints that differ from yours. So I'll sum up and you can give your snide response:

There is no evidence that any of the "history" of the Old Testament occurred until you start talking about the destruction of Samaria and Judah in the 700's and 500's BCE, repectively. Unless you have some I am unaware of. I'd love to learn from you, if you have something I've overlooked.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
10-06-2013, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2013 02:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 10:51 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  If fossils of modern human beings go back hundreds of thousands of years why is it recorded the history of human civilization only goes back about 4,300 years with the cradle of civilization being located in Mesopotamia and ancient Babylon? This is exactly what the bible book of Genesis states in chapters 10 and 11. This is called the science of ARCHEOLOGY and ANTHROPOLOGY. The next time you're in London I suggest you visit the British Museum. Archeology confirms the bible record regarding places, cities, people world powers etc.

Absolutely 110 % FALSE.
Archeology and Anthropology are in no way supported by the Bible, (except certain elements of Cultural Anthropology). Nor can anything about them be learned from the Bible. They REFUTE the Bible. in fact. You have it backwards.

The fact that a certain city, or name or place in mentioned in a Bible text in NO WAY confirms what the text is saying. What you're saying is that Harry Potter confirms the fact that London exists. It's the same thing. In fact Archaeology have demanded a completely new understanding of and possible Biblical dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed















Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 12:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-06-2013 09:36 AM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  My dear Mr. Buckyball. Hitler's vice-chancellor, Franz Von Papen, mediated a condordat between the Nazis and the Vatican in 1933 regulating relations between Hitler's Germany and the Vatican. The Catholic Church together with the rest of false religion has always prostituted itself before world leaders and taught a pack of lies to the people. Two examples of this are a mystical trinitarian god and eternal torment of the wicked in a burning hell. In that sense, Mr. Buckyball, I also am an atheist: I don't believe in a three-headed monstrosity they call the Holy Trinity. By the way, Neanderthals were actually humans and not a link between primates and modern man. You should know that.

The Concordat was hardly "unconditional support" for the Nazi's. It was an attempt to keep the church out of an impending war. Pius XII at the time of the Condordat had no way of knowing the atrocities they were going to commit. Your hyperbole does not serve you well. In fact, its a lie. Your nonsense generizations are false. You have no clue what the various church bodies did or did not do, and during what period they did them. You seem to NEED to espouse a childish, simplistic, black and white view of everything. Not unusual. The failure of most fundie Creationists to recognize reality, usually comes down to mental health.

Are you actually defending the churches of Christendom? I thought you were an atheist. Very interesting....The fact is the German Catholic bishops blessed the German troops assuring them of victory over the Allies even though catholic slaughtered catholic on both sides. The belt buckles of the german soldiers read
"God is with us." False religion has always taken sides in mankind's wars. Just like today in Syria the Sunnis and the Shiite muslims, although of the same religion, massacre one another in the name of Ala.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: