I would like to thank all who have posted on this thread,and I hope it picks up again when Elemental can post some more.
I believe it shows that the atheists need more faith , to hold their position, than us theists !
Love
Wobble
The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist
by B_Deserter 111 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
leavingwt
Wobble,
Does it require faith for you to reject Allah or Vishnu as your god?
-LWT
-
-
B_Deserter
Dr. Stanley Miller's famous 1953 experiment showed that organic molecules could be formed rather quickly and easily. The organic molecules he produced, were not the organic molecules necessary for life, nor were they produced in an environment simulating the primitive Earth's atmosphere, as was commonly reported. He spent his life looking for ways to produce organic molecules that could have produced the first living cell, but was unsuccessful.
This statement is not correct. The Miller-Urey experiment did, in fact, produce 22 amino acids, which are, in fact, some of the molecules necessary for life. Additionally, the experimentation did not end there.
As far as the atmosphere goes. Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (sources 1-4). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions. Additionally, the early atmosphere, even if it was oxidizing, was nowhere near as oxidizing as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules (source 5).
I highly suggest you do some actual research. You'll find that Creationists are often not being honest with you, and will repeat the same tired arguments no matter how many times they've been debunked. Here is a good place to start reading about the Miller-Urey experiment. You'll find it goes into far more detail than "it didn't create the organic molecules required for life": http://talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey
Finally, your statement that abiogenesis is a "pipe dream" is not proof that a deity wished it all into existence by magic. You're committing a false dichotomy. If Abiogenesis is proven to be false, then the default answer is "we don't know," not "magic man done it!"
- Chang, S., D. DesMarais, R. Mack, S. L. Miller, and G. E. Strathearn. 1983. Prebiotic organic syntheses and the origin of life. In: Schopf, J. W., ed., Earth's Earliest Biosphere: Its Origin and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 53-92.
- Miller, S. L. 1987. Which organic compounds could have occurred on the prebiotic earth? Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 52: 17-27.
- Schlesinger, G. and S. L. Miller. 1983. Prebiotic synthesis in atmospheres containing CH4, CO, and CO2. I. Amino acids. Journal of Molecular Evolution 19: 376-382.
- Stribling, R. and S. L. Miller. 1987. Energy yields for hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde syntheses: the HCN and amino acid concentrations in the primitive ocean. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 17: 261-273.
- Tian, F., O. B. Toon, A. A. Pavlov and H. De Sterck. 2005. A hydrogen-rich early Earth atmosphere. Science 308: 1014-1017. See also: Chyba, C. F. 2005. Rethinking Earth's early atmosphere. Science 308: 962-963.
-
leavingwt
Related item from this week's news...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/science/16orig.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
-
outbackaussie
When I was desperately trying to convince my boyfriend (now husband) that of course there was a god, why can't you just see and believe like the rest of us enlightened JW's, he agreed to study the bible. I remember exactly that episode in whichever publication it was we were studying, about how science hasn't been able to replicate creation and the whole amino acid/atmosphere blurb. I was totally triumphant that I could show him that science couldn't do it so it had to be god. He came back with some extra research that indeed, showed that science is getting closer all the time to (what I just learned was called) abiogenesis. He suggested that maybe with more time they will get all of them. So I learned that all the "closely-held truths" about creation and god can be challenged. The WTBTS will only publish parts of articles that support its position. You won't read that the scientific community are getting closer with each passing year to explaining mysteries that were once thought to be unsolvable, in the pages of an Awake! magazine.
It was probably that first seed of doubt about the dubs that caused me to think that if they weren't actually honest about this, then their other doctrines are open to challenge too. And it followed, for me anyway, that if they don't present the whole story... WHY don't they? What would they possibly have to hide, or to lose, by being open to critical analysis? I mean, the organisation is led by mean who are inspired of god, giving the food at the proper time and such, so it has to stand up to being picked apart by mere humans. I personally found it wasn't, didn't and can't be. Because at each and every point that it looks shaky, that is a point that you just "have to have faith".
-
Elemental
While I thank you for requesting me to post some more as I stated I will be leaving the board pretty quickly as most of the intellectuals here do not have the intelligence that they claim to have.
They can only see "checks and balances" hopelessly stuck in a mental prison assuming everything that does not come into their little world view must be false. They say things such as "If Osiris is false then the God of Christianity must be as well." This reasoning is false of course as the Bible said there was only one God to begin with. They cannot see that both evolution and God are acceptable.
In fact their idea that macro evolution would destroy the Bible is false as there are several scriptures in the book that support the idea (such as a snake being transmuted from a staff) so even though I accept that the idea of macro evolution is very viable they will not even consider the idea that the Bible was correct in saying that there was one God who did it.
No, they namely athiests who say they have an open mind refuse to accept the accounts in the Bible claiming they are nonsense despite the fact that science now begining to back these stories up. Hence their thinking is the real contradiction...
For example.
They scoff at the idea of Eve coming from Adam's rib, but have no issue of accepting cloning a sheep from far less.
They laugh at the "absurdity" of a sea monster in the Bible but have no issue with dinosaurs.
They wave their hand in dismissal at the idea of God making an ass speak or the devil making a serpent talk but have no problem of believing that monkeys learned to speak all by themselves.
They roll their eyes at the idea of God giving a man life by bringing him back from the dead and yet can accept that nothing brought life into existence in the first place.
They mock when someone says that God breathed life into the dust of the ground and yet have no issue of accepting that nothing did the same thing.
The mock at the "absurd" story that says magicians changed a staff to a serpent despite the fact that science is now showing that this could be possible by alterations in the DNA structure of a cell. Granted it would take a lot but it is possible (after all we share 50% of our DNA with a banana.)
They reject the idea that God could part water but have no issue with this when a scientist in Japan did this a few years back.
I could go on but it becomes clear that over and over again the atheist does the very thing which they claim Christians are guilty of namely accepting evidence when it suits their purpose but then rejecting it when it does not. They claim that the Christian is guilty of accepting myths and legends despite the fact that their own view is being destroyed by the very scientific method that they claim to hold onto. They cannot accept that God in his wisdom can manipulate nature by using laws that we are just now becoming aware of. Then when a Christian who is willing to accept these things and always did DOES say that they that God answered their prayers, the atheist dismisses this a delusion or insanity while at the same time embracing ideas as truth that they concocted in their own mind. They on the one hand hold a Christian to a higher standard than they have for themselves by saying they require evidence but then accepts without proof ideas in their own head. But then when evidence IS presented such as a record which in normal cases would be accepted in court is rejected because of ideas that their own peers are now showing are possible namely that these so called supernatural events are not really supernatural at all but were a result of humankind's ignorance of nature.
Thus they have shown themselves to be guilty of the very stupid, narrow-minded arrogance that they claim Christians have. Indeed it saddens me that they who claim to have an open mind who say that they look at things impartially, really are not impartial at all.
As a result I am leaving the board as I am sick of being told as a said before that my relationship with Christ is imaginary using evidence that came out of their imagination.
Please email me if you wish to talk further. I am done at this point at least for now.
-
wobble
Leaving WT,
How do you know I don't worship Allah or Vishnu ? (only jokin')
What I had in mind was a quote I read by C.S Lewis, which said (from my poor memory ) that it was not possible to use rational thought to prove that there is no God, for if there is no God then our thoughts are merely electro-chemical happenings in our brains ,which have no meaning, as it all came about by accident.
I think C.S Lewis put it a lot better than that, but to use an old Written Review expression, that is the substance thereof.
So the Atheist has only blind faith that his thoughts are correct.
Thanks again to Elemental, and all. for the thread.
Love
Wobble
-
B_Deserter
They scoff at the idea of Eve coming from Adam's rib, but have no issue of accepting cloning a sheep from far less.
Except the fact that the cloning required technology that wasn't accessible to bronze age man, and the cloned sheep didn't survive long.
They laugh at the "absurdity" of a sea monster in the Bible but have no issue with dinosaurs.
Because there is evidence for dinosaurs, we have fossil evidence scattered throughout the earth. And depending on how you define "sea monster" I don't really think most people really focus on THAT in the Bible. Usually we laugh at the references to unicorns and dragons, and we laugh at them because there is no evidence that they exist, unlike dinosaurs.
They wave their hand in dismissal at the idea of God making an ass speak or the devil making a serpent talk but have no problem of believing that monkeys learned to speak all by themselves.
Your complete misunderstanding of evolution is evident here. Hominids were not monkeys, they were not apes, they were hominids like we are hominids. And yes, a gradual evolution of the brain and vocal chords sound much more plausible to me than an invisible man using magic to make donkeys and snakes talk.
They roll their eyes at the idea of God giving a man life by bringing him back from the dead and yet can accept that nothing brought life into existence in the first place.
Again, you are willfully ignorant of the subject, here. Evolution is not chance, abiogenesis is not life coming from NOTHING. It is the process of trying to understand how the building blocks of life formed. In contrast, you believe nothing created a superintelligent being capable of creating a universe. Which one sounds less reasonable?
They mock when someone says that God breathed life into the dust of the ground and yet have no issue of accepting that nothing did the same thing.
Straw man argument. You really need to stop getting your information from creationist propaganda. That is NOT what abiogenesis claims.
The mock at the "absurd" story that says magicians changed a staff to a serpent despite the fact that science is now showing that this could be possible by alterations in the DNA structure of a cell. Granted it would take a lot but it is possible (after all we share 50% of our DNA with a banana.
You're going to have to be more specific than saying "science is not showing." Who is this "science" person? What are his credentials? Where is he published? Oh lemme guess, I bet he's published in "Creation rules evilution drools science magazine" right?
They reject the idea that God could part water but have no issue with this when a scientist in Japan did this a few years back.
Who is this scientist? How did he part water? Assuming he did this in a labratory, how does his experiment work when tried in scale?
-
B_Deserter
I would like to thank all who have posted on this thread,and I hope it picks up again when Elemental can post some more.
I believe it shows that the atheists need more faith , to hold their position, than us theists !
Love
Wobble
So we need more faith because we answer when a creationist challenges us?