The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist (page 9)

Elemental

Miller was not part of the experiment because his presence was not required for the equivalent real-life occurences in the experiment to happen, unless of course you think every lightning bolt has a divine purpose behind it, and even then the theory of electromagnetism provides a much more plausible answer. You're arguing for the idea that God is directly behind earthquakes and weather patterns, consciously guiding each one because someone can set up a weather or an earthquake simulation (who does the supercomputer programmed by software engineers represent?). You're arguing that every murderer is guided telepathically by God because crime scene detectives can set up recreations of events they did not witness (who do the detectives and crime scene investigators represent?)

Flipping the switch on the lightning bolt and compiling the molecules in a vessel don't count as being part of the experiment because there is no intelligence required in the equivalent events happening naturally. We know why lightning occurs, and why carbon hydrogen and oxygen would be on the earth, and we also know how the earth got here. None of those explanations require a deity. Stellar nuclear fusion accounts for the elements without the need of a deity, the electromagnetic force accounts for lightning, and the forces of gravity account for the earth. Merely mimicking these natural occurrences for the sake of experiment does not constitute a designer. Sorry.

Comparing a lighting bolt striking the ground to the creation of a cell is like throwing paper and a typewriter in a tornado and expecting to get an unabridged dictionary.

All I can say is words escape me...

Have a nice life.

Elemental

Thank you for participating in global labeling.

When someone finishes comparing a lighting bolt to the creation of a cell. That is not called global labeling, it is called accurate observation.

Have a nice life all. I am done.

leavingwt

Have a nice life all. I am done.

Please don't go.

shamus100

Elemental,

Please be assured that some Athiests beliefs are not all athiests beliefs. Much like Catholics don't have the same extremist views of certain Muslim groups. But I really do thank you for the label!

Personally, I like to keep the door open when it comes to religion. Frankly, I don't think it's going to happen but they say never say never...

Oh well - if that's the way you react to opposing viewpoints don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, and you have a good life too. There's more important things out in the world to get excited about.

Deputy Dog

B_D

The Miller-Urey experiment did, in fact, produce 22 amino acids, which are, in fact, some of the molecules necessary for life.

Key word being "some". The point being, creating some amino acids in a lab, is a very long way from forming DNA molecules, or creating life.

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.

If you have done any "actual research" you would know that there is plenty of dishonesty and misinformation to go around on both sides.

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!"

Actually you are the one "committing a false dichotomy". I asked for proof that abiogenesis explains the origin of life. So far, I haven't seen any. I never said a word about God to you. It does appear that you have much "faith" in your invisible horse, though. Abiogenesis hasn't proven to be scientifically possible yet. Let us know when he creates a living cell.

I'm not here to judge you or your presuppositions concerning God, but to help you see that right or wrong, you do have them.

My presuppositions concerning God, do not conflict with science in this area, regardless of the findings regarding abiogenesis.

If I may offer a little advice. Please do not assume that because I believe in God, that I have any beliefs in common with the JWs. In fact, that would make a good topic for another thread.

Free

Well said.

B_Deserter

Key word being "some". The point being, creating some amino acids in a lab, is a very long way from forming DNA molecules, or creating life.

Yes, but I was referring to your statment that the experiment produced NONE of the molecules needed for life, to which I pointed out it produced 22. You're moving the goalpost.

If you have done any "actual research" you would know that there is plenty of dishonesty and misinformation to go around on both sides.

You provided false information regarding a scientific experiment, and I provided accurate information with sources. You have not addressed any of the sources I cited, merely stating that there is "plenty of dishonesty and misinformation" involved.

Actually you are the one "committing a false dichotomy". I asked for proof that abiogenesis explains the origin of life. So far, I haven't seen any. I never said a word about God to you. It does appear that you have much "faith" in your invisible horse, though. Abiogenesis hasn't proven to be scientifically possible yet. Let us know when he creates a living cell.

You claimed " 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" and I demonstrated both statements to be false. You also said " He spent his life looking for ways to produce organic molecules that could have produced the first living cell, but was unsuccessful." While given your track record for providing accurate facts on the subject so far (0 for 2), I'm not sure if I believe you in this one. But so what if he didn't? It's a given that the formation of a living cell was quite unlikely, but given enough tries and a large enough environment, even the most unlikely things are bound to happen. If you think about it, the fact that so many of the amino acids required for life appeared in such a small sample size is nothing short of amazing.

Here are some videos that address most of your concerns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

Finally, as I explained as well as the second video, Abiogenesis is in its infancy. It really didn't get started until Miller-Urey, and much progress has been made since then. Still, I don't have "faith" in the theory in the sense that someone has faith that Jesus rose from the dead for our sins. Faith is a belief that is not based upon evidence. My "belief" in abiogenesis is based on a (as of yet incomplete) body of evidence, and I'm sure my belief will change when I encounter and absorb more of it. If I were to have faith in abiogenesis I would believe it as the only explanation that ever was and ever will be possible, that it will not change and will always be superior to other explanations. That is not the case. I go with the theory the evidence points the most strongly towards, and so far none of it says that a magic man done it. If you go that route, you're merely shifting the remote possibility of the universe and life forming to an even MORE unlikely scenario. Now instead of figuring out how RNA and lipids got together to form the first proto-cells, you have this big question of who created the creator? If the creator in all its complexity does not require a creator, then why does the cell--something far simpler--need one?

Free

Well said B. Deserter.

Deputy Dog

B_D

Yes, but I was referring to your statment that the experiment produced NONE of the molecules needed for life, to which I pointed out it produced 22. You're moving the goalpost.

I never said NONE. You just did! You proved nothing. You simply counted the amino acids.

I said: "The organic molecules he produced, were not the organic molecules necessary for life". If they are, why hasn't someone performed the impossible. Go ahead prove me wrong. Make life out of those (and only those) molecules. The burden is on you.

You claimed " 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" and I demonstrated both statements to be false.

Both statements are true. You don't know what was in "the primitive Earth's atmosphere" and neither does anyone else. Who's best guess do I have to use? From where I stand it looks to me like you'll need to produce a life form before you can make a better guess.

Now instead of figuring out how RNA and lipids got together to form the first proto-cells, you have this big question of who created the creator?

As I said, We aren't talking about my presuppositions concerning God. This is not a problem for me.

If the creator in all its complexity does not require a creator, then why does the cell--something far simpler--need one?

I think you called it "abiogenesis".

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

Share this