God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[abu afak]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

 

[esalla]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

Darwin wrote that the pond created life in his hooker letter. However we know now that life is dna which can not evolve before existing.

Lol does mohammed still hear those voices

 

[Hollie]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.

 

[esalla]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.

If darwin saw the complexity of simple dna he would not have said that it wrote itself

 

[james bond]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

 

[james bond]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.

This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism. The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.

Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.

" Marshall’s Premise

Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident. Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.” Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.


Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated. All those innumerable attempts have failed.


Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “easily combine to make startlingly lifelike protocells”. That belief glosses over the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.” There are some startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries—but they aren’t alive. Furthermore, “easily” is questionable. Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine? If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"

 

[abu afak]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.

This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism. The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.

Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.

" Marshall’s Premise

Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident. Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.” Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.


Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated. All those innumerable attempts have failed.


Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “easily combine to make startlingly lifelike protocells”. That belief glosses over the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.” There are some startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries—but they aren’t alive. Furthermore, “easily” is questionable. Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine? If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"

So you are posting an artic;e that life can arise in a chemical bang.. abiogenesis.. without god.

Of course not fully formed life or we'd have a fossil record of that billion+ years that doesn't basically go simple to complex over time.

You Porked yourself you Dishonest asshole.

`

 

[Hollie]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

 

[Hollie]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.

This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism. The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.

Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.

" Marshall’s Premise

Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident. Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.” Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.


Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated. All those innumerable attempts have failed.


Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “easily combine to make startlingly lifelike protocells”. That belief glosses over the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.” There are some startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries—but they aren’t alive. Furthermore, “easily” is questionable. Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine? If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"

Yet, no appeals to any gawds.

You're confusing terms. If you're going to use the Behe ''irreducibly complex'' meme, be brave, be very brave and acknowledge the source of your silly slogans.

CB200: Irreducible complexity

www.talkorigins.org

Claim CB200:
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.

Response:

1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
   • deletion of parts
   • addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
   • change of function
   • addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
   • gradual modification of parts
2. All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
   
   Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.
   
   
3. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
   
   
4. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.
   
   
5. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
   • The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
   • The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
   • In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
   • The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

 

[esalla]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

God is not supernatural, nor is God spirit God was and likely still is more advanced than we are. Humans do things today that in Jesus time would be equated as being God.

So does God hear you when you pray Mr. Bond

 

[esalla]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.

This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism. The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.

Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.

" Marshall’s Premise

Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident. Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.” Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.


Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated. All those innumerable attempts have failed.


Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “easily combine to make startlingly lifelike protocells”. That belief glosses over the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.” There are some startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries—but they aren’t alive. Furthermore, “easily” is questionable. Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine? If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"

Yet, no appeals to any gawds.

You're confusing terms. If you're going to use the Behe ''irreducibly complex'' meme, be brave, be very brave and acknowledge the source of your silly slogans.

CB200: Irreducible complexity

www.talkorigins.org

Claim CB200:
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.

Response:

1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
   • deletion of parts
   • addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
   • change of function
   • addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
   • gradual modification of parts
2. All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
   
   Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.
   
   
3. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
   
   
4. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.
   
   
5. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
   • The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
   • The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
   • In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
   • The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

Hollie you are a triggered fool

 

[james bond]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.

This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism. The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.

Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.

" Marshall’s Premise

Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident. Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.” Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.


Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated. All those innumerable attempts have failed.


Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “easily combine to make startlingly lifelike protocells”. That belief glosses over the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.” There are some startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries—but they aren’t alive. Furthermore, “easily” is questionable. Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine? If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"

So you are posting an artic;e that life can arise in a chemical bang.. abiogenesis.. without god.

Of course not fully formed life or we'd have a fossil record of that billion+ years that doesn't basically go simple to complex over time.

You Porked yourself you Dishonest asshole.

`

No, I'm posting because it's easy money.

Now, you guys believe that the chemical bang happened given billions of years. Maybe it's based on food as people make sourdough bread from microorganisms. Other, more complex foods can be made from microorganism. Yet, it doesn't happen unless you find the first Eve microorganism and the baker, cheese, beer or wine maker.

 

[james bond]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

 

[Hollie]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

 

[james bond]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

 

[Hollie]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?

 

[james bond]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?

You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.

It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.

 

[esalla]

Darwins mythical dna writing pond is also based on personal belief and not evidence

Um.. Darwin didn't know about or mention" DNA 160 years ago.
Nor did anyone else. Certainly not the morons who took 300 years to Fabricate which gospels were real from hundreds of other laughers.
However, DNA has served as further evidence for his ideas/evolution.

`

The angry religious cranks \ science loathing fundies rail against Charles Darwin because his theory was a beginning of exploration of biological evolution and adaptation. The fundies therefore like to falsely and dishonestly misrepresent what Charles Darwin actually wrote.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


The above is really quite remarkable considering the very young sciences of chemistry and biology.

This shows you missed Michael Marshall's irreducible component of the microorganism. The step-by-step process of life forming from the basic components have failed.

Marshall's new hypothesis shows that Darwin was wrong as one cannot get to the microorganism from DNA -- A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.

" Marshall’s Premise

Cells are too complex to have formed all at once by accident. Despite this obvious truth, Marshall says this must have happened because attempts to verify the only other alternative (a step-by-step process) failed, due to a concept called “irreducible complexity.” Marshall doesn’t use that term (probably because it is a basic tenet of Intelligent Design); but he acknowledges that the first living cell needed a membrane, metabolism, and reproduction.


Marshall knows that, since the 1950s, evolutionists have tried to imagine a step-by-step process by which the first living cell could have originated. All those innumerable attempts have failed.


Those failures have forced Marshall to believe “key molecules of life can form” and “easily combine to make startlingly lifelike protocells”. That belief glosses over the difference between “startlingly lifelike” and “living.” There are some startlingly lifelike portraits in some art galleries—but they aren’t alive. Furthermore, “easily” is questionable. Is it really that easy to make those chemicals combine? If it is that easy, why doesn’t it happen spontaneously often?"

So you are posting an artic;e that life can arise in a chemical bang.. abiogenesis.. without god.

Of course not fully formed life or we'd have a fossil record of that billion+ years that doesn't basically go simple to complex over time.

You Porked yourself you Dishonest asshole.

`

No, I'm posting because it's easy money.

Now, you guys believe that the chemical bang happened given billions of years. Maybe it's based on food as people make sourdough bread from microorganisms. Other, more complex foods can be made from microorganism. Yet, it doesn't happen unless you find the first Eve microorganism and the baker, cheese, beer or wine maker.

Who pays you to post here mr bond

 

[esalla]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?

You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.

It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.

If god was so smart how come he totally forgot about adam needing eve in the first place

 

[Hollie]

Actually Tyson is no longer a true atheist since he is now babbling that tje universe is a computer simulation which would require a programmer, his choice of word for God

Oh, I see now. He's claiming he's agnostic. My bad, but there really isn't much difference. He still doesn't have faith in God.

Actually his belief is great because now their are atheist professors believing that the universe is a created thing which needs a creator. The fact that he calls his creator a programmer and others use the term god is irrelevant

Is that what they say? Then they have a belief in some god. I'm not sure it is based on "faith" per se. Likely, it will turn out to be Satan, "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."

What I think is happening is that they see that DNA did not grow itself and are using the dark matter mystery to invoke God in a backhanded way.

God in a backhanded way = Satan

No Tyson is altering his beliefs in a gradual way because he is seeing that the power of creation is just not random.

It just doesn't work that way; He'll remain an agnostic. It starts with one's free will and the courage and faith to BELIEVE in the one true Christian God. Then everything changes. There is no other way that I know of to see the truth of creation science.

There is no “twoof” of creation science. Creationism is not science based and has no science to teach. Creationism is based on personal religious belief, (fundamentalist Christianer religious belief), not on evidence. Creationers can fit their religious belief with anything they find, making it unscientific. Creationers dishonestly manipulate facts and data to fit their agenda or worse, they simply invent “facts” to conform to their creationer beliefs.

This is S&T and there are no "proofs" in science; That's math. We deal with best theories and the scientific method. We see from origins of the universe and life that creation is the best theory. Some, like me, think that life is supernatural. Could the universe be supernatural? I mean what else do you consider what atheist scientists call dark energy and dark matter? How can the universe be expanding and accelerating at the same time? Creation science has the Bible as foundation, i.e. Genesis, and we find it states God expands the universe and that it is bounded. As for scientific method, it was demonstrated that only life begets life and the chicken came before the egg, i.e. a adult creature before an egg or baby animal. Even proteins, the building blocks of life were created. The creation theory explains how it can overcome fine tuning. Even fine tuning parameters are facts that Jesus, the creator, put into place so no one else could do it. The most silly explanation of the science of atheism is how mutations show how plants and animals "evolve," become stepping stones for common descent and the tree of life .

You apparently forgot what you wrote. You were claiming ''truth'' in creationism, and you offered no such ''twoofs''.

Creationism offers no twoofs because it only offers tales and fables. Science is based on the evidence. Creationism is undeniably based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. That is evidenced, undeniably, by the statements of faith required by various creationer organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationers. Because creationism is undeniably a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. And, as we know, natural phenomena are the only phenomena that mankind had evidence for. Authoritarian systems like creationism instill in their adherents biased ''twoofs'' that adhere to rigid views of biblical miracles, fables and supernatural events.

Creationers offer nothing about existence or the natural world that even approaches a coherent explanation.

Stop talking like a gay with your "twoofs." It sounds like a sin . What do you define as "supernatural?" We can either have life spirit as supernatural which is what God stated or it is natural. If there is only natural, then this is all there is, was, and will be. It doesn't explain or else you would be telling me how life originated from the natural. You would be able to provide what I am asking for and you would be able to explain. Maybe then, I'll be asking you for the "pwoofs."

I even gave you a big hint about an atheist scientist finding the basic element of life. This is what is irreducible and required for a microorganism to come into existence. However, it doesn't happen. Thus, his hypothesis is not much of a hypothesis. It's an interesting observation that he brings to the table. To the creation scientist, he would think this is what life that was created was composed of. It was all done at one moment. That's the supernatural part instead of something that can't happen naturally. Or else, he and you would have the mountain of evidence to show us, but he and you don't. No pwoof. No feery. No nawting.

You use terms you don't understand and you further discredit your attempt at argument with terms you ''quote mine'' from the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Literally your entire paragraph was littered with slogans that you stole from ID'iot creationer ministries. "life spirits'', irreducible (complexity), are simply nonsense terms used to make appeals to supernatural forces you can't define or demonstrate.

More easy money. I knew you'd fall for my ID trap because your preconceived notions are wired into your brain.

Marshall doesn't exactly call it irreducible complexity because that term belongs to ID and DI. Maybe we called it a triangle before. I learned fire needed a fire triangle as a kid.

It's comical that you get twisted around terms and definitions you don't understand. You would hope to deny it but ID'iot creationism is just another term used by fundie christians to hide their religious agenda under a burqa of silly labels.

This has nothing to do with ID. The term can be applied to it when the latest the atheist scientists are now saying one has to have a 1) membrane, 2) metabolism, and 3) reproduction to get a lifelike protocell. Of course, Michael Marshall should be able to produce one. An actual living one. Not a lifelike model of one.

This is easy money for me. I don't question that one can get a complex organism from a "protocell." It's playing God and actually creating one that is difficult. What God did was create fully adult plants and animals. And we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level.

Your claims to religion and gods certainly have everything to do with ID’iot creationism. Also, your claims to what “atheist scientists are now saying” is obviously suspect. When your commentary is taken from ID’iot creationer websites, one has to assume an obvious bias and presumed falsification. That may sound harsh but it’s clear where your arguments are taken from.

Claims to what the gods did are rather pointless when you can’t offer any substantiation for these gods.

It seems like an obvious question but if “we just discovered what the three building blocks were at the microbiological level”, and by “we”, I’m assuming ‘we” being the relevant science community that does actual research, why would the gods need to make microbial anything? Why make magic and supernaturalism complicated?

You're not getting this at all. God created Adam first and then Eve. Because of sexual reproduction, one can repopulate a world. One can't do it with asexual reproduction. We're all adults here. Marshall is talking about an Eve microorganism. The queen. With a male protocell and sexual reproduction, then one can have create a population of protocells and then probably have more complex life through natural selection. Notice God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the world. That can happen. What can't happen is the protocell just popping into existence, especially the Eve one per the claim by Marshall.

It's a radical theory and it backs up what God did by creating full adult male and female plants and animals. Just the asymmetric division of cells won't do it.

You’re not getting it. Your “... because I say so” claims to gods is totally unsupported. You offer nothing to support your claims to supernaturalism and magic. Claiming your gods magically created all of existence is simply partisan religious dogma.