Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Necrosis on April 26, 2014, 07:58:46 AM
-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html?cmpid=RSS%7CNSNS%7C2012-GLOBAL%7Conline-news#.U1vJThTnjVK
Uh oh, metabolism discovered OUTSIDE of the a cell. This opens up everything.
Perhaps god did it. We may have a verifiable, reproducible process to produce the basic building blocks of life without a cell.
-
ECA of peace
-
dark matter or dark energy, playing games with us??? :'( :'(
-
Thanks for sharing. I believe Asimov or Sagan proposed this as a probability years ago. Now here's some experimental evidence. The Universe makes life as a matter of natural profession.
-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html?cmpid=RSS%7CNSNS%7C2012-GLOBAL%7Conline-news#.U1vJThTnjVK
Uh oh, metabolism discovered OUTSIDE of the a cell. This opens up everything.
Perhaps god did it. We may have a verifiable, reproducible process to produce the basic building blocks of life without a cell.
Quite the contrary actually.
It is often argued by those of the intelligence design persuasion, that the metabolic reactions required to form the building blocks of living cells were too complex to occur outside of a biological organism (i.e. a living cell). In other words the cell and the organism had to come first before the chemical reactions could occur.
What this paper shows (and what has been shown many times before going back as far as the Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's) is that the chemical reactions that can create the building blocks of the cell (and of life) can be created outside of a living cell.
This dispels the notion that the cells were "created" first. It is likely that the building blocks of life (amino acids, DNA, RNA, fats, etc) can be created under abiotic conditions, arising spontaneously in an aquatic environment where the correct combination of chemical ions are present along with a heat source (possibly from hydrothermal vents).
-
I am reminded of the volcano experiments that so many kindergartens do for the children. Mixing two substances and watching the reaction. Pretty cool stuff. Doesnt mean that rocks turn into rocket scientists tho.
-
Eggheads Of Peace :-\
-
I am reminded of the volcano experiments that so many kindergartens do for the children. Mixing two substances and watching the reaction. Pretty cool stuff. Doesnt mean that rocks turn into rocket scientists tho.
;D What an interesting quote. And in a very roundabout, indirect way, it is potentially true to say that rocks turn into rocket scientists. (after billions of years of course)
-
It can happen in an instant, only if God commands it. But without him, nothing would ever happen. Nothing can ever happen.
-
(http://www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Faith-stops-you-from-asking-questions-485x356.jpg?cdn=no)
-
It can happen in an instant, only if God commands it. But without him, nothing would ever happen. Nothing can ever happen.
I strongly disagree but fully respect your own beliefs all the same.
-
Speaking in a strictly faithless, only earthly logic based manner:
There is only one possible way to explain the natural, and that is to evoke the supernatural.
Or you can accept the universe as inherently unexplainable. But people rarely do that, because they want to know something.
-
-
Speaking in a strictly faithless, only earthly logic based manner:
There is only one possible way to explain the natural, and that is to evoke the supernatural.
Or you can accept the universe as inherently unexplainable. But people rarely do that, because they want to know something.
Well without getting into a deep discussion on quantum physics there have been several scientific breakthroughs in the last century explaining the mysteries of the universe and the cosmos. There is empirical evidence on how galaxies, planets and stars form. However I am not a physicist and don't feel comfortable in an in-depth discussion on the topic.
I am however a biologist and can tell you that there is very strong empirical evidence for the creation of life by natural means. The link to the paper at the start of this thread is one documented example that the building blocks of life - the foundation of cellular organisms, can be created from seemingly lifeless sources (minerals, ions, chemicals etc in the presence of energy in the form of heat). Furthermore, the continued presence and diversification of life on Earth can be explained by the theory of evolution.
I don't claim that we have an answer for everything - that would be arrogant. I do however see more reasonable solutions, backed up by theoretical and empirical evidence, as to how the universe and life was formed than to simply say that it is unexplainable and therefore must be supernatural i.e. created by a supreme being
-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html?cmpid=RSS%7CNSNS%7C2012-GLOBAL%7Conline-news#.U1vJThTnjVK
Uh oh, metabolism discovered OUTSIDE of the a cell. This opens up everything.
Perhaps god did it. We may have a verifiable, reproducible process to produce the basic building blocks of life without a cell.
Maybe he did. Tell you what. I'll send this article to a few people I know that are much smarter than you and I and see if I can't get a response. But unless you have more studies that can contradict it, it's just one theory. Since your people are constantly trying to prove evolution, we might have to conclude this is a bias article and falls in line with "Global Warming". Never trust a liberal or atheist to deliver accurate information. It's usually all about their politics and bullshitting the world.
-
I just really have to add that this is a prime example of just another insecure athiest making an attempt to stir shit up.
-
Well without getting into a deep discussion on quantum physics there have been several scientific breakthroughs in the last century explaining the mysteries of the universe and the cosmos. There is empirical evidence on how galaxies, planets and stars form. However I am not a physicist and don't feel comfortable in an in-depth discussion on the topic.
I am however a biologist and can tell you that there is very strong empirical evidence for the creation of life by natural means. The link to the paper at the start of this thread is one documented example that the building blocks of life - the foundation of cellular organisms, can be created from seemingly lifeless sources (minerals, ions, chemicals etc in the presence of energy in the form of heat). Furthermore, the continued presence and diversification of life on Earth can be explained by the theory of evolution.
I don't claim that we have an answer for everything - that would be arrogant. I do however see more reasonable solutions, backed up by theoretical and empirical evidence, as to how the universe and life was formed than to simply say that it is unexplainable and therefore must be supernatural i.e. created by a supreme being
Creating a "chemical reaction" and then making the conclusion that this can form complex life is like striking a match and then saying you have a Windows XP operating system. There are quite a few jumps involved.
-
Well without getting into a deep discussion on quantum physics there have been several scientific breakthroughs in the last century explaining the mysteries of the universe and the cosmos. There is empirical evidence on how galaxies, planets and stars form. However I am not a physicist and don't feel comfortable in an in-depth discussion on the topic.
I am however a biologist and can tell you that there is very strong empirical evidence for the creation of life by natural means. The link to the paper at the start of this thread is one documented example that the building blocks of life - the foundation of cellular organisms, can be created from seemingly lifeless sources (minerals, ions, chemicals etc in the presence of energy in the form of heat). Furthermore, the continued presence and diversification of life on Earth can be explained by the theory of evolution.
I don't claim that we have an answer for everything - that would be arrogant. I do however see more reasonable solutions, backed up by theoretical and empirical evidence, as to how the universe and life was formed than to simply say that it is unexplainable and therefore must be supernatural i.e. created by a supreme being
no. Its not that it is unexplainable and therefore must be supernatural, it is either it is unexplainable or it is supernatural. There are no other options. And God is the only possible answer.
-
Creating a "chemical reaction" and then making the conclusion that this can form complex life is like striking a match and then saying you have a Windows XP operating system. There are quite a few jumps involved.
thats a good analogy = except its about infinitely more difficult to create life out of non-life than it is to create Windows XP from a lit match :D
-
(http://www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Faith-stops-you-from-asking-questions-485x356.jpg?cdn=no)
Faith stops from asking questions? Why?
-
Faith stops from asking questions? Why?
Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,[1] as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
-
Maybe he did. Tell you what. I'll send this article to a few people I know that are much smarter than you and I and see if I can't get a response. But unless you have more studies that can contradict it, it's just one theory. Since your people are constantly trying to prove evolution, we might have to conclude this is a bias article and falls in line with "Global Warming". Never trust a liberal or atheist to deliver accurate information. It's usually all about their politics and bullshitting the world.
You really do consider creationism a legitimate "alternative"? Gosh, what an idiot.
-
damn i feel stupid
-
no. Its not that it is unexplainable and therefore must be supernatural, it is either it is unexplainable or it is supernatural. There are no other options. And God is the only possible answer.
But it is not unexplainable. That's the point I'm making - there is so much we actually know about how life originally formed. This paper is just another example of solving a part of the puzzle. There is good empirical evidence that life can form from abiotic origins. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever of a supreme being capable of creating life.
thats a good analogy = except its about infinitely more difficult to create life out of non-life than it is to create Windows XP from a lit match :D
Actually it is not.
Firstly you need to define what "life" is. When people think of life they think of a human or an elephant or a pride of lions. However these are the result of BILLIONS of years of evolution.
A living organism at it's most basic level is a single cell i.e. a circular lipid membrane, which contains a strand of DNA (or even just RNA, which has an even more simple and complex structure than DNA). Remember, DNA is the essence of life (from a literal viewpoint). Now, EVERY component of that cell (the lipid membrane, the DNA/RNA strands, any basic structural proteins or amino acids) can be created from lifeless sources (minerals, ions, elements found in the Earths environment). In the presence of an energy source (most likely heat from a hydrothermal vent) these chemicals can react to form the building blocks of life. It is not as complex as people would believe.
The big thing that people are ignorant of is GEOLOGICAL TIME. For example, we start out with this very primitive single cell. about 3.5 BILLION years ago. It probably then took about another 3 billion years before complex multi-cellular organisms started to form. So we had single-celled life (bacteria and the like) for 3 BILLION YEARS before it even evolved into a multi-cellular organism. This is a point that is sometimes lost on people. The timescale at which this was occurring is literally mind blowing and is something you need to comprehend before saying "its impossible".
-
Faith stops from asking questions? Why?
Why?
Because in religion the "god did it" is pretty much the answer for everything.
Remember the debate between Bill The science guy and the other guy? Whenever Bill mentioned something that we still don't understand the religious guy will say "oh, but we already have an answer for that, it's in the bible".
Yeah, that's why.
-
Maybe he did. Tell you what. I'll send this article to a few people I know that are much smarter than you and I and see if I can't get a response. But unless you have more studies that can contradict it, it's just one theory. Since your people are constantly trying to prove evolution, we might have to conclude this is a bias article and falls in line with "Global Warming". Never trust a liberal or atheist to deliver accurate information. It's usually all about their politics and bullshitting the world.
Coach again giving us a demostration of what a 80ish IQ can do.
-
Quite the contrary actually.
It is often argued by those of the intelligence design persuasion, that the metabolic reactions required to form the building blocks of living cells were too complex to occur outside of a biological organism (i.e. a living cell). In other words the cell and the organism had to come first before the chemical reactions could occur.
What this paper shows (and what has been shown many times before going back as far as the Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's) is that the chemical reactions that can create the building blocks of the cell (and of life) can be created outside of a living cell.
This dispels the notion that the cells were "created" first. It is likely that the building blocks of life (amino acids, DNA, RNA, fats, etc) can be created under abiotic conditions, arising spontaneously in an aquatic environment where the correct combination of chemical ions are present along with a heat source (possibly from hydrothermal vents).
You must be mildly autistic
-
Speaking in a strictly faithless, only earthly logic based manner:
There is only one possible way to explain the natural, and that is to evoke the supernatural.
Or you can accept the universe as inherently unexplainable. But people rarely do that, because they want to know something.
You are saying this like it's fact. Dude you suffer from delusions, always have. You are rooted in reality, your drug use etc. You have OCD quite obviously, you are obsessed with religion I bet.
-
Maybe he did. Tell you what. I'll send this article to a few people I know that are much smarter than you and I and see if I can't get a response. But unless you have more studies that can contradict it, it's just one theory. Since your people are constantly trying to prove evolution, we might have to conclude this is a bias article and falls in line with "Global Warming". Never trust a liberal or atheist to deliver accurate information. It's usually all about their politics and bullshitting the world.
Are you a grown man?
did you drop out of school? what the fuck does this study done by people who invested their lives into this have to do with your delusions of conspiracy?
Why would I need studies to contradict it? what the fuck are you trying to say retard. Do you even know what I was implying?
-
Creating a "chemical reaction" and then making the conclusion that this can form complex life is like striking a match and then saying you have a Windows XP operating system. There are quite a few jumps involved.
Who made that conclusion?
Sounds like a strawman to me. This is abiogenesis, you are talking evolution. Read a book.
-
Coach again giving us a demostration of what a 80ish IQ can do.
it's hard to read and the voice in my head is stuttering and shit, it's an odd phenomenon. The only way you can understand him is by getting into the trenches with him and getting stupid.
-
(http://www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Faith-stops-you-from-asking-questions-485x356.jpg?cdn=no)
My faith requires me to ask questions. Let's start with a few easy ones, shall we?
Why are you incapable of building a descent set of arms without drugs?
Why couldn't you refrain from impregnating your former girlfriend?
Why can't you keep your weenie in your pants instead of humping girls you just met?
Why do you have this fetish for prostitutes?
When are you going to evolve into more than just a one pump chump on AAS?
And the big one. Why am I even bothering to ask you questions as any answer given will be as juvenile as your outlook on what you call your life?
Nothing has all the answers to every question in life, including the Bible. The Bible doesn't mention airplanes, cars, trains or motorcycles, does it? And yet they exist today. I have yet to read anything about telephones in the Bible but yes, they exist. Why? Because telephones, cars, trains, airplanes, movie theaters, polar bears and penguins, giraffes, motorcycles and a host of other things up to, including and beyond Dana Lynn Bailey and Kai Greene posing together on one stage(that should have been an apocalyptic sign) are not matters of faith.
I don't worry about such things. Faith is for the hope of something better at the end of all things. Science cannot (yet?) create matter and life from nothing but it can make life better for all concerned. Life is finite and for me and many I know, "faith" is about the hope in the promise of what comes after.
You cannot make a leap of faith in two jumps. Faith can also lead one to jump to conclusions but then it is wise to test those conclusions in the manner of science. Empirically. Example - A man told me that he laid hands upon a man born without eyes and that man then grew eyes and could see. I asked where the proof was. Where's the video? The man said (more to the congregation that to me) "Do you doubt GOD!!!!".
I said, nope. You're not God. I doubt you. Prove it. Test the spirits as well as the lab samples. I prefer my faith, my hope in something more after all this is over. I hold fast to the hope of seeing loved ones again and being together for eternity. I have no real idea if my faith will prove true but if not, so be it. I will go to my end hoping for more. I find no joy in the prospect of "nothing". If Atheists do, fine. But I doubt it. It is only human to hope and that is exactly what we are.
-
Speaking in a strictly faithless, only earthly logic based manner:
There is only one possible way to explain the natural, and that is to evoke the supernatural.
Or you can accept the universe as inherently unexplainable. But people rarely do that, because they want to know something.
It's ok to simply say you believe. It's a personal thing. No need to back it up with odd metaphysical assertions.
-
Are you a grown man?
did you drop out of school? what the fuck does this study done by people who invested their lives into this have to do with your delusions of conspiracy?
Why would I need studies to contradict it? what the fuck are you trying to say retard. Do you even know what I was implying?
LOL, I swear I've read his comment like 10 times and still have no idea what he was trying to say.
-
LOL, I swear I've read his comment like 10 times and still have no idea what he was trying to say.
I keep thinking, he has to be trolling, but to troll like him requires a 150IQ, pure genius. The only logical conclusion is that he is in fact this dumb.
-
It's ok to simply say you believe. It's a personal thing. No need to back it up with odd metaphysical assertions.
my friend, my belief is grounded in logic. I came to God through study of the history of philosophical debate on metaphysics.
The simple fact is the either we evoke the supernatural to explain the natural or we accept that the natural is inherently unexplainable.
This is not an odd assertions, but in fact it is this very same assertion that modern science is based upon.
-
Really, I am doing Atheists a favor by pointing this out. All you have to do is accept "Ok, the Universe is unexplainable. We can never explain origin or causation or anything regarding metaphysics or the emergence of consciousness. Everything just is" ... and myself and all other people of faith could only say... "well, we have faith that things happen for a reason, and that means we believe in God".
But you guys dont see whats right in front of your eyes. You want to have your cake eat it too. You want to believe that things happen for a reason, but there is no reason for reason. You want to believe that things are explainable, but theres no explanation for why we can explain. You see, but having eyes you do not see.
Now, all of this is outside of faith. Because when you step into Faith and you start to experience the Holy Spirit working miracles in your life, then you no longer care for science because the evidence is in front of your eyes.
I know I cant convince you to see the truth on my own, but I pray that God touches your heart and allows you to see it.
-
TOMBZ THE ONLY REASON YOU ARE STILL GOING TO ALIVE IN A FEW YEARS IS BECAUSE OF SCIENCE CREATING AIDS MEDS
NOT THE 3 HAIL MARIES AND 2 OUR FATHERS BEFORE BED
A TRUE BELIEVER SHOULD NOT TAKE MEDICINE AND HAVE FAITH IN JEHOVA GOD TO HEAL HIM FROM ANY DISEASE
THIS IS A FACT
YOU
WILL
NOT
ADMIT
-
Really, I am doing Atheists a favor by pointing this out. All you have to do is accept "Ok, the Universe is unexplainable. We can never explain origin or causation or anything regarding metaphysics or the emergence of consciousness. Everything just is" ... and myself and all other people of faith could only say... "well, we have faith that things happen for a reason, and that means we believe in God".
But you guys dont see whats right in front of your eyes. You want to have your cake eat it too. You want to believe that things happen for a reason, but there is no reason for reason. You want to believe that things are explainable, but theres no explanation for why we can explain. You see, but having eyes you do not see.
Now, all of this is outside of faith. Because when you step into Faith and you start to experience the Holy Spirit working miraclesin your life, then you no longer care for science because the evidence is in front of your eyes.
I know I cant convince you to see the truth on my own, but I pray that God touches your heart and allows you to see it.
Does it feel like a deep tissue massage, only it's inside your ass?
-
All these so-called "born again" Christians and bible bashers are all BULLSHIT. They just enjoy the "spiritual" aspects of religion and think they sound enlightened for talking nonsense all the time. An exercise in vanity pretty much.
The fact is like I just pointed out, they just like to be spiritual Christians when it suits them. Like in threads like this, oh they love it. But don't think they are giving it a second thought when they are beating off to hardcore porn 5 minutes later. Or when taking their aids meds and steroids.
Nope. Not a chance.
-
Really, I am doing Atheists a favor by pointing this out. All you have to do is accept "Ok, the Universe is unexplainable. We can never explain origin or causation or anything regarding metaphysics or the emergence of consciousness. Everything just is" ... and myself and all other people of faith could only say... "well, we have faith that things happen for a reason, and that means we believe in God".
But you guys dont see whats right in front of your eyes. You want to have your cake eat it too. You want to believe that things happen for a reason, but there is no reason for reason. You want to believe that things are explainable, but theres no explanation for why we can explain. You see, but having eyes you do not see.
Now, all of this is outside of faith. Because when you step into Faith and you start to experience the Holy Spirit working miracles in your life, then you no longer care for science because the evidence is in front of your eyes.
I know I cant convince you to see the truth on my own, but I pray that God touches your heart and allows you to see it.
Hearing someone say that the know there is no explanation is odd, the self contradictory statement is lost on them.
-
It is in Gods great mercy that he allows for the development of medications to treat the illnesses which are a result of oursinfulness. Because I tell you one thing, my faith alone isnt great enough to heal my body. And the Holy Spirit does not force things upon us.
Not that you would believe me, but I do try to keep Jesus in my thoughts 24/7...
Not that you would even understand what any of this means... Because the message of the Cross ia foolishness to those who perish, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God
-
Hearing someone say that the know there is no explanation is odd, the self contradictory statement is lost on them.
I urge you to think about why that is
-
All these so-called "born again" Christians and bible bashers are all BULLSHIT. They just enjoy the "spiritual" aspects of religion and think they sound enlightened for talking nonsense all the time. An exercise in vanity pretty much.
The fact is like I just pointed out, they just like to be spiritual Christians when it suits them. Like in threads like this, oh they love it. But don't think they are giving it a second thought when they are beating off to hardcore porn 5 minutes later. Or when taking their aids meds and steroids.
Nope. Not a chance.
;D ;D ;D ;D So much truth in this. Many of these evangelical preachers come across as real psychopaths.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
;D ;D ;D ;D So much truth in this. Many of these evangelical preachers come across as real psychopaths.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
That's because they are false. In it for profit, not to be a prophet. They are scum. I maintain that the money changers are no longer outside the temple, but own the temple.
The message of Christ is simple and free. These charlatans would have you believe otherwise.
-
Maybe he did. Tell you what. I'll send this article to a few people I know that are much smarter than you and I and see if I can't get a response. But unless you have more studies that can contradict it, it's just one theory. Since your people are constantly trying to prove evolution, we might have to conclude this is a bias article and falls in line with "Global Warming". Never trust a liberal or atheist to deliver accurate information. It's usually all about their politics and bullshitting the world.
Spoken like a true cretin. Remember to stop walking when you start chewing gum.
-
Here you go, Getbig. I made this video just for this thread
-
Here you go, Getbig. I made this video just for this thread
so crack god open whats in him, how can you say god isn't made of other gods, you can never say, it's impossible to say you do is ignorant.
-
so crack god open whats in him, how can you say god isn't made of other gods, you can never say, it's impossible to say you do is ignorant.
I'd be lying if I said that you being some sort of doctor doesn't scare me more than it bothers me.
-
Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,[1] as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
It can be defined that way yes but it's an ignorant definition.
-
Why?
Because in religion the "god did it" is pretty much the answer for everything.
Remember the debate between Bill The science guy and the other guy? Whenever Bill mentioned something that we still don't understand the religious guy will say "oh, but we already have an answer for that, it's in the bible".
Yeah, that's why.
That was a simple debate designed for the masses. Ken Hamm doesn't have much depth. Most likely this was the only religious debate most will ever watch. I've watched weeks worth of debates that would shred that to pieces. Unfortunately that's all most folks will ever know.
-
so crack god open whats in him, how can you say god isn't made of other gods, you can never say, it's impossible to say you do is ignorant.
it appears you dont understand what the word God means. God is a name for our infinite, eternal, and omnipotent creator who is spirit. Your question does not apply.
-
Maybe he did. Tell you what. I'll send this article to a few people I know that are much smarter than you and I and see if I can't get a response.
What good is a response if you lack the ability to interpret it?
But unless you have more studies that can contradict it, it's just one theory.
More studies that can contradict what? Also, you do realize that if you claim "A could never happen" then a single instance of A happening is enough to make you wrong, do you not?
Since your people are constantly trying to prove evolution, we might have to conclude this is a bias article and falls in line with "Global Warming".
First of all, you can't conclude anything, because you have the intellectual capacity of dried parsnip. Which explains why you don't understand how science works: scientists aren't trying to "prove evolution." They have a theory that makes testable predictions, and they are merely testing those predictions. If the observed evidence matches the predictions, they become more confident that the theory correctly describes the underlying processes. If the observed evidence does not match the predictions, then the theory has failed and either a revised or new and alternative theory is proposed, and the process repeats.
Never trust a liberal or atheist to deliver accurate information. It's usually all about their politics and bullshitting the world.
I could ask "as opposed to you and your ilk, paragons of accurate information delivery?" Seriously Joe, get over yourself and start exercising the one muscle you habitually and perpetually ignore. If you do, then maybe you'll realize that the wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't require you to trust anything other than your own mind and senses.
it appears you dont understand what the word God means. God is a name for our infinite, eternal, and omnipotent creator who is spirit. Your question does not apply.
Oh boy... our resident sequined scrotum-sucking schmuck is at it again.
-
my friend, my belief is grounded in logic. I came to God through study of the history of philosophical debate on metaphysics.
The simple fact is the either we evoke the supernatural to explain the natural or we accept that the natural is inherently unexplainable.
This is not an odd assertions, but in fact it is this very same assertion that modern science is based upon.
If this is what you believe then that's fine, but these are statements of belief, not of fact. It's important not to confuse the two if you're going to hold conversations with people and not come off as a close minded zealot. Surely you can see how someone might doubt the need to 'evoke' the supernatural in understanding physical phenomena?
-
Doesnt mean that rocks turn into rocket scientists tho.
That's awesome!! ;D
-
Yes, after years of soul searching and posing in bunny costumes, Tbombz has found God. Tbombz only hopes that God possesses a similar bunny suit, so they can both prance around in heaven on soft, fluffy clouds of goodness.
(http://www.gratisimage.dk/graphic/images/2013/June/05/9A19_51AF892A.jpg)
-
If this is what you believe then that's fine, but these are statements of belief, not of fact. It's important not to confuse the two if you're going to hold conversations with people and not come off as a close minded zealot. Surely you can see how someone might doubt the need to 'evoke' the supernatural in understanding physical phenomena?
I can understand why someone might think that zero minus 8 is zero. But that doesn't mean its true.
Now, what I said about metaphysics, thats just a FACT. Its not a belief. The fact is the only way to explain everything is to posit God. My belief is that God exists. See, it would also be logical to say that I believe things are unexplainable and that would not contradict the fact that the only explanation is God. I would just be choosing to believe that there is no explanation.
Now, heres the crux= you can say this caused that, but what you mean is that you saw this precede that, causation is something you did not witness, something you cannot witness, but nonetheless you still have "this" (which preceded "that") to account for. What preceded this? And so forth. But yet, its irrelevant because all we can witness is effects, a mechanical sequence, the cause for the motion of sequence, that original and ultimate prime mover, that is something that even if we see an event without precedent we still cannot speak on for we have not witnessed it.
Causation, origin, metaphysics and the entire universe and every happening inside of it... ultimately, there is onle one possible explanation, which is GOD. Glory to God :)
-
I prefer to admit that I don't know every single thing.
-
I can understand why someone might think that zero minus 8 is zero. But that doesn't mean its true.
Now, what I said about metaphysics, thats just a FACT. Its not a belief. The fact is the only way to explain everything is to posit God. My belief is that God exists. See, it would also be logical to say that I believe things are unexplainable and that would not contradict the fact that the only explanation is God. I would just be choosing to believe that there is no explanation.
Now, heres the crux= you can say this caused that, but what you mean is that you saw this precede that, causation is something you did not witness, something you cannot witness, but nonetheless you still have "this" (which preceded "that") to account for. What preceded this? And so forth. But yet, its irrelevant because all we can witness is effects, a mechanical sequence, the cause for the motion of sequence, that original and ultimate prime mover, that is something that even if we see an event without precedent we still cannot speak on for we have not witnessed it.
Causation, origin, metaphysics and the entire universe and every happening inside of it... ultimately, there is onle one possible explanation, which is GOD. Glory to God :)
Tbombz, if God asks you why you dressed up in a bunny suit, what would you say to him?
(http://www.gratisimage.dk/graphic/images/2013/June/05/9A19_51AF892A.jpg)
-
Now, what I said about metaphysics, thats just a FACT. Its not a belief. The fact is the only way to explain everything is to posit God. My belief is that God exists. See, it would also be logical to say that I believe things are unexplainable and that would not contradict the fact that the only explanation is God. I would just be choosing to believe that there is no explanation.
No. To "posit" God explains nothing at all.
-
What good is a response if you lack the ability to interpret it?
More studies that can contradict what? Also, you do realize that if you claim "A could never happen" then a single instance of A happening is enough to make you wrong, do you not?
First of all, you can't conclude anything, because you have the intellectual capacity of dried parsnip. Which explains why you don't understand how science works: scientists aren't trying to "prove evolution." They have a theory that makes testable predictions, and they are merely testing those predictions. If the observed evidence matches the predictions, they become more confident that the theory correctly describes the underlying processes. If the observed evidence does not match the predictions, then the theory has failed and either a revised or new and alternative theory is proposed, and the process repeats.
I could ask "as opposed to you and your ilk, paragons of accurate information delivery?" Seriously Joe, get over yourself and start exercising the one muscle you habitually and perpetually ignore. If you do, then maybe you'll realize that the wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't require you to trust anything other than your own mind and senses.
Oh boy... our resident sequined scrotum-sucking schmuck is at it again.
Sorry Bud, but if you look into the background of that site, there's an agenda to it. Science is great and I embrace it and apply to my training, yes even the physiology of it. The fact that, once again, you choose to single out me for your little delusional, science is the be all to end all and answers everything the Universe has produced is naive at best. And the fact you're siding with necrosis shows your bias to the subject. Don't baffle me with your education as it's already been proven time and times again high education rarely translates to commonsense. We've been through this before.
-
Sorry Bud, but if you look into the background of that site, there's an agenda to it. Science is great and I embrace it and apply to my training, yes even the physiology of it. The fact that, once again, you choose to single out me for your little delusional, science is the be all to end all and answers everything the Universe has produced is naive at best. And the fact you're siding with necrosis shows your bias to the subject. Don't baffle me with your education as it's already been proven time and times again high education rarely translates to commonsense. We've been through this before.
Well, if science can't prove everything, what else can we rely on? Can't rely on pure faith because that gets us nowhere. If we want to "prove" things we need to have some measure of understanding. Just saying, "God made the universe" end of story, is extremely ignorant. Maybe science can explain it. Maybe God can. I do not know. But what I do know is that we need to keep asking questions. That's what science is all about. As opposed to religion which says, "God did it. Dont ask any other question. Its all in the bible." Just ridiculous.
-
Sorry Bud, but if you look into the background of that site, there's an agenda to it.
Perhaps there is - but that's largely irrelevant. Either the results are what is reported or they aren't. The site's agenda doesn't affect reality.
Also, an agenda? That's rich coming from you! I seem to recall an instance where you posted a link to a site with an obvious agenda, and when I called you out on it and proceeded to systematically deconstruct and demolish the article and your silly attempts to defend it, you fell back to "I saw it and I posted it."
Science is great and I embrace it and apply to my training, yes even the physiology of it.
Great. So why do you eschew the scientific process and the use of logic and rationality in areas other than training?
The fact that, once again, you choose to single out me for your little delusional, science is the be all to end all and answers everything the Universe has produced is naive at best.
I didn't "choose" you - I replied to a blatantly ridiculous post. That most (though not all, curiously enough) of your posts that are on the topics of politics, religion or science are blatantly ridiculous isn't my fault.
Naive? Logic, rationality and the scientific process are the means through which we understand the world around us. If you have some others tools which can be used, then by all means tell us. But if those tools boil down to "well... I pray to this magical unknowable sky creature, a creature whose attributes I cannot define, and it then gives me knowledge in some unknowable way" then you will understand if I don't find that qualifies as a "tool".
And the fact you're siding with necrosis shows your bias to the subject.
I "side" with necrosis? It always amazes me, to catch a glimpse inside a delusional mind.
Don't baffle me with your education as it's already been proven time and times again high education rarely translates to commonsense.
I didn't mention anything about my education; as for which one of us has more common sense, I'll let others be the judge of that. I'll merely point out that you argued, quite vociferously, that a conspiracy spanning decades and thousands (if not tens of thousands) of conspirators has resulted in a Kenyan-born Muslim being elected President. If that passes for common sense, then I'll have none of that, thank you very much.
We've been through this before.
Yes, and you didn't learn your lesson then either.
-
Joe, you said you use science when it comes to training your athletes. However, you also stated that science sometimes falsifies data because it is funded by the government. Exercise and physiology studies are also funded by the government. Perhaps nutritionists and exercise physiologists who study this stuff are falsifying data to promote their own agenda. I mean, if global warming and evolution scientists are lying, what makes you so sure that exercise physiologists and nutritionists aren't lying? Why do you believe scientists who study nutrition and exercise physiology, but think that all scientists who study evolution and global warming or lying? Many professors in universities are often paid by the funding they get. In other words, they receive grants from certain institutions and use that grant money to pay themselves and their staff (lab assistance). Thus, it is also probable that exercise physiologists are falsifying data because of their own agenda (just like those scientists who study evolution and global warming).
-
Joe, you said you use science when it comes to training your athletes. However, you also stated that science sometimes falsifies data because it is funded by the government. Exercise and physiology studies are also funded by the government. Perhaps nutritionists and exercise physiologists who study this stuff are falsifying data to promote their own agenda. I mean, if global warming and evolution scientists are lying, what makes you so sure that exercise physiologists and nutritionists aren't lying? Why do you believe scientists who study nutrition and exercise physiology, but think that all scientists who study evolution and global warming or lying?
Cue Joe: "Get your filthy logic off of me you damn, dirty rational man!"
-
Cue Joe: "Get your filthy logic off of me you damn, dirty rational man!"
Im also an atheist, so that makes my logic even more dirty and disgusting.
Its sad, but in the scientific world there is most likely a lot of dishonesty. These professors are pressured to publish, publish, publish, and publish some more. Of course the peer-reviewed process ensure some degree of honesty, but you never know what happens behind closed doors.
-
Im also an atheist, so that makes my logic even more dirty and disgusting.
Its sad, but in the scientific world there is most likely a lot of dishonesty. These professors are pressured to publish, publish, publish, and publish some more. Of course the peer-reviewed process ensure some degree of honesty, but you never know what happens behind closed doors.
You'd think so, alas...
-
You'd think so, alas...
Well, ya know, it is what it is, I guess. Its not a perfect process, but its gotten us far enough, excluding the dishonest scientists.
-
I just really have to add that this is a prime example of just another insecure athiest making an attempt to stir shit up.
you sir are a prime example of a moron
Do the people you are train that are liberals know that you think they are not trustworthy?
-
it appears you dont understand what the word God means. God is a name for our infinite, eternal, and omnipotent creator who is spirit. Your question does not apply.
oh ok. you're right god truly is the only answer.
-
Joe, you said you use science when it comes to training your athletes. However, you also stated that science sometimes falsifies data because it is funded by the government. Exercise and physiology studies are also funded by the government. Perhaps nutritionists and exercise physiologists who study this stuff are falsifying data to promote their own agenda. I mean, if global warming and evolution scientists are lying, what makes you so sure that exercise physiologists and nutritionists aren't lying? Why do you believe scientists who study nutrition and exercise physiology, but think that all scientists who study evolution and global warming or lying? Many professors in universities are often paid by the funding they get. In other words, they receive grants from certain institutions and use that grant money to pay themselves and their staff (lab assistance). Thus, it is also probable that exercise physiologists are falsifying data because of their own agenda (just like those scientists who study evolution and global warming).
Call them biologists and climatologists or something, these assholes think people call themselves evolutionists and warmatologists.
-
Perhaps there is - but that's largely irrelevant. Either the results are what is reported or they aren't. The site's agenda doesn't affect reality.
Also, an agenda? That's rich coming from you! I seem to recall an instance where you posted a link to a site with an obvious agenda, and when I called you out on it and proceeded to systematically deconstruct and demolish the article and your silly attempts to defend it, you fell back to "I saw it and I posted it."
Great. So why do you eschew the scientific process and the use of logic and rationality in areas other than training?
I didn't "choose" you - I replied to a blatantly ridiculous post. That most (though not all, curiously enough) of your posts that are on the topics of politics, religion or science are blatantly ridiculous isn't my fault.
Naive? Logic, rationality and the scientific process are the means through which we understand the world around us. If you have some others tools which can be used, then by all means tell us. But if those tools boil down to "well... I pray to this magical unknowable sky creature, a creature whose attributes I cannot define, and it then gives me knowledge in some unknowable way" then you will understand if I don't find that qualifies as a "tool".
I "side" with necrosis? It always amazes me, to catch a glimpse inside a delusional mind.
I didn't mention anything about my education; as for which one of us has more common sense, I'll let others be the judge of that. I'll merely point out that you argued, quite vociferously, that a conspiracy spanning decades and thousands (if not tens of thousands) of conspirators has resulted in a Kenyan-born Muslim being elected President. If that passes for common sense, then I'll have none of that, thank you very much.
Yes, and you didn't learn your lesson then either.
Necrosis posting that article and the article itself had little to do with "metabolism" and everything to do with inciting a debate of yet another creationism vs. evolution. Nothing more nothing less. Keep it going genius.
As for Obama, he's as dirty as the dirt under your feet. I stand by what I said. Dude's as American as the immigrants who come here.
-
Necrosis posting that article and the article itself had little to do with "metabolism" and everything to do with inciting a debate of yet another creationism vs. evolution. Nothing more nothing less. Keep it going genius.
As for Obama, he's as dirty as the dirt under your feet. I stand by what I said. Dude's as American as the immigrants who come here.
its not dirt its his skincolor
-
Necrosis posting that article and the article itself had little to do with "metabolism" and everything to do with inciting a debate of yet another creationism vs. evolution. Nothing more nothing less. Keep it going genius.
Do Necrosis' motives in posting this change whether the story, as reported is true? Do you have any actual evidence that proves it is wrong and/or fabricated?
As for Obama, he's as dirty as the dirt under your feet. I stand by what I said. Dude's as American as the immigrants who come here.
The problem is not that you say you stand by what you said; it's not even that you can't prove what you said. It's that everything you said had already been debunked and you ignored all that evidence completely.
You are a fool, and what's worse is that you are willingly blind and purposely unthinking fool. You are scum for exactly that reason. You ignore reality and reject objective facts even after they have been painstakingly shown to you to be right. You cheapen the meaning of the word American and denigrate us all. And for that, fuck you Joe.
Now sit the fuck down and let the adults have a conversation.
-
Do Necrosis' motives in posting this change whether the story, as reported is true? Do you have any actual evidence that proves it is wrong and/or fabricated?
I never said it wasn't true or not. I need more evidence coming from a source less bias coming from basically an Atheist site that probably spouts everything evolution. Like I said, this wasn't about metabolism, this was to incite a debate and not about physiology.
The problem is not that you say you stand by what you said; it's not even that you can't prove what you said. It's that everything you said had already been debunked and you ignored all that evidence completely.
You are a fool, and what's worse is that you are willingly blind and purposely unthinking fool. You are scum for exactly that reason. You ignore reality and reject objective facts even after they have been painstakingly shown to you to be right. You cheapen the meaning of the word American and denigrate us all. And for that, fuck you Joe.
Now sit the fuck down and let the adults have a conversation.
Yeah Junior, your an atheist, I get it and you chiming in and your continued attacks on singling me out shows you're just as insecure as necrosis and every other atheist who decides to come on here and start shit. For that, I say FUCK YOU. If you want to sue me (like most athiests want to to because a Christian defends his/her faith) I'll be happy to send you my address to have your athiest attorney serve me. LOL.
-
I can understand why someone might think that zero minus 8 is zero. But that doesn't mean its true.
Now, what I said about metaphysics, thats just a FACT. Its not a belief. The fact is the only way to explain everything is to posit God. My belief is that God exists. See, it would also be logical to say that I believe things are unexplainable and that would not contradict the fact that the only explanation is God. I would just be choosing to believe that there is no explanation.
Now, heres the crux= you can say this caused that, but what you mean is that you saw this precede that, causation is something you did not witness, something you cannot witness, but nonetheless you still have "this" (which preceded "that") to account for. What preceded this? And so forth. But yet, its irrelevant because all we can witness is effects, a mechanical sequence, the cause for the motion of sequence, that original and ultimate prime mover, that is something that even if we see an event without precedent we still cannot speak on for we have not witnessed it.
Causation, origin, metaphysics and the entire universe and every happening inside of it... ultimately, there is onle one possible explanation, which is GOD. Glory to God :)
You raise an interesting point about causation i.e. correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. However scientific research (or at least good, legitimate scientific research) uses specific study designs and mathematical analyses which aim to show causation. For example removing confounding elements.
Many studies don't show true causation between variables - but this is okay as long as it is flagged and noted. We can still learn and make predictions from observing correlations that occur naturally - the essence of science is in attempting to test these predictions and prove whether causation does occur. It is a difficult, tedious process and every question that is answered likely leads to many more questions.
But I don't see how you can say that we can't witness or prove causation (at least with reasonable certainty). If somebody punches a hole in the wall, the variable that caused the hole is the punch. That is causation.
-
The spectre of Big Dave Hume looming over this thread. C'za'un? Bhaghaa!
-
You raise an interesting point about causation i.e. correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. However scientific research (or at least good, legitimate scientific research) uses specific study designs and mathematical analyses which aim to show causation. For example removing confounding elements.
Many studies don't show true causation between variables - but this is okay as long as it is flagged and noted. We can still learn and make predictions from observing correlations that occur naturally - the essence of science is in attempting to test these predictions and prove whether causation does occur. It is a difficult, tedious process and every question that is answered likely leads to many more questions.
But I don't see how you can say that we can't witness or prove causation (at least with reasonable certainty). If somebody punches a hole in the wall, the variable that caused the hole is the punch. That is causation.
the issue is ULTIMATE causation.
-
I never said it wasn't true or not. I need more evidence coming from a source less bias coming from basically an Atheist site that probably spouts everything evolution.
Heh... but when the content is from a site that spouts all Obama conspiracy theories and repeats proven falsehoods, you're ok and all over that with that? You're a fucking hypocrite.
Like I said, this wasn't about metabolism, this was to incite a debate and not about physiology.
LOL. So when you post your bullshit birther conspiracy theories you aren't trying to "incite" a debate? Also, "incite a debate"? Really? You keep making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself.
-
Quite the contrary actually.
It is often argued by those of the intelligence design persuasion, that the metabolic reactions required to form the building blocks of living cells were too complex to occur outside of a biological organism (i.e. a living cell). In other words the cell and the organism had to come first before the chemical reactions could occur.
What this paper shows (and what has been shown many times before going back as far as the Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's) is that the chemical reactions that can create the building blocks of the cell (and of life) can be created outside of a living cell.
This dispels the notion that the cells were "created" first. It is likely that the building blocks of life (amino acids, DNA, RNA, fats, etc) can be created under abiotic conditions, arising spontaneously in an aquatic environment where the correct combination of chemical ions are present along with a heat source (possibly from hydrothermal vents).
Melkor wins. Close thread now. This post is over. Creationist hicks who believe in Zeus need not apply. It's amazing he reads this forum in between splicing stem cells.
-
Necrosis posting that article and the article itself had little to do with "metabolism" and everything to do with inciting a debate of yet another creationism vs. evolution. Nothing more nothing less. Keep it going genius.
Well, the title "Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells" appears to be be striking evidence that the article has indeed a lot to do with metabolism ::)
-
Melkor wins. Close thread now. This post is over. Creationist hicks who believe in Zeus need not apply. It's amazing he reads this forum in between splicing stem cells.
;D ;D ;D