Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

[ElShamah]

hi all

i am debating at

http://atheisttoolbox.com/forum/viewtop ... 3&start=15

someone wrote :

For some problems in the Bible you may want to have a look the the Bible sections of the main site. What would prove the Bible false in your eyes? Contradictions within the gospels? and while we're marrying science with religion surely abiogenesis, whilst not perfect, has more going for it than the historical accuracy of Jesus as presented in the gospels.

The GodandScience website makes me sad. First to go was the age of the earth, then creation to evolution, now it's time to support god in the jump from chemistry to biology. If Abiogenesis or some other reasonable idea comes along to explain the transition from chemistry to biology these sites will not disappear they'll just drop one argument and move along with science to the next problem down the chain.

http://atheisttoolbox.com/fcbible.php

i would like to answer all these questions. If someone wants to help me, i would aprechiate.

Angelo

[Gman]

hi all

i am debating at

http://atheisttoolbox.com/forum/viewtop ... 3&start=15

someone wrote :

For some problems in the Bible you may want to have a look the the Bible sections of the main site. What would prove the Bible false in your eyes? Contradictions within the gospels? and while we're marrying science with religion surely abiogenesis, whilst not perfect, has more going for it than the historical accuracy of Jesus as presented in the gospels.

Abiogenesis is a huge slap in the face of the Darwinists, which is why they go to great lengths to say it has nothing to do with evolution. They know it is damaging to their theory.. The historical accuracy of Jesus is however accepted by most scholars as being a true historical figure.

John Horgan, senior writer for Scientific American, has called the origin of life (abiogenesis) "the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology." The National Academy of Sciences puts the problem in an interesting way:

“The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed.” Science and Creationism : A view from the National Academy of sciences, 2nd ed., 1999.

In other words, it is fair to say that we do not know how life originated.

The GodandScience website makes me sad. First to go was the age of the earth, then creation to evolution, now it's time to support god in the jump from chemistry to biology. If Abiogenesis or some other reasonable idea comes along to explain the transition from chemistry to biology these sites will not disappear they'll just drop one argument and move along with science to the next problem down the chain.

http://atheisttoolbox.com/fcbible.php

i would like to answer all these questions. If someone wants to help me, i would aprechiate.

Angelo

Well atheists web sites make me sad too. Their refusal to look at the facts and instead allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking that chance and time can create human mental life, our consciousness, our intelligence, our purposes, or that it can be explained entirely in the forces involved in chemistry.

I'm not sure what science they are talking about, but their science isn't science at all. It's guesswork...

[ElShamah]

hi Gman

i absolutely agree....

the guys at this forum seem to struggle a littlebit....

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/ ... /5797/P75/

it would be fun, if someone else would participate as well....

Angelo

[Gman]

hi Gman

i absolutely agree....

the guys at this forum seem to struggle a littlebit....

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/ ... /5797/P75/

Let's look at the accusation...

This site is clearly written by someone with a poor grasp of scientific principals who is just parroting things he/she heard somewhere or they have some knowledge of the subject and they are being intentionally deceptive. I'll give some examples.

Well for starters, Rich Deem the owner of godandscience, always references his work from other scientists as well. So if the claim is that Rich has a poor grasp of scientific principals, then perhaps they would like to debate the evolutionary scientists that made the claim in the first place.

The Claim: “Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least four billion years (6), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago (7).“ and that science ignores the geologic and chemical data.

The Truth: Nucleosides and amino acids can and do in fact form in the presence of oxygen every day in our own bodies. Every cell in our body contains oxygen and that is where the production of these organic molecules takes place. This comment also overlooks the fact that 3.5 billion years ago free oxygen may have existed on earth but in minute quantities compared to today. Current oxygen levels were only generated after billions of years of photosynthesis.

First we are talking about origins of nucleosides and amino acids... Not preexisting acids... In this case the claim by godandscience is absolutely correct, which is why the Miller—Urey experiment excluded molecular oxygen O2. As a strong oxidizing agent, O2 disrupts chemical bonds in amino acid chains. When oxygen gas was added to the Miller—Urey mixture, no organic molecules were formed.

it would be fun, if someone else would participate as well....

Angelo

If someone had the time.. In many ways I find it to be pretty much useless. In many cases their mind is already made up so nothing would change that. Even if you presented all the facts and had God come down from heaven and shake their hands, some still wouldn't accept it. Why? Because their response is automatic.. You could throw all the facts and figures you like at it, but like a broken record, the response is the same..

[ElShamah]

If someone had the time.. In many ways I find it to be pretty much useless. In many cases their mind is already made up so nothing would change that

It will make them think a littlebit. It doesnt hurt....

[Gman]

If someone had the time.. In many ways I find it to be pretty much useless. In many cases their mind is already made up so nothing would change that

It will make them think a littlebit. It doesnt hurt....

Perhaps ElShamah... But it's not anything about having any guts. It's more about having any time, although I can't speak for others on this. One forum is enough for me..

[hopefulcynic]

The Claim: “Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least four billion years (6), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago (7).“ and that science ignores the geologic and chemical data.

The Truth: Nucleosides and amino acids can and do in fact form in the presence of oxygen every day in our own bodies. Every cell in our body contains oxygen and that is where the production of these organic molecules takes place. This comment also overlooks the fact that 3.5 billion years ago free oxygen may have existed on earth but in minute quantities compared to today. Current oxygen levels were only generated after billions of years of photosynthesis.

First we are talking about origins of nucleosides and amino acids... Not preexisting acids... In this case the claim by godandscience is absolutely correct, which is why the Miller—Urey experiment excluded molecular oxygen O2. As a strong oxidizing agent, O2 disrupts chemical bonds in amino acid chains. When oxygen gas was added to the Miller—Urey mixture, no organic molecules were formed.

Yeah, O2 has a tendency to break down large organic molecules, which is in fact why our bodies need oxygen for metabolism.

That being said, you ignored the second argument, namely that early atmospheric oxygen concentrations were a fraction of what they are today. Here is a graph showing oxygen concentrations (as a percentage of "present atmospheric levels", or PAL) over geological time:



This particular graph was obtained by examining the age of particular rocks that can form only in the absence of oxygen. The article itself is published in Nature and is thus copyrighted, but if you are interested maybe I could send you a pdf by email.

[zoegirl]

YOu are comparing apples and oranges. Our cells have protected environments and enzyme that help create the essential organic molecules we need. There are highly specific metabolic pathways that direct these chemical pathways.

Whereas the abiotic mechanisms do not have these pathways or enzymes.

[hopefulcynic]

YOu are comparing apples and oranges. Our cells have protected environments and enzyme that help create the essential organic molecules we need. There are highly specific metabolic pathways that direct these chemical pathways.

Whereas the abiotic mechanisms do not have these pathways or enzymes.

Is this post addressed to me?

[zoegirl]

yes

[hopefulcynic]

yes

Would you mind clarifying your argument then? I'm not sure how it relates to what I was saying.

[zoegirl]

Nucleosides and amino acids can and do in fact form in the presence of oxygen every day in our own bodies. Every cell in our body contains oxygen and that is where the production of these organic molecules takes place. This comment also overlooks the fact that 3.5 billion years ago free oxygen may have existed on earth but in minute quantities compared to today. Current oxygen levels were only generated after billions of years of photosynthesis.

Yep,and the cells have various ways of controlling the radicals that would damage the cells

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... R/ROS.html

Comparing active cells that have ways of controlling the presecnce of oxygen as well as enzyme that direct the production of these organic molecules to the chaotic conditions on early earth with not enzymes? Whatever you are willing to believe, this seems like a poor comparison.

[hopefulcynic]

Nucleosides and amino acids can and do in fact form in the presence of oxygen every day in our own bodies. Every cell in our body contains oxygen and that is where the production of these organic molecules takes place. This comment also overlooks the fact that 3.5 billion years ago free oxygen may have existed on earth but in minute quantities compared to today. Current oxygen levels were only generated after billions of years of photosynthesis.

Yep,and the cells have various ways of controlling the radicals that would damage the cells

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... R/ROS.html

Comparing active cells that have ways of controlling the presecnce of oxygen as well as enzyme that direct the production of these organic molecules to the chaotic conditions on early earth with not enzymes? Whatever you are willing to believe, this seems like a poor comparison.

I never said that. Gman was quoting someone else.

[zoegirl]

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

for a good starter

[zoegirl]

Nucleosides and amino acids can and do in fact form in the presence of oxygen every day in our own bodies. Every cell in our body contains oxygen and that is where the production of these organic molecules takes place. This comment also overlooks the fact that 3.5 billion years ago free oxygen may have existed on earth but in minute quantities compared to today. Current oxygen levels were only generated after billions of years of photosynthesis.

Yep,and the cells have various ways of controlling the radicals that would damage the cells

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... R/ROS.html

Comparing active cells that have ways of controlling the presecnce of oxygen as well as enzyme that direct the production of these organic molecules to the chaotic conditions on early earth with not enzymes? Whatever you are willing to believe, this seems like a poor comparison.

I never said that. Gman was quoting someone else.

Ohh...sorry!! Pardon me!!