Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

1. Life did not happen Spontaneous as you or Creationists claim.

1. Your right yanoda, life didn't happen Spontaneous, and creationists believe in creation, not in spontaneous life.
2. I can understand that however then please state me the real odds wich is imposible because the scientists claiming the odds are wrong only state why they are wrong.
3. I watched the video after waiting 30Min for it to load, and yes this creationist gets it's theory wrong, anything about the odds?

4. Since we have Life now and we live today, we can say that the chances that life formed is 1/1. See how I flipped your odds?

4. Basicly you assume that since:
1. The god created the earth thing is giberish from your POV and:
2. Another theory would mean admiting your wrong
Your just saying based on AT BEST, and uncomplete theory as science doesn't know how a simple cell gets into a complex one.
So basicly the odds even tough if the odds of a simple cell comming to be by itself is 100% there is NO PROOF/FACTS on wich science can show how a simple cell gets to be a complex one.
And now you can state "all the creationists come with the same excuse" defence, ever tought why? because it's TRUE, science can't proove it.

5. Science doesn't contradict itself, the EVOT does, you see the evolution theory is based on science, science is based on facts, sciences proovs that it is posible to have a natural simple cell that can come to exists by the elements earth had at it's time.
The evolution theory is based on science, the evolution theory believe in a simple cell evolving into a complex cell of wich came life, this is an assumption and hasn't been verified by science, so how can the evolution theory based on science make an assumption wich hasn't been prooven?

Basicly what iv'e learned from this thread is:
Creationism is based on faith
The evolution theory is based on "luck" and 2 unprooven theories.

FYI, this thread's name is "Why MT doesn't believe in this." it isn't "why does MT believe in [insert random thing here]"
Now unless actuall odds come wich is imposible since scientists can't agree over the odds i consider the argument dead.
Necro it in a few years when maybe science got something new for us to play with.

MT

[Yanoda]

Would be nice to have more individuals partaking in the Topic...
OK where to start?

Sure, still trying to find out the odds of spontaneous life.

1. Your right yanoda, life didn't happen Spontaneous, and creationists believe in creation, not in spontaneous life.
MT

Contradiction at its finest.
2+3. What is so difficult to understand that it is pointless to calculate the probability of life forming? You and Creationists keep focusing on it without regarding other factors. You were the one that started talking about probability and what not, I consistently showed (with sources) that your claims are baseless, yet you ignore them. We know that Amino Acids (basic building blocks for Proteins) can form in extreme conditions (even in space). We know (from geologic dating and composition) that at Earth's infancy, the requirements for organic compounds to form have been met (necessary chemicals, molecules, compounds and environment). Scientists have reconstructed Earth's early environment to see whether these organic compounds/molecules can form (without an intelligent designer aka creationism), and they were able to.
4. Again, there is no data or proof that a Deity exists, therefore scientists do not consider it as a Viable scientific proof. There were many other Theories (in scientific terms: Hypotheses) of how Life began and 'Evolved' over history (creationism as one of them). Guess what, the current 'Theory' (an explanation of how something works or how it happened, with several experiments & data validating the theory) of Evolution of Life is the best explanation without the need to say that a Deity did it.
You mean Simple Cell as 'Prokaryotic' and Complex Cell as 'Eukaryotic'? Here's and introduction on Prokaryotes. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/o ... yotes.html
Simple explanation on how Archea (prior to Prokaryotes) have 'evolved' to Eukaryotes. http://www.bacterialphylogeny.info/eukaryotes.html
5. The above links explain how (and verifying with data) how Archea have 'evolved' to Eukaryotes. And you claim it can't be verified...

Basicly what iv'e learned from this thread is:
Creationism is based on faith
MT

Good, you learned at least one thing.
On what basis do you say there are 2 unproven theories? I have constantly showed otherwise, others can verify that.
You do realize MT, you also added posts stating why you believe in something (examples are Bible Passages) to which you base your assumptions...

Necro it in a few years when maybe science got something new for us to play with.
MT

Getting tired of me showing how baseless your arguments are? How you keep contradicting yourself? Making assumptions without verifiable evidence? Using a book to claim it predicts the future?

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

1. It's the evolutionists who believe life evolved, yet if this was true in wich creationists do not believe then you need to exact pattern to be followed.
Up till now the scientific expiriments only prooved that a human can recreate a cell ussing the base elements at hand, yet they didn't do it randomly THEY FOLLOWED THE PATTERN, scientists coulnd't test random life occuring because it would by their own assumtioms take them billions of years.
2-3. Do you know why it is pointless? because everytime one scientist makes the odds wich would be astronomical is defied by another scientist claiming he's wrong.
FYI do remember that miller didn't use oxygen in his experiment, look it up if you know what i mean
4. I didn't make any claims in that post, and FYI "Although there are no clear intermediates in this transition" Besides this it's a theory, and to be honest it's a good theory, yet it isn't a fact, it hasn't been prooven.
5. I already stated them both quite a few times.

To end it up i could say that methane and ammonia , two prime gases in the Miller spark chamber, could not have been present in large amounts. The ammonia would be dissolved in the oceans, and the methane should be found stuck to ancient deep sedimentary clays.

However i'm quite sure you have a theory preped for that or that you will google one on wich i will have an answer then you will answer it with a facepalm, this is basicly answering your response on my necro quote, as i'm tired of having to ask for odds wich don't exist or scientists not wanting them to exist.

MT

[Darth Crater]

Would be nice to have more individuals partaking in the Topic...

Sorry, haven't had much I felt up to making a coherent argument against recently. All I can do on the topic of these odds is reiterate what I've said before - anyone claiming to know what the odds are within more than a few orders of magnitude is untrustworthy. There is a general agreement that the odds are far less steep than MT proposes, however. The rebuttals Yanoda has posted have pointed out flaws in their reasoning, which makes them untrustworthy regardless of the existence of alternatives. I don't have a sufficient biology background to guess at odds or to know where they might be found; I could contact a couple friends, but I doubt you'll get a better answer from them.

Short version - MT, what you're looking for doesn't exist, but it doesn't need to exist.

[Yanoda]

1. It's the evolutionists who believe life evolved, yet if this was true in wich creationists do not believe then you need to exact pattern to be followed.
Up till now the scientific expiriments only prooved that a human can recreate a cell ussing the base elements at hand, yet they didn't do it randomly THEY FOLLOWED THE PATTERN, scientists coulnd't test random life occuring because it would by their own assumtioms take them billions of years.

No one has been able to recreate a cell yet (though we're able to modify them), I never stated that. Amino Acids & Peptides are not Cells, they are the building blocks. That is what we were able to recreate so far. Laboratory experiments are able to speed the process of the formation of organic compounds, you should have noticed that if you read about the Miller-Urey experiment.
Again with the claims of random... I say it again and again, yet you keep ignoring it: Chemical processes are not random. Read some basic high-school chemistry.

2-3. Do you know why it is pointless? because everytime one scientist makes the odds wich would be astronomical is defied by another scientist claiming he's wrong.
FYI do remember that miller didn't use oxygen in his experiment, look it up if you know what i mean

Since it is impossible to accurately predict the odds of Life, I posted several reasons as to why that is.
Oxygen? Where did you get that? I never stated anything about oxygen MT. Especially concerning the Miller-Urey Experiment, since the early Earth did not have Oxygen (O2) in the environment. What was the point of it? Trying to make false assumptions to what I said?

4. I didn't make any claims in that post, and FYI "Although there are no clear intermediates in this transition" Besides this it's a theory, and to be honest it's a good theory, yet it isn't a fact, it hasn't been prooven.

Again with the quote mining... (underlined text was MT's quoting)

Original sentence: "Cells from eukaryotic organisms (e.g. Animals, Plants, Fungi, Protists) differ from those of the prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea) in a large number of characteristics. These differences are so vast that the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from prokaryotic ancestors is widely regarded as a major evolutionary discontinuity.[1,2] Although there are no clear intermediates in this transition, the available evidence strongly indicates that eukaryotic cells have evolved much later (only about 1-1.5 billion years ago) in comparison to the prokaryotic organisms, which existed as far back as 3.5-3.8 Ga ago.[3] The question thus arises how did the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell come about and who are the progenitors of the ancestral eukaryotic cell?[4]"http://www.bacterialphylogeny.info/eukaryotes.html
What you may have overseen, was that they had data to back up their 'claims' and explain how the process would have undergone.
Quote Mining (contextomy) is deceitful MT and widely frowned upon.

5. I already stated them both quite a few times.

Please read a little more on Archea, Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes including the links I posted above MT.

To end it up i could say that methane and ammonia , two prime gases in the Miller spark chamber, could not have been present in large amounts. The ammonia would be dissolved in the oceans, and the methane should be found stuck to ancient deep sedimentary clays.

Ammonia would still be in the Oceans MT... dissolving doesn't necessarily mean the compound disappears or gets broken apart. Methane exists in the atmosphere as well, not just in "sedimentary clay". Again you failed with reasoning MT. Methane and Ammonia was used in the experiment, turns out that Methane and Ammonia were not available in the early Earth. Scientists were able to reproduce the experiment with CO, CO2, N2 and water vapor though with the same results (using H2S and SO2 as well has produced more diverse molecules). Which all were available (through volcanic eruptions) at the time (over 4.5 Billion years ago). I was wondering when someone would figure that out (unfortunately no one did), if you did some proper research you would have noticed the discrepancy. You still claimed that Methane and Ammonia existed in the early Earth, to which you have failed my subtle quiz whether you really do your research or not. (Though I give you half-credit in saying they were not available in large amounts).

However i'm quite sure you have a theory preped for that or that you will google one on wich i will have an answer then you will answer it with a facepalm, this is basicly answering your response on my necro quote, as i'm tired of having to ask for odds wich don't exist or scientists not wanting them to exist.
MT

What Crater said. (Thx for partaking).
You do realize MT that your arguments can be quite predictable, so in a way I do have some arguments already prepped for your reply.

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Ah well instead of just answer to be answered ill ask ye yanny, is this the recreation of the expiriement your talking about?
http://www.millerureyexperiment.com/
IN CASE it is, note , it's flawed

[Yanoda]

Ah well instead of just answer to be answered ill ask ye yanny, is this the recreation of the expiriement your talking about?
http://www.millerureyexperiment.com/
IN CASE it is, note , it's flawed

You do realize that this is just a flash, right? I have tried to use the interactive flash, seems to only consider the original molecules (NH3, CH4, H2 & H2O (vapor) used in the experiment to provide the positive results. In the original experiment, O2 (oxygen was not used). Methane (CH4) and Ammonia (NH3) aren't required either. As I have pointed out before. CO2, H2O (vapor) & N2 will produce the same result. Unfortunately the flash has not been updated to that.
From that you claim that O2 was used? Ever considered that maybe they just put it there to see whether you can find out which molecules were originally used (as the short movie reveals) like a multiple choice question?

For that you receive the well known:


Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

After being too lazy to just post anything all i can say is:
Matthew 7:6

[Yanoda]

After being too lazy to just post anything all i can say is:
Matthew 7:6

This has relevance with the topic... how?

Yanoda

[THEWULFMAN]

Ouch, but the great flood did not happen 800 million years ago. Actually just a little over 4000 yrs ago I think

Yes, I know. I was simply saying that it could not have happened at the time it did. And since it the time when it supposedly happened is correct, then it must mean parts of the story are false. Just wanted to clear up anyone thinking I was saying the Ark story took place 800 million years ago.