Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Athena · Feb 7, 2007, 04:38 pm

This subject is science. It is presented here, because a religious person is arguing against the theory of evolution. I will quote for Lewis Thomas's book "The Lives of a Cell".

"We are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts. (that is, we were not created the way the bible says we were created) We are shared, rented, occupied. At the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria, and in a strict sense they are not ours, They turn out to be little separate creatures, the colonial posterity of migrant prokaryocytes, probably primitive bacteria that swam into ancetral precursors of our eukaryotic cell and stayed there. Ever since, they have maintained themselves and their ways, replicating in their own fashion, privately, with their own DNA and RNA, quite different from ours. They are as much symbionts as the rhizobial bacteria in the roots of beans. Without them, we would not move a muscle, drum a finger, think a thought."

What this is saying is our lives would not be possible without mitochondria, living creatures with their own DNA and RNA.

Life evolved from single cell creatures as a result of symbiotic relationships. That is, one cell helping another live and visa versa.

phoenix_fire · Feb 7, 2007, 04:48 pm

I think this better fits under "science and technology". After all, no matter what someone believes, the rebuttal (viz. a good rebuttal) would be couched in scientific terms anyway. You should not expect a fulfilling debate if you're just trying to bait some theist into saying "nyah! no way becuz my religun sez so."

rez · Feb 7, 2007, 11:26 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

I think this better fits under "science and technology". After all, no matter what someone believes, the rebuttal (viz. a good rebuttal) would be couched in scientific terms anyway. You should not expect a fulfilling debate if you're just trying to bait some theist into saying "nyah! no way becuz my religun sez so."

I have never seen a supernaturalist give a rebuttal in scientific terms.

This one is quite funny...

Quote:

Quote by: Devout_Muslim

I never get taught about religion in school. And if it is it's some Catholic bullshit, or in science its evolution bullshit. Evolution is an unsupported theory made up by some stupid old prick, for a few dim-witted westerners who can't submit to God.
And are scared what will happen to them after death, I'm telling you, on your death bed you guys will be shitting yourselves.

phoenix_fire · Feb 7, 2007, 11:47 pm

Well, my point was that either it will be a scientific argument or she'll get a diatribe like the quote you posted. Either way, it will not be a good religious debate.

The_Genius · Feb 8, 2007, 03:15 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Athena

This subject is science. It is presented here, because a religious person is arguing against the theory of evolution. I will quote for Lewis Thomas's book "The Lives of a Cell".

"We are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts. (that is, we were not created the way the bible says we were created) We are shared, rented, occupied. At the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria, and in a strict sense they are not ours, They turn out to be little separate creatures, the colonial posterity of migrant prokaryocytes, probably primitive bacteria that swam into ancetral precursors of our eukaryotic cell and stayed there. Ever since, they have maintained themselves and their ways, replicating in their own fashion, privately, with their own DNA and RNA, quite different from ours. They are as much symbionts as the rhizobial bacteria in the roots of beans. Without them, we would not move a muscle, drum a finger, think a thought."

What this is saying is our lives would not be possible without mitochondria, living creatures with their own DNA and RNA.

Life evolved from single cell creatures as a result of symbiotic relationships. That is, one cell helping another live and visa versa.

Tell me, how did that very first cell came into being?

The_Genius · Feb 8, 2007, 03:24 pm

According to evolutonists, lifeless matters / chemicals created the very first living cell...

Quote:

Quote by: Athena

This subject is science.

You know very well that in order to determine the validity of a scientific theory, observations and experiments are needed to be made.

Did anyone ever observe inanimate objects creating life?

Is there any experiment that proves lifeless chemicals can create a living cell?

Sorry to disappoint you, the answer is NO and thus, "single cell evolution" theory remains a hopeless speculation.

phoenix_fire · Feb 8, 2007, 03:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: The_Genius

According to evolutonists, lifeless matters / chemicals created the very first living cell...

You know very well that in order to determine the validity of a scientific theory, observations and experiments are needed to be made.

Did anyone ever observe inanimate objects creating life?

Is there any experiment that proves lifeless chemicals can create a living cell?

Sorry to disappoint you, the answer is NO and thus, "single cell evolution" theory remains a hopeless speculation.

I actually have an interesting post on this in my blog.

phoenix_fire · Feb 8, 2007, 03:33 pm

Oh. How's that, rez, for a scientific rebuttal from a supernaturalist?

rez · Feb 8, 2007, 03:36 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

Oh. How's that, rez, for a scientific rebuttal from a supernaturalist?

Your blog is unable to display in my firefox browser...

phoenix_fire · Feb 8, 2007, 03:39 pm

Sorry. I fixed it.

The_Genius · Feb 8, 2007, 03:43 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

I actually have an interesting post on this in my blog.

I enjoyed reading your blog, for real. :)

Jimmy the Pro · Feb 8, 2007, 03:44 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

I think this better fits under "science and technology". After all, no matter what someone believes, the rebuttal (viz. a good rebuttal) would be couched in scientific terms anyway. You should not expect a fulfilling debate if you're just trying to bait some theist into saying "nyah! no way becuz my religun sez so."

Agreed, and if there is someone in particular that Athena would like to takes this up with, I suggest she open a Special Debate, that way the matter can be resolved individually.

rez · Feb 8, 2007, 03:47 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

When God closes a door, evolutionists start prying at windows.

The scientist was just testing out different ways to solve the problem. Just because he failed, means that there is no answer?

The_Genius · Feb 9, 2007, 02:23 pm

Quote:

Quote by: rez

The scientist was just testing out different ways to solve the problem. Just because he failed, means that there is no answer?

You see, the structure of a cell looked very simple when Darwin examined it with his primitive microscope. But rez, although you struggle to understand, we have moved on from the Bronze Age. We have discovered that the structure of a cell is very, very complex. It is simply ridiculous to think that random reactions of lifeless chemicals was able to create a living cell with such complex design.

phoenix_fire · Feb 9, 2007, 02:34 pm

Well, the problem is that the scientist was trying out a solution that absolutely would not have happened naturally. The energy of the reaction favors the forward reaction. There would have to be an external and artificial input of energy to make the reaction go the other way. And further, he didn't explain how this is supposed to eventually reverse itself to form the biochemical process that they were aiming for. Most scientists, as I mentioned, had already discarded this pathway as the first anyway after the primary experiment failed.

rez · Feb 9, 2007, 03:00 pm

Quote:

Quote by: The_Genius

You see, the structure of a cell looked very simple when Darwin examined it with his primitive microscope. But rez, although you struggle to understand, we have moved on from the Bronze Age. We have discovered that the structure of a cell is very, very complex. It is simply ridiculous to think that random reactions of lifeless chemicals was able to create a living cell with such complex design.

I went through the same trials as you did, except I actually educated myself.

irreducible-complexity

rez · Feb 9, 2007, 03:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

Well, the problem is that the scientist was trying out a solution that absolutely would not have happened naturally. The energy of the reaction favors the forward reaction. There would have to be an external and artificial input of energy to make the reaction go the other way. And further, he didn't explain how this is supposed to eventually reverse itself to form the biochemical process that they were aiming for. Most scientists, as I mentioned, had already discarded this pathway as the first anyway after the primary experiment failed.

I do not understand why you think god shuts humans off from fully understanding nature?

Athena · Feb 9, 2007, 03:19 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

I think this better fits under "science and technology". After all, no matter what someone believes, the rebuttal (viz. a good rebuttal) would be couched in scientific terms anyway. You should not expect a fulfilling debate if you're just trying to bait some theist into saying "nyah! no way becuz my religun sez so."

In private messages someone has been arguing a religious point of view, and it appears to me those who do this are lacking in information. This forum has been mostly debate between those who following religious dogma and those who follow reason. Rarely does anyone post anything about philosophy and if someone does those threads die for lack of participation. That leaves us only religion dogma verses science theory. Why call presenting scientific information baiting instead of informing?

phoenix_fire · Feb 9, 2007, 03:26 pm

Quote:

Quote by: rez

I do not understand why you think god shuts humans off from fully understanding nature?

I don't. I never said that. What I was saying is that even though nature itself had disproven the claim, the guy was still trying his hardest to justify it because he had so espoused it. My point was that scientists can get pretty unscientific about what amounts to their beliefs about how things work. Evolution has pretty much become a religion in and of itself. And there are those that would stake their lives on it.

phoenix_fire · Feb 9, 2007, 03:29 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Athena

In private messages someone has been arguing a religious point of view, and it appears to me those who do this are lacking in information. This forum has been mostly debate between those who following religious dogma and those who follow reason. Rarely does anyone post anything about philosophy and if someone does those threads die for lack of participation. That leaves us only religion dogma verses science theory. Why call presenting scientific information baiting instead of informing?

Well, if that's the case, then start a private debate with that individual.

Oh, and I object stringently to the bolded sentence. You imply that the two are mutually exclusive. That is incorrect and borders on bigoted.

Feb 7, 2007, 04:38 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Athena Volcanic Erupter Location: Oregon Posts: 5,304	evolved from single cell This subject is science. It is presented here, because a religious person is arguing against the theory of evolution. I will quote for Lewis Thomas's book "The Lives of a Cell". "We are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts. (that is, we were not created the way the bible says we were created) We are shared, rented, occupied. At the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria, and in a strict sense they are not ours, They turn out to be little separate creatures, the colonial posterity of migrant prokaryocytes, probably primitive bacteria that swam into ancetral precursors of our eukaryotic cell and stayed there. Ever since, they have maintained themselves and their ways, replicating in their own fashion, privately, with their own DNA and RNA, quite different from ours. They are as much symbionts as the rhizobial bacteria in the roots of beans. Without them, we would not move a muscle, drum a finger, think a thought." What this is saying is our lives would not be possible without mitochondria, living creatures with their own DNA and RNA. Life evolved from single cell creatures as a result of symbiotic relationships. That is, one cell helping another live and visa versa. Dawn falls Eve. Enlightenment falls the darkness.

Feb 7, 2007, 04:48 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	I think this better fits under "science and technology". After all, no matter what someone believes, the rebuttal (viz. a good rebuttal) would be couched in scientific terms anyway. You should not expect a fulfilling debate if you're just trying to bait some theist into saying "nyah! no way becuz my religun sez so." Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Feb 7, 2007, 11:47 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	Well, my point was that either it will be a scientific argument or she'll get a diatribe like the quote you posted. Either way, it will not be a good religious debate. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Feb 8, 2007, 03:33 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	Oh. How's that, rez, for a scientific rebuttal from a supernaturalist? Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Feb 8, 2007, 03:39 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	Sorry. I fixed it. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Feb 9, 2007, 02:34 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	Well, the problem is that the scientist was trying out a solution that absolutely would not have happened naturally. The energy of the reaction favors the forward reaction. There would have to be an external and artificial input of energy to make the reaction go the other way. And further, he didn't explain how this is supposed to eventually reverse itself to form the biochemical process that they were aiming for. Most scientists, as I mentioned, had already discarded this pathway as the first anyway after the primary experiment failed. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6