Wouldn't you rather see the research being done first hand? Or I would suggest you go to Notre Dame and talk with one of their chemist professors.

but...lipids and acids are DIRECTLY involved in the process of abiogenesis. RNA is formed in a bilayer of lipids inside montmorillonite, and form primitive cells that can replicate.

Exactly Genocyde. Lipids are one of the building blocks for life. Daniel and WWF failed to grasp the fundamentals. You learn this stuff in day 1 of freshman biology (highschool).

LOL This is the internet, people lie all the time on the internet because they know they'll most likely never meet any of these people in real life, its sad, but true if I wanted to lie I could, but I choose not to.
Also showing a diploma with a name blurred out isn't personal information, think about how many hundreds of people graduate from colleges per year with certain diplomas/degrees for example Yale, you'd probably be looking at over 100 students graduating with a degree in business in that year. I'm sure if you were in that class no one would know it was you, its not like they attach internet user names to their students, as I am sure you've been done school for quite a few years now, and have probably had different user names thought the years. My point being I could care less if you do or not I don't have anything to prove to you nor do you have anything to prove to me, but you did make a negative claim, which whether be positive or negative, you should be able to back it up.

I rarely take anyones word on the interwebs when they claim they are this or that especially when it is said with the intention of having their statements appear more valid on a forum.

Well, of course, Daniel and WWF both ignored my post...

So. Once again, they've morphed the argument.
It is increasingly becoming obvious that their "debate"(if one could call it that) strategy works like this:
1. Throw out baseless claims.
2. Ignore all the replies explaining why each claim is wrong, all the replies for sources, and flame.
3. Morph the conversation into another topic(WWF recommends Flamebaiting).
4. Repeat with the new topic.

So. After basically loosing every point(Prayer in schools, Creationism in Schools, Abiogenesis/God should have equal time, random jabs at abiogenesis and evolution, possibly more.) the conversation has now been morphed into 'Show us proof of abiogenesis'.

Here's the Reality.

You know, I better say this in bold. This is the only way I get "responses", which are usually so inadequate and quick they should not even be named such.
Anyway. The Reality.
The fact of the matter is, Abiogenesis is NOTHING MORE THEN A VOCAB WORD in middle school to high school. It is important for students to be familiar with the idea. 'Atheism' is not being shoved down kids' throats. God should not and cannot be taught alongside abiogenesis in schools, because there are thousands of different belief systems that would have to be covered. It would be ridiculous. Each child can be taught their specific religion at home.
END OF STORY.


Now. You've made no argument against abiogenesis that has not been debunked as the nonsense it is.
However, the Christian god is NOT as good a theory as abiogenesis.
Why? Because, Abiogenesis is SCIENCE. We can test its possibilities, study how it works, and understand it.
GOD is NOT SCIENCE. Your god is a COMPLETELY RANDOM SHOT IN THE DARK from 2,000 year old literature that is NOT UNIQUE from the dozens of other ancient 'myths'. Your god is not testable, and there is no way to see if it is possible. According to the laws of science, most of what god did is not possible. Daniel and WWF if you have actually read this quote this specific line in your post with a reply to it.

So. I hope that cleared up why Abiogenesis is the more scientific and better theory, as it is testable. In fact, because a Creation by god would not be testable, and it is not falsifiable, it is NOT a scientific theory.

I doubt there is any 'evidence' for abiogenesis, besides the obvious VAST AND HUGE amounts of evidence for an old earth, big bang, and Evolution all the way back to the first cells.
But, we cannot tell if those first few cells were created by an old man in the sky, or naturally.

If you would like evidence for Evolution since the beginnings of life, an old earth, and the big bang, just ask.
That's what I'm here for.

Of course, you won't: Either you will say:
"HA!!! SO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS!!! GOD DID IT!!!"
or
"HA! LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH"
Once again morphing the conversation.

Anyway, just saying.
Cheers,
SQLserver

But there can be no doubt Cimber is legit. Unlike WWF's 'degree in the sciences', Cimber has been very specific about his degree, and has shown a vast amount of knowledge and intelligence.

The vast majority of the SvS board respects his degree and by no doubt believes it to be true.

Perhaps WWF got his degree where jailbird Hovind got his 'PhD'.

Your lack of understanding for the basic biology that Cimber has provided is more than indicative of the fact that you've made up your educational background.

Enough already!

This is absolutely ridiculous, and sadly enough, proof of the goals of the people which the first post is about....to muddy up science with pseudo-science.

WWF, enough with the talk of a degree. If you want the authority that goes along with claiming a degree, then be prepared to show a degree, because at this point your claims and your knowledge do not match up and people have every right to call BS on your claims. To be very clear; either provide evidence of your "degree in science" or keep your keyboard quiet about it. You cannot continue to claim a degree and then run and hide when asked to put up proof.

You cannot continue to bury your head in the sand against evidence brought to you. Ignoring all the evidence presented to you, then throwing out a new claim does not mean that you have won the argument. It has become your M.O. and it is getting old. Keep doing it, and you will ose your ability to post; it is simply flaming.

As for the rest of the discussion, it needs to get back on the topic of the wedge discussion. It is too far off topic. There are other threads for specific abiogenesis claims and the like, this is not the place. If the thread cannot get back on track it will simply be closed.

Have a nice day.

Yes we do

Oh you, such a great humourist. Splendid. 10/10

Some quotes from the Wedge Strategy should help to put this thread back on topic:



As you can see, The Wedge Strategy explicitly states that "scientific materialism has created destructive moral, cultural and political legacies", and needs to be replaced with the "theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."

I've said many times that I believe that Science is only concerned with those things that it can measure, hence it is, by definition, materialist. If God does not interact with the Universe in a measurable way, then Science will never find God. In my view, both can co-exist peacefully.

However, also in my view, The Wedge Strategy is designed to cause doubt in those things that Science can measure which contradict core beliefs held by Christians that believe the Bible to be Inerrant, such as the age of the Universe, the universal Flood and, most importantly, Creation.

Enough doubt to slide a wedge in, big enough to reintroduce an Intelligent Designer back into the equation that they believe will ultimately lead to:



What effect would the Wedge Strategy make to the World if they acheive their goals? Or if they fail? Is it unstoppable? Is it impossible?

Discuss.

What i meant was that removing freedom to worship and banning expressions of worship, even with the best intentions, always plays into the hands of the most fundamental/zealous religionists. It strengthens their arguments and their power over their adherents, and also does indeed create a wedge or division among believers, and between believers and non believers, which fundamentalists of any religion often seek to employ for their own purpose.


If a religion does no specific harm to others then my personal opinion is that all religious beliefs, along with the right not to believe, should be enshrined in law and protected by law. Australia legally tends in this direction, yet we still see thhings like christmas celebrations being banned in schools for fear they may offend others. Schools should celebrate all religious/ cultural events of relevance to their local communities, just as school/community libraries should, by law, be required to keep copies of all religious texts.
It is not correct to ban religious texts of any nature from public access. But neither should other texts be banned because they offend certain religious tastes or views.

This is, or should be, a key tenet of any democratic/free nation. Public access to all information/ideas/philosophies. Pornography involving children because of the harm it does to children is the one exception i see personally, but others might argue that some technical information should be banned.

Lots of luck.

I learned how to make, experimented with, and constructed; chemical timers, gunpowder, smoke bombs, a variety of explosives, mortars and rockets, from general reading, back in the 1950's and 60's ( from the age of about 8 to 14,.)

Any one with intelligence, and the will to do so, will have far less trouble accessing such information, in what has become the information age.

Of course they will face far greater public scrutiny than i did as a child/adolescent and far greater consequences if caught. Mine was an era when kids were given science kits and encouraged to experiment, when kids had a lot of freedoms they dont have today. When i tell my students what we did, they simply refuse to believe me. I also strongly discourage them from following in my footsteps, for obvious reasons.

exactly - show me proof .... scan a graduating cert ..... a medical file ...... a video ..... whatever to make it factual.




what would have been the puropse ? and so young ? were you in the circus ?

Hi, further 88

Most european countries, their colonies including australia and america have legal systems explicitly formed from what is known as the judaeo christian ethic.
Such principles might range from the belief in the sanctity of human life leading onto rules about murder. The significance of property ownership and thus laws against theft are from both this ethical system and the 10 commandments (as opposed to a culture like communism or some tribal states based on communal ownership of proerty

Many countries have specific sunday laws still on the books and our whole marriage/ family structure and even sexual practises have been set in a legal frame work base on the judaeo christian model.

Given that the separation of church and state is a comparatively modern phenomenum and argably not yet completed in many countries this is logical.

If you trace back the history of the christian religion and its association with civic rule you see why these cultural/legal connections developed.

I'm australian with european antecedents. My mothers family went from france to england in 1066 with william the conqueror. Australia's system is modelled on the british, which evolved from french and english inputs at that time and was modified away from the catholic model, more closely followed by some countries, when Henry the eighth deliberately separated his rule from that of the pope, creating the church of england in the process.

Collapse of the scientific community for one, scientific study not compatible with ID theory would be outlawed, making scientists criminals, any major advance in science that went against the biblical teachings would be ignored, and demonized.


Life goes on as usual

I don't believe it's possible, the people of the world will not give up their beliefs just because someone tells them to, and the scientific community will not go down without a fight.

OT, but many reasons.

I wanted to know if i could find the info in books. For example in reading historical stories i learned the basic constituentsand approx ratios of making gunpowder. In popular science magazines i read the theory of rocket propulsion. I wanted to see if i could actually take such eclectic knowledge and use it. All the materials were available at the local chemists or the school science labs. I also observed the effects of certain science experiments at school and the properties of cetain elements and experimented with mixes of these.
Then there was scientific curiosity; this was the era of rockets tv etc
Then there was being a boy.

Perhaps there was an element of enjoyment in controlling the power, and being able to blow things up (Luckilly i got over this at an early age also.)

I did very little physical damage and no physical harm, although people found bits of the rockets all over the neighbour hood and questions were starting to be asked. ( which may have been good luck but certainly i was very careful and took a lot of safety precautions) I lived in a small country town. No one really had a clue what kids did from dawn to dusk
I told no one, and was never caught, only admitting to certain events at my 40th birthday party.
Eventually I went off to uni. My younger brother gathered all my explosive ingredients and made one huge rocket about 2 metres tall and ignited it in the middle of the town oval. It lifted a few feet, then hit the ground and rotated for many minutes. It burned a hole in the middle of the town oval, days before a a major sporting event. Now he DID get into trouble, but he's also the one who got himself and his young mates into trouble by getting exceedingly drunk eating fermented raw honey from a bee hive.


Hey tiggs, ive just now read the intervening 10 pages or so including your warning about staying OT Sorry this is perhaps Ot , but i figure its at least as entertaining/informative as the last 10 pages were.

Remember that there was once a time that a certain religion had free reign and absolute control and science was discouraged...I don't think it turned out particularly well.

Intelligent Design should not be taught in school because it has no proof or evidences. If this is true of abiogenesis then it shouldn't be taught either. College is the place for such things not grade and high schools. Prayer has no academic value. We need to teach children the basics first which we can't even do that right, I mean look at the state of the education system. School is not a battleground and children should not be seen as targets to further your own agendas. We should not teach them what we believe or don't believe but teach them to decide for themselves.

This thread is just hiding the real point. This isn't about Abiogenesis or Intelligent design and not about Spirituality or Science but about Christianity and Atheism. This is a battle of arrogance on both sides...have your war and believe that the opposition is wrong but in actuality the war itself is what causes the most harm.

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."-Serenity

It is true. There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

Are you blind Daniel? It was posted by Cimber, just because you did not understand it doesn't mean it is not there.

See new topic. Cimber never posted any links. And in respect to tiggs that is as far as I will go in this feed on this.

HAHAhahahaha! Oh *wipes tears* WWF, you are hilarious! Five an a half years, eh? Whoa! You got some learnin under yer britches! Wow. Five. and a half. Whew!
Sorry for the interruption folks, I just couldn't let that one go.

Even if that were true it doesn't matter because there is no evidence for Intelligent Design either...so if your argument is to not teach or study Abiogenesis because it has no evidence then the same applies for ID and neither should be taught or studied. So this Wedge Strategy is hypocritical...they want to take away one unproven thing and enforce another unproven thing. They are messing with people's education just to further their own arrogant and ignorant agendas.

Again good job ignoring everything I posted in my last post and choosing to nitpick on the least relevant sentence in the post.

why?
no really why?
what does it have to do with school?
what purpose does it serve?

nothing. never did.
oh thats right, to brainwash children into being the same sheep their parents are......
religion is just a bunch of snake oil salesmen and the cowards that follow them.
yes cowards--too afraid of the words I don't know, so they read one book and tell themselves they know everything.
religion makes no sense, at least science takes what it can measure and works from there.
religion is just control, all other aspects of inquiry about origins and spirituality belong in a philosophy class.
you all pretend to question and think but you only repeat old passages by rote.
sad world.

Congratulations on flaming every single religion with a blanket statement while being angry about the idea of prayer in schools as suggested by a jesus freak.

Maybe youi should read everything I posted.

We have proven that your not against prayer in school. Your against Christians praying in school.

I did, but I guess it doesn't matter because you obviously don't read anything I write.

If your just going to ignore everything then then just don't respond at all instead of responding with a single irrelevant sentence.


The way I read that post makes it seem he is against all forms of religious belief and practice in school.

Then why when I said that public schools were putting in footbaths so the muslims students could say prayers. The only response I got was what do I have against footbaths.

Not true, you got a reply stating that this was at a private school.

Yes I got that reply as well. Which I then provided a link showing that it was taking place in public schools.

I'm against that as well. If you are against abiogenesis being taught then you should be against Intelligent Design being taught as well. Or if you want both of them to be taught then we must also teach every other theoretical idea and belief as well...which we simply cannot do without taking away teaching time from more important and necessary subjects such as math.

As for prayer in school it should be allowed but not be apart of the class. Spending five minutes before class starts saying prayer is five minutes taken away from a kid learning something. The kid could have easily woken up five minutes earlier and said his prayers before school. Schools are in horrible shape and no time should be wasted. I'm against the footbaths for the same reason...and also because it wastes tax money that could be used to get updated textbooks.

I am horrible at math. Mostly because my gradeschool didn't teach me the basics very well(which of course made it hard to learn highschool math) and I still wonder to this day...would I be better at math if the time we spent praying was instead spent on teaching?