ADAM LIST YOUR 100's of transitionals ,and your abiogensis[first life from non life]

The Origin-of-Life Foundation,Inc.is offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate that life could indeed evolve spontaneously.

Amazingly,this demonstration only has to be presented in theory[not experimentally.!!
Following are excerpts from their web site at http://www.us.net/life/

"The Origin-of-Life Prize"(hereafter called'the Prize')will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.To win,the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical,kinetic,and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein,

and be published in a well-respected,peer-reviewed science journal(s)."

SO GO FOR IT

The erroneous notion of life arising from non-living material is recorded as early as Aristotle's time[4BC.]Recipes exist for the fantastic,natural,spontaneous generation of mice from moldy grain,worms and beetles from dust,frogs from mud,and flies from rotting meat...

Surprisingly,in contradiction to the established law of biogenesis,spontaneous generation is still considered to be a valid tenet of current evolution theory.It is commonly known as abiogenesis(life origin without pre-existing life),which is a field of research in evolutionary biology.The recipes are much more sophisticated,but the results are the same: nothing.

that in spite of millions of dollars,high tech equipment,carefully controlled research,and thousands of man hours spent on experiments to determine how life could arise naturally from non-living materials,not a single life form has been created.[LOL}

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

>>Having presented the evidence ...it is'reasonable'to predict the finding of evidence for a'natural'origin of life'.Such an origin would be consistent....the basis that the material makeup of life was of supernatural origin.

The evidence of the supernatural origin of life can be classified into three categories:1)law of science,2)law of probabilities,and 3]experimental observation.

The law of science that has stood the test of time being verified thousands of times[without exception since Louis Pasteur's swan neck flask experiment is the Law of Biogenesis[This law states that,"Where a cell exists,there must have been a preexisting cell,just as the animal arises only from an animal and the plant only from a plant"(Biology,Helena Curtis,second edition,Worth, p.90).

David,
I played the "ouija board" (Chinese variant) when young, on numerous occasions with different friends.
I also played with my younger brother and sister. As the big brother, it would be me if anyone were to be a cheat. But no, I did not trick anyone.
I recall we stopped due to too many scary talks and have not tried that stuff ever since.
I really wonder why there is a lack of interest. Is anyone on OLO playing "ouija" board??

Don't write off OUG ("one under god"). Seriously, he makes a lot of sense !!
I only noticed his existence when he posted after me yesterday. I didn't even take him seriously yesterday. But now I do !!

Dear AdamD,
(1)..."The fact of evolution is what we observe every day."
No, I swear I have not observed actual occurrence of evolution today, any day.

(2)..."The theory is the best explanation for the facts that we observe."
Yes, the best "explanation". But only an explanation, not a fact.

(3)..."...we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees."
That much is a fact. But claiming human and Chimpanzees have the same ancestors are only claims, not factual.

(4)..."In science terms a theory is the highest order a hypothesis can obtain. A hypothesis becomes a theory when the evidence supports it beyond any reasonable doubt..."
No, theory is not the same as theorem. A theory is unproven, whereas a theorem is proven.

GZ,

The Ouija board with hands not operating under the control of your mind is suspicious. If it did something without any hands on it, then that would be interesting. Why were you frightened by the occasion? Could it be you were primed to think if anything without an immediate explanation happened, (Such as someone not owing up) it would be ‘supernatural’, that is, demonic? If I played such a game and it appeared to produce results unexplained, I would not forget the whole thing, but would investigate further. Such as change friends, make moves myself; consult the science teacher at my schools etc.

I have not written off ‘one under god’, it is just our interaction is not productive. She/he is welcome to believe whatever she/he wishes. When total disregard to what is written is the case, then there is no point in continuing. If you will notice the last post of OUG was just cut and pasted from ‘dubious’ websites. I believe only the uppercased belongs to her/him. (Or close to it) When she/he does write her/his own words, it can be very jumbled and incoherent.

A number of people on the OLO forum persist in forgoing rational thought in favour of prejudices place in their minds as children and they don’t recognise it. Even knowing other cultures produce the same results is not good enough evidence. Those who, ‘Celebrate reason’, find that hard to take. I am amazed the cordiality afforded them.

The very interesting thing is that as one thread shows them to be wrong, another will starts and the like mistakes reappear. That is not rational discourse; it is reiterating the previous prejudices time after time. Surely a god supposedly who created a rational universe, could not possibly abide such behaviour.

I would say to them that if Atheists have somehow got it wrong, when they die, they will know. Those who are religious, if they are wrong, will live a delusion until they die and never find out. The latter circumstance in an infinite blink in infinity is totally untenable to me.

David

GZ dont sweat on it bro[david and i have a history]he is the dude hoping to build the new athiest belief system[then take over govt and get the theists reducated]

he knows a lot about nothing[atheism is about deneying what they definativly state to be[not be?]nonegsistant god afterall,

we had a short debate on the god topic before he began ignoring questions he could not respond to[and he does the same here]

you will note he avoids replying any questions needing him to name names[he talks in generalities,because he isnt able to find specifics]

[i am quite used to him not responding

[so now he responds with other destraction[but still no fact]i think that he thinks having the final say means he has proved his disbelief[its a sad affair]

i use the cut and pastes because i want the debate on facts[so he cant say i dont present any[not so much hoping he will change[he clearly has formed who he is on his own disbelief]

ok i know its a sword that cuts both ways[my name clearly elivates my own belief upfront as well[but when he asked me to give rreasons i did, he just shutsdown when cornered or sprouts his generalities as if they are beyond dispute[but then we both smell as bad as each other

dont sweat about it

i will keep doing what i do[as will he]i hate not posting info[so here is a site he might react to[if only he would try to see beyong himself,

maybe if he realises spirits egsist next he will see a bigger picture[who knows a change of topic might encourage him to respond with his proof? on the evolution topic[or snap back at my belief in spirits/god]either way he can respond or be seen avoiding responding by those he wishes to lead[but lead to where?]

http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wslded.html


http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wsltoc.html
and more
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/gonewest.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/life.html

David,
I don't know "Ouija board" in the west. Let me describe the "Ouija board" (Chinese version) I had played.
It consists of:
(i) square paper with some graphic patterns and possibly the words YES/NO.
(ii) little chinese saucer (approx 8 cm diameter). The saucer had an red arrow on it.
We bought it from a local shop. It was said to have been "blessed" at a temple, something like that.
To "play", place the saucer upside down on the paper, in the middle.
Each person places one finger on the saucer. Usually 2-4 person. Chant together as per instructions. Once the saucer starts moving, you can start asking a yes/no-type question. The saucer will move towards YES or NO on the paper.
It had been known if an inappropriate question is asked, the saucer might moved to the edge of table, fell off and broke.
Sometimes the saucer moved at a fast speed and that'd be a little scary. Sometimes it takes quite a long time to start moving.
I think we played that over a few months probably between year 4 and year 6 of primary school.
There was no scientific curiosity at that time. Just some fun times. Our teachers were not aware.
Everyone got scared and stopped playing when we made wild guesses about the intention of the spirit in the saucer, such as that could be a blood-sucking spirit that drew blood through our fingers while we played. Some stopped playing when they believe that was evil spirit.

If I ever find out where/how to obtain that thing, I will buy a few sets and let people know.

OUG,
No worries. I thought David comes across as more open-minded than many atheists.
btw, do you think using round brackets () will make your posts more readable, as compared to square bracket [] ??

GZ,

That sounds like the Ouija boards I know of. Some people when they are young and full of ideas about ghosts and goblins might wish to keep their fantasy alive by moving the cup and never owning up. Now, this may not have been the case, but as there is no solid evidence for anything supernormal ever having happened in the history of humanity, it has to be one of the strong probabilities. You can say there are spirits etc but again, I caution you, there is no evidence apart from very flimsy anecdotes about such alleged creatures.

The indoctrination of religion as an early age can reinforce the notion that there is a spirit world of some kind and it is a small step of the imagination to believe such things to be true. It possibly starts with The Tooth Fairy and then Santa and when these are discovered to be cultural hoaxes, a retreat into spooky stuff not so easily dismissed can occur.

The big difference between Atheists and those of faith is that we require evidence, not just for that a plane or a car we travel in will not crash or that our mass produced food will not poison us, but for everything we do in our lives.

The religious indoctrination process, as is seen in other cultures, interferes with human evidence seeking and allows us to accept propositions without evidence. A special case is made for religious concepts and as others seem to believe them, we are influenced to believe likewise.

But the truth be told, most people rely on the fact that others apparently do believe in a superman in the sky and we can feel left out and maybe a little fearful if we do not, because of the negative consequences most religions overtly or subtly say result. The main penalty is no heaven for not accepting a god’s existence or even ending up in a hell for eternity.

You must remember this. There has never been a reliably recorded supernatural occurrence, ever. Do your own impartial investigation about this.

David