Yet another creationist twit (2008-09-17)

[Kitsune]

I have not seen any arguments with Bakker that fly in the face of the evidence, it seems to be an argument about how to weigh various pieces of evidence. Obviously, the end product of raptors is warm blooded. Feathers are also a strong indicator as well.

While very photogenic Bakker is not popular as a scientist amongst his peers. He is a blowhard who really doesn't like to use the scientific method if it gets in the way of his theories. Of course, this is mostly hearsay from Dr. William Hammer's Dinosaurs class, so it may be biased, but I thought Bakker was very condescending the time I got to talk to him.

Sorry for the OT though, just a bit for Kit for the future. Bakker is not a great example to use cause he can fall apart under scrutiny on the science side.

[Darth Wong]

Dumbshit lady replied again:

Dear Michael,
I'm very sorry I came off rude to you. That was certainly not my intent. And you're right, I didn't read your entire website, as I'm sure most people honestly don't have time for in their busy lives. And you are also right in the fact that I do know how to cut & paste, a very handy skill when needed. I didn't finish college, got married, worked, had kids, the typical for most women, but I do understand basic arguments about evolution vs. creationism written in clear everyday language.
I will use my skills in cutting & pasting once again, not to illicit a negative reaction from you but so you can see why I believe what I believe.

And by the way, I didn't mention Jesus, salvation or being a Christian- you just assumed I was, but there are a lot of people who believe in God and not evolution who don't claim to be a Christian.

As for the comment "you choose to deliberately operate at the intellectual level of a child, just as all Christians are instructed to do", the bible's really doesn't say that we are to operate like a child but infers that we become humble the way a child would be, not arrogant as so many of us become as we get older.

So I would like to share my c&p skills once again, hopefully without the very angry response from your end this time, as it seemed I hit a very sensitive nerve, previously.

No Chance of Life By Chance

In the 1700’s, many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800’s, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from nonlife…in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason for the return of this unsupported belief is that science has been defined to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative—the creation of life by an intelligent designer.

Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and reproducing itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Yet, most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life despite the ever increasing amount of evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could never happen. It would be easier to believe that a chemical manufacturing facility found on Mars had built itself.

A classic experiment used to support the belief that life "built itself" was first proposed in 1953 by Stanley Miller. In this experiment, sparks were discharged into an apparatus through which common gases were circulated. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were then collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing a few of the 20 amino acids required by living cells. These results have been heralded as proof that life could have arisen by itself. However, dozens of major problems with this experiment, (clearly understood for more than 30 years), still go unanswered and are not even mentioned to students.1

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible. The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

In addition, the same gases which can react to form amino acids in the presence of sunlight undergo known reactions which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed. Further-more, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Where is this "cold trap" in nature?

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life uses only L stereotypes of these random amino acids. Yet, equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from the random, equally reactive mixture produced in this experiment? And what about the other required types of amino acids which have never been formed in this experiment?

These are just some of the myriad problems regarding the fanciful idea that life generated itself. What this experiment really proves is that life could not possibly have developed in this manner. Yet, students are told just the opposite.

No experiment has ever shown that matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that life only comes from pre-existing life. As you search for the truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... is God.


1. Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., Olsen,R.L., The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Chapter 4, Philosophical

Library, 1984.

Sincerely,

L Blackwell

or the Little Lady or Bitch as you have referred to me as

Amazing, isn't it? She's a walking talking stereotype. I responded thusly:

Dear Michael,

I'm very sorry I came off rude to you. That was certainly not my intent. And you're right, I didn't read your entire website, as I'm sure most people honestly don't have time for in their busy lives.

Then what makes you think your arguments are not already addressed therein?

And you are also right in the fact that I do know how to cut & paste, a very handy skill when needed. I didn't finish college, got married, worked, had kids, the typical for most women, but I do understand basic arguments about evolution vs. creationism written in clear everyday language.

Wow. You never got a degree? Well knock me down with a feather, but I'm shocked!

By the way, it's pretty sad that you think "the typical for most women" is to be uneducated. It says a lot about the way you were raised, and the socio-economic environment you are accustomed to. My wife has a university degree. Almost all of the women I know have university degrees. It is quite clear that we come from very different worlds: I come from the educated world, and you ... do not.

I will use my skills in cutting & pasting once again, not to illicit a negative reaction from you but so you can see why I believe what I believe.

You honestly don't understand what's wrong with copy-paste arguments, do you? Do you understand why a typical high-school teacher would give a failing grade to any student who did a copy-paste for an assignment?

And by the way, I didn't mention Jesus, salvation or being a Christian- you just assumed I was, but there are a lot of people who believe in God and not evolution who don't claim to be a Christian.

Sure there are. They're called Muslims, and despite what you may think, they're only a little bit different than Christians are. But whatever branch of Judaism you're trying to sell, it doesn't change the fact that you're doing a lousy job. You're trying to change my mind but you steadfastly refuse to address a single argument. All you do is mindlessly repeat the same phrases over and over, like one of those novelty Santa Claus toys with a vocabulary of 5 phrases and a push-button to make him speak.

As for the comment "you choose to deliberately operate at the intellectual level of a child, just as all Christians are instructed to do", the bible's really doesn't say that we are to operate like a child but infers that we become humble the way a child would be, not arrogant as so many of us become as we get older.

That's rich. The uneducated simpleton never took a real science course in her life and reads so slowly that she couldn't find time to even read the Introduction part of my website, yet she thinks she's smarter than 99% of the world's scientists. And THEN, she tells me about the importance of being "humble". How do you do it? How do you so flagrantly contradict yourself without the slightest hint of shame?

So I would like to share my c&p skills once again, hopefully without the very angry response from your end this time, as it seemed I hit a very sensitive nerve, previously.

"Sensitive nerve?" It's too bad we aren't having this conversation face to face, because then you would be able to see that my body language indicates contempt, not fear. Do you really think I haven't come across dozens or hundreds of people just like you? Do you really think you are noteworthy at all, or that I would even remember your name if you didn't keep E-mailing me?

You really don't get it, do you? Clearly, you need me to spell this out for you in the simplest possible terms, so here goes: YOU ARE STUPID. Is that clear enough for you? You are not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to discuss this issue in a meaningful fashion. I only correspond with you so that I can post your messages on my forum for other people to laugh at. You are an embarrassment to your entire belief system. You can't even read material and then express it in your own words: a skill that school teachers normally expect from kids who aren't old enough to grow pubic hair.

You are a proud citizen of the United States of Stupid: the lower-IQ half of your country which believes that the Bible is a science textbook and that we should respect the timeless wisdom of ignorant goat-herding primitives who thought that the entire world was a few thousand miles wide, which is why they also thought every kind of animal lived within walking distance of Noah's house. That's why you can't see the glaringly obvious flaws in articles such as your latest copy-paste job:

No Chance of Life By Chance

In the 1700’s, many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800’s, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from nonlife…in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason for the return of this unsupported belief is that science has been defined to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative—the creation of life by an intelligent designer.

Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and reproducing itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Yet, most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life despite the ever increasing amount of evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could never happen. It would be easier to believe that a chemical manufacturing facility found on Mars had built itself.

A classic experiment used to support the belief that life "built itself" was first proposed in 1953 by Stanley Miller. In this experiment, sparks were discharged into an apparatus through which common gases were circulated. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were then collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing a few of the 20 amino acids required by living cells. These results have been heralded as proof that life could have arisen by itself. However, dozens of major problems with this experiment, (clearly understood for more than 30 years), still go unanswered and are not even mentioned to students.1

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible. The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

In addition, the same gases which can react to form amino acids in the presence of sunlight undergo known reactions which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed. Further-more, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Where is this "cold trap" in nature?

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life uses only L stereotypes of these random amino acids. Yet, equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from the random, equally reactive mixture produced in this experiment? And what about the other required types of amino acids which have never been formed in this experiment?

These are just some of the myriad problems regarding the fanciful idea that life generated itself. What this experiment really proves is that life could not possibly have developed in this manner. Yet, students are told just the opposite.

No experiment has ever shown that matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that life only comes from pre-existing life. As you search for the truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... is God.


1. Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., Olsen,R.L., The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Chapter 4, Philosophical Library, 1984.

Sincerely,
L Blackwell
or the Little Lady or Bitch as you have referred to me as

I love the way you think that if you copy-paste a creationist argument and I shred it, then you can win by copy-pasting similar arguments from ANOTHER creationist website, as if that somehow solves the problem. Tell me, have you ever had yourself examined by a learning disability specialist? I'm starting to wonder if you actually have a serious learning disorder; I have two sons, aged 10 and 12, and both of them are already better at this than you. They can demonstrate comprehension of reading material by expressing its main points in their own words: this is a basic English reading comprehension skill for pre-pubescent children.

Your IP address indicates that you live in California. You might want to try having yourself tested at an institution such as the Enhanced Learning and Growth Centre, located at 2940 Camino Diablo, Ste 105, Walnut Creek, California, 94597. Their website is at http://www.learningandgrowth.com/ and maybe they can help you. Seriously, you are operating BELOW the acceptable level for a high school junior; you do not seem to be capable of processing and comprehending the material you read at all, which is why you just copy-paste it. I believe there are certain therapies which might be able to help you.

[Superman]

Fundamentalist tards like this crack me up. They honestly have no clue as to how predictably ignorant they really are. I think she knows she's been defeated; now she just wants to get the last word in. I'll be dollars to donuts that her final email will be something along the lines of, "I will pray for you because I'm going to Heaven and you're not!"

[Zablorg]

I find that whenever I actually give more that one or two refutations at a time they get all evasive and refuse to answer anything at all. I'd just stop responding to her at this point.

[sketerpot]

Your IP address indicates that you live in California. You might want to try having yourself tested at an institution such as the Enhanced Learning and Growth Centre, located at 2940 Camino Diablo, Ste 105, Walnut Creek, California, 94597. Their website is at http://www.learningandgrowth.com/ and maybe they can help you. Seriously, you are operating BELOW the acceptable level for a high school junior; you do not seem to be capable of processing and comprehending the material you read at all, which is why you just copy-paste it. I believe there are certain therapies which might be able to help you.

....

I can't believe you actually said this. Holy shit. That is so far over the top it makes ordinary contempt sound cute and fluffy. (It's fucking hilarious, but still, dang.)

[Zablorg]

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible. The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

In addition, the same gases which can react to form amino acids in the presence of sunlight undergo known reactions which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed. Further-more, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Where is this "cold trap" in nature?

Can someone explain the scientific details behind these two claims to me? I don't know as much about abiogenesis as I would like.

[Lusankya]

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible. The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

In addition, the same gases which can react to form amino acids in the presence of sunlight undergo known reactions which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed. Further-more, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Where is this "cold trap" in nature?

Can someone explain the scientific details behind these two claims to me? I don't know as much about abiogenesis as I would like.

Note, I'm very much a lay person, so this is just my reaction. If someone knows better than me, feel free to correct me, however they seem to be neglecting this place on Earth called the "ocean". Water, especially if if were filled with sludgy stuff, could easily protect amino acids from the sunlight. Hell, even clear water could do it, assuming it was deep enough.

Also, they seem to be assuming that oxidised rocks can only come into existence in the presence of free oxygen. This seems like a bunch of crap, given that Mars has plenty of oxidised rocks, but no free oxygen.

[Vehrec]

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible. The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

In addition, the same gases which can react to form amino acids in the presence of sunlight undergo known reactions which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed. Further-more, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Where is this "cold trap" in nature?

Can someone explain the scientific details behind these two claims to me? I don't know as much about abiogenesis as I would like.

Allright, I'll give it my best shot. First thing's first, Oxidized minerals =/=Free oxygen. Worldwide rust deposits from after the begining of photosynthesis shows pretty well what happened to free oxygen on the early earth-it got locked up in oxidized minerals right quick. Free oxygen might have been present in minute quatities in the area of perhaps as low as one part per billion in the early atmosphere. In all seriousness, the very reactivity that makes oxygen poison Miller's experiment means it cannot accumulate to high levels in the atmosphere of early Earth. And given the presence of certain minerals that cannot form in oxygenated conditions as recently as 2.5 billion years ago, I think we can call this one BUNK.

Ionizing UV radiation would have been an issue-if it could penetrate water to any significant depth. Or get through sediments. Or invade any of the other 'shelters' in which life may have developed.

The 'cold trap' argument is also useless. Miller's experiment did not really represent the conditions of the formation of life, he was just out to prove it possible. The conditions inside the apparatus were set up to try and get some reaction goinig-and for that to happen he and his partner needed to add energy to make it go fasta. Also, there were plenty of cold traps on earth durring those periods-once the Bombardment was over and the oceans formed, that is probably the biggest 'cold trap' in earth's history right there. Who needs a condenser and a trap when you have millions of cubic meters of ice-water right outside your hydrothermal vents?

[Terralthra]

Your IP address indicates that you live in California. You might want to try having yourself tested at an institution such as the Enhanced Learning and Growth Centre, located at 2940 Camino Diablo, Ste 105, Walnut Creek, California, 94597. Their website is at http://www.learningandgrowth.com/ and maybe they can help you. Seriously, you are operating BELOW the acceptable level for a high school junior; you do not seem to be capable of processing and comprehending the material you read at all, which is why you just copy-paste it. I believe there are certain therapies which might be able to help you.

Please don't send her to the Bay Area. If she's a fundie, odds are she lives somewhere in the Central Valley or the Inland Empire, as that's the Republican, Christian section of the state.

[Alyrium Denryle]

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible. The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

In addition, the same gases which can react to form amino acids in the presence of sunlight undergo known reactions which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed. Further-more, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Where is this "cold trap" in nature?

Can someone explain the scientific details behind these two claims to me? I don't know as much about abiogenesis as I would like.

I would be happy to.

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation.

No. It is not an assumption. There are tests that can be done looking through geologic strata that show there was no oxygen.

However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible.

This is a lie. UV radiation does not penetrate very far in water. Terrestrial life would not be possible Aquatic life would be. Thaxton thought that The Core was an accurate film

The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

THey would need to be oxidixed by free O2, which they were not. There can be oxygen containing compounds, just not free atmospheric oxygen. Oxygen containing minerals would have been readily available.

Photosynthesis was just needed to free oxygen from being bound up in CO2 and released into the atmo.

The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed.

That is what the reactions taking place in water was for. As for the cold trap, it is a condenser. You dont need a condenser of you have liquid water. But the entire argument is a strawman anyway because all Miller was trying to do was show that organic molecules can form without being synthesized by living things. He was putting the nail in the coffin of vitalism. And frankly, these people ignore the pesky little fact that other work has been done, extensive work, ever since.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The reduced atmosphere 'paradox' only works if you discount seafloor vents as a viable energy source for early single-celled organisms.

[wautd]

I loved it when you said

(and no, copy-pasting from a website is not an answer; that would be like responding to a verbal debate by throwing a magazine at your opponent).

Which was replied by

So I would like to share my c&p skills once again

[Twoyboy]

The reduced atmosphere 'paradox' only works if you discount seafloor vents as a viable energy source for early single-celled organisms.

Which is just a subset of the arguments that "present day life" could not have sprung up by itself/under those conditions. Creationists don't realise no one is trying to put forward that a plant/animal/bacteria was wha consisted early life, and self-replicating molecules only need to have heat above the activation energy of reaction.

[mr friendly guy]

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible. The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

In addition, the same gases which can react to form amino acids in the presence of sunlight undergo known reactions which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed. Further-more, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Where is this "cold trap" in nature?

Can someone explain the scientific details behind these two claims to me? I don't know as much about abiogenesis as I would like.

I will touch base on the oxygen bit. Oxygen has NOT always been present, at least not in the quantities we have now. Oxygen only became present in high quantities when the first plants evolved (since plants produce oxygen). This is infered by dating the oldest metal oxides and comparing the dating to oldest known plant fossils.

[Kanastrous]

As for the comment "you choose to deliberately operate at the intellectual level of a child, just as all Christians are instructed to do", the bible's really doesn't say that we are to operate like a child but infers that we become humble the way a child would be, not arrogant as so many of us become as we get older.