DJBruce

If you are gonna start spurting stuff about timecube.com I am gonna just say no.

Thanks, Ydoaps, iNow, Char, Ringer, and Neco Vir.

Well, I am sorry to hear this. SFN will definitely miss you. However, I can definitely understand your feelings.

Would said market allow those who need a kidney to bid on them? If it would I could see that causing major problems. If the system allowed for the people seeking a transport purchase them at an unset price those with more financial resources would be favored to receive kidneys, and survive. So any market, which allows for the purchasing of kidneys by patients would be one I would not favor. That being said, I am not entirely sure if a kidney market would prove to be successful. In my opinion the reason that most people decide not to donate organs is because they are afraid of the possible complications, and the process would be a major hassle. The money earned from selling a kidney could overcome the inconvenience of the procedure itself. I highly doubt, however, that any amount of money will pacify the worries of people afraid of the worst case scenario.

I scored an 86.

Sources please. No you started the this thread with disagreeing with Mr. Skeptic's proposal that the universe might be infinite. So if you wish to validate your point you must prove that the universe is finite. Something you have not done. By the way why do you keep proclaiming this discussion done? Since when does one side of an argument arbitrarily get to decide this?

I would love to have scientific leaders, (like Brian Cox), but I don't think there is a good way to recruit such members.

A riddle really is not that hard, if you base it on a well known fact. But for your effort have a +.

The entire irreducible complexity argument is completely fallacious and has been rejected by the majority of the scientific community. The fact that this argument was not accepted scientifically was even recognized by a judge who stated in the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: When the structure and physiology of the knee is looked at in the right way it actually provides a good case for the theory of evolution from common descent. Which is explained by Dr. John R. Hutchinson:

Yeah I noticed that right after I created it. Thanks for taking it timo and swansont.

Yes life from non-life in steps would require many successful outcomes that have a low-chance of occurring. However, if the number of trails is large the events would still occur. Also I am still not seeing how this would violate the second law, as the Earth is not a closed system. It seems to me that you are just throwing the term "entropy" without any real reason.

There is no need for me to repost them. The are all contained in this thread already. Simply go back and read the things people posted. You will find almost everyone's posts address your points and claims.

You have cited them throughout this thread as "proof" that abiogenesis could not occur. Regardless of who introduced them into the debate you have continued to used them. So me pointing out that the statistics you claim to prove your point are invalid is a perfectly acceptable point. No, there is no need to believe in a miracle. A miracle has nothing to do with abiogensis. A miracle has to do with intelligent design. My point was that your odds you keep citing are for the creation of all the enzymes needed at once to occur in one trial. Or put in another sense the odds of life being created in a single event. Which is in my opinion more consistent with intelligent design rather than abiogenesis.

Well this is a complete lie. Numerous members have addressed your point. Numerous post have been made giving you evidence why your position is wrong. Numerous examples and explanations have been given to you to show you how you are wrong. So don't say people haven't addressed your point. If anything you have failed to respond to with any sort of valid evidence or reasoning to those challenges to your beliefs. So why don't you go back and address ALL of the evidence that has been shown your ideas to be wrong. Again saying someone's argument is weak does not make it so, however, much you might wish it does it doesn't. Your assertion of such is just an ad hom, which in the theatre of a scientific debate proves nothing. Current evidence suggests that life came about by the chance interaction of elements and compounds. Although I have no idea what this has to do with my definition of aided, and am guessing it is simply a non-sequitor.

Thanks insane. About a dozen people have taken it already. So thanks to you unnamed people as well.

I see no real ethical problems with this study. Those who receive the gel are being given a possible new barrier against squiring HIV. However, those who receive the placebo are only maintaining their initial risk of getting HIV. Participating in the study does not increase the risk of the patients getting HIV. It remains the same for the control and possibly decreases for the experimental group.

First the odds you keep citing are completely bogus from the start. As they assume that all the needed enzymes synthesized in one trial. The theory of biogenesis by no means thinks that life formed in one single event. It states that over uncountable interactions the necessary components came together to form life. The idea that life came out of a single event, and the odds you give of it occurring, [math]10^{-41000}[/math], is more in line with intelligent design than it is with biogenesis. Again where does physics state that an event is unlikely to occur will not occur at all.

Ok then. I defined aided as anything which allows one to observe, study, perceive, or predict a phenomena. By my definition of aided. I can observe evolution, dark matter, and a black hole. Therefore since I can observe them your argument that they cannot be science is now bunk.

This is completely and utterly false! Did you read my previous post? I am assuming not because if you had you would know that this statement is completely wrong. So go scroll up the page read the peer-reviewed published article I posted, and then show me how your statement makes any sense what so ever. BTW, what does physics have anything to do with abiogenesis? As far as I know there is no physic's theorem that says life from non life is impossible. You realize that yet again your statistic means absloutely nothing without any context. Also although the odds you give are low they are not impossible. In fact its is possible that it could occur on the first, or the second, or the third trial. It is good to know that just because something has a low probability of occurring does not mean that it cannot occur early in the trials. Again you are completely off base here. See my earlier response.

I, along with many other members, have given you more than enough examples to prove you wrong, and you have failed to find any response other than ignoring my evidence and continuing saying, "it is not". In science ignoring evidence is not an acceptable argument. So you have no validity to say evolution does not have an enormous amount of proof. If you do not believe in evolution what theory do you propose in its place? I am going to assume you are trying to discuss The Miller-Urey Experiment, and you are completely off base on you ideas about it. The Miller-Urey experiment was meant to show that Earth's early atmosphere had the potential for forming more complex compounds like the amino acids. In this respect Miller-Urey found that the reducing atmosphere of early earth would provide an excellent chance of forming these compounds. As for your claims about the Earth's early atmosphere those are completely bogus. I would suggest you look at the evidence I provide in these two posts: Post#1 Post #2

Here Moon I found it: Here is their publication in its entirety. "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere" Very true, and in hindsight I would agree that my wording was not the best. However, I feel like that could be said for the use of "order" and "chaos" through out this thread. In my response I was simply keeping with the common use of those words. It would have been better though if I had said complexity from simplicity.

As for order rising from chaos. It was show in the famous Urey-Miller experiment that the Earth's early atmosphere was suitable for chemical evolution to make complex amino acids. This represents a system going form a state of less order to more order. Before you jump on the idea that The Urey-Miller experiment did not approriately repsent the conditions present in Earth's early atmosphere. Press Release From the University of Waterloo Here is their abstract "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere", I am trying to find a copy of their paper that doesn't require a subscription.

I would also like to add that the probability of [math] 10^{-41000}[/math] is the probability that you will obtain all the 20000 enzymes in one trial. This is inconstant with the theory abiogenesis, which believes that the evolution of life occurred in steps not all at once. So in my opinion that number is somewhat of a flawed one.