Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

44
42
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:86
Arguments:95
Total Votes:87
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (43)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (39)

Debate Creator

jolie(9805) pic



How life began on Earth (period).


Carbonate minerals (from m
ildly alkaline water flowing from a field of hydrothermal vents (40-75C)) clumped into steep, white "chimneys" that rise from the sea bed like organ pipes.  These rocks of alkaline vents were porous: they were pocked with tiny holes filled with water. These little pockets acted as "cells". Each pocket contained essential chemicals, including minerals like pyrite. Combined with the natural proton gradient from the vent, they were the ideal place for metabolism to begin.  Once life had harnessed the chemical energy of the vent water, it started making molecules like RNA. Eventually it created its own membrane and became a true cell, and escaped from the porous rock into the open water.

True.

Side Score: 44
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 42
1 point

Boom, baby!!! ;)

Side: True.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Thats how they say matter arrived. Life is a seperate question.

So how did life on earth begin? How did it overcome entropy? And how did nature balance itself?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Entropy can decrease in a localized area if energy is pumped into the system.

As for the rest, read the article. ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

I don't know if this explanation is indeed irrefutable enough so as to warrant placing a verbal or written "period" at the end of it. But I DO personally agree with it, and have for several years now, ever since I began my college studies into Evolutionary Biology.

It is also probably the most-favored scenario by current Evolutionists, chemists, and Biologists. We have long felt that those deep sea thermal vents on the ocean floor made for excellent fermenting and breeding environments for the initial formation of our microbial ancestors.

Ahh....The Primordial Ooze.

Darwin's Cozy, Warm Little Pond!

Home!

Thanks for sharing the link; I enjoyed it and agree with it. We have come close to replicating it in lab experiments, as we have created amino acids and proteins from inorganic matter. We will soon be able to replicate rNA formation. I am guessing within a decade. Easy.

Another favored hypothesis is that, due to the primal Earth's atmospheric conditions and weather, there was a lot of thunderstorms going on. And what, pray tell...do we often see with these storms?

Yeah, baby! Lightening!

We think that some electrical disharges into the Primordial Ooze could have acted as catalysts, of sorts, and thus been a contributing factor to the formation of those original organic microbes.

After this beginning stage, that is, from our amoeba stages onwards, we have documented the Evolutionary process step by step. With damn near irrefutable records. Including fossils; radiometric dating, and DNA evidence. We have built and built upon Darwin's original Theory, to the point to where no credible professional Biologist or academician doubts evolution.

SS

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Side: True.
2 points

I don't know if this explanation is indeed irrefutable enough so as to warrant placing a verbal or written "period" at the end of it.

Some people may question how the right chemical got together at the right amount and the right temperature with the right amount of sun light and water. But the answer is quite simple, God ;)

Side: True.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Forever student huh? Always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Matt 11

25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
SlapShot(2608) Disputed
1 point

Forever student huh? Always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Forever religious wacko, huh?

Never learning any useful or true science but instead wallowing in silly Bronze Age superstition.

Ah...tis a Pity, that.

SS

Side: True.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

A Rabbinical Tradition

The ancient Hebrew sages believed, of course, that God created the heavens and the earth. However, some of them believed that the Word of God was the very template with which He did it. This strikes some of us as simply a colorful exaggeration that goes beyond any direct evidence. There are hints here and there. There are two well-known references to the creation in the Scripture: Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Let’s look “underneath” the text of each of these.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In Hebrew:

Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew

If you examine the numerical values of each of the Hebrew letters, and the numerical value of the words (see chart), and apply them to this formula:

The number of letters x the product of the letters

The number of words x the product of the words

You get 3.1416 x 1017. The value of π to four decimal places! Hmm.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In Greek:

John 1:1 in Greek

This time if you take the numerical value of each of the Greek letters (see chart), and the numerical value of the words, and apply them to the same formula:

The number of letters x the product of the letters

The number of words x the product of the words

You now get 2.7183 x 1040, the value of e. Curious!

Significance? Yes!

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Where's the big deal, every school boy, and girl has been taught that for generations.

........................................................................................

Side: True.
1 point

OK, you didn't read the article.

"This story is now regarded as one of the leading hypotheses for the origin of life. It found powerful support in July 2016, when Martin published a study reconstructing some of the features of the "last universal common ancestor" (LUCA). This is the organism that lived billions of years ago and from which all existing life is descended."

Side: True.
jolie(9805) Clarified
1 point

Which also means that you didn't read this:

"Throughout the second half of the 20th Century, origin-of-life researchers have worked in tribes. Each group favoured their own narrative and, for the most part, rubbished competing hypotheses. This approach has certainly been successful, as evidenced by the previous chapters, but every promising idea for the origin of life has ultimately come up against a major problem. So a few researchers are now trying a more unified approach."

Side: True.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

I tried to read the article. It was a bit technical, so I didnt quite understand like any of it. Lol But I did try, i even when to links in the paragraph.

I think when i read someting tech its best to have the conclusion first, so I have a ref point, then content I can fit in to make sense of it. Then conclusion at the end so i can wrap my head around it.

So i look for conclusions 1st then read information. And I couldnt find the conclusion to anchor my thoughts.

I know its crazy. But it works for me.

So LUCA - ok i found this lay termish article.

It sounds like a travel brochure for theory whichever you prefer. I think thats a hoot! Its like here are two science things either could be true maybe even neither.

So then according to whichever truth you prefer, which destination can I book your reservation for? Am I reading this excerpt correctly? Lol

By NICHOLAS WADE

July 25, 2016

A surprisingly specific genetic portrait of the ancestor of all living things has been generated by scientists who say that the likeness sheds considerable light on the mystery of how life first emerged on Earth.

This venerable ancestor was a single-cell, bacterium-like organism. But it has a grand name, or at least an acronym. It is known as Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, and is estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

The new finding sharpens the debate between those who believe life began in some extreme environment, such as in deep sea vents or the flanks of volcanoes, and others who favor more normal settings, such as the “warm little pond” proposed by Darwin.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Funny you should mention that, like school hasnt dumbed kids down. And brainwashed them with stupidity and agendas meant to take over America by makin a generation of selfish collectivism idiots.

Which is interesting since the grave in the pit is a common grave of the foolish, God names them collectively! "A fool!"

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

I really am confused how educated people cant reason logically. In regards to creation from evolution its unreasonable to think that not only did molecules find each other but that they fell into just the right conditions needed.

The one and only condition needed for life! So they take impossible odds already and then take impossible odds to the 100000000000000000 th power!

Then combine it with the 50 other conditions that are in a delicate minute margin. And we dont even have a number for that immprobability.

I can see why God mocks the wise and intelligent with the most simple of things. Its idiot to the 10000000000000000 th power.

No wonder God's going to shake the wicked out of the earth.

And makes one common name for those thrown into the pit, a fool is all you can say after such foolishness!

.

Side: True.
2 points

No. No evidence at all for that. Just a theory. Hasn't even been tested. God started life.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

No. No evidence at all for that. Just a theory. Hasn't even been tested. ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
jolie(9805) Clarified
1 point

Uh...., I'm talking about God ;)

Side: True.
1 point

Anthropic Principle:

A few examples:

Gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.

Strong Force Coupling Constant: Holds particles together in nucleus of atom. If weaker than multi-proton particles would not hold together, hydrogen would be the only element in the Universe. If stronger, all elements lighter than iron would be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, which heats core of Earth.

Electromagnetic Coupling Constant: Determines strength of electromagnetic force that couples electrons to nucleus. If less, than no electrons held in orbit. If stronger, electrons will not bond with other atoms. Either way, no molecules.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

And, how many experiments have been done to prove these statements?

Side: True.

It's somewhat right, but I expect it to be mostly exaggeration. If not that, ignorance.

Side: True.
1 point

http://www.reasons.org/articles/anthropic-principle-a-precise-plan-for-humanity

The anthropic principle invites testing. A skeptic not yet persuaded that the fine-tuning of the universe reflects more than a lucky coin toss can choose to examine the universe, the "coin," more closely.

If the anthropic principle and its implications for transcendent design are false, research will discover declining evidence for fine-tuning and existing evidence will be erased by new data. If, on the other hand, the anthropic principle and its implications are true, research will yield an increase in both the number of fine-tuned characteristics and the degree of fine-tuning.

Based on the accumulating evidence, to bet on the anthropic principle seems safer than taking another breath. The anthropic principle energizes humanity's climb on the pinnacles of Truth.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You are right. No data shows the anthropic principle to be true. There is no fine tuning.

Side: True.