The Christian God Created Life On Earth

It's interesting how a high school sophomore can plagiarize in a time when it's so easy to get caught plagiarizing. Just one Google search and... Pro's entire rebuttal to abiogenesis was copied and pasted from creation.com: http://creation.com... (go to the Oxygen: enemy of chemical evolution) Plagiarism is fun isn't it? Especially when what you've plagiarized is from creation.com I invite anyone to check out the source that Pro copied VERBATIM. Regardless, the claims are flawed...shocker. I already addressed the "too much oxygen" problem for the Miller-Urey experiments. Studies showed that any reduction of oxygen from a normally oxygenated atmosphere, a reduced atmosphere as it's referred to, resulted in substantial amino acid production. Perhaps what might be better though, is that we now have a more accurate representation of the atmosphere of earlier earth, and it suggests a neutral atmosphere of mostly Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide. According to a replicated Miller-Urey experiment from the NCBI, "We show here that contrary to previous reports, significant amounts of amino acids are produced from neutral gas mixtures...the yield of amino acids is greatly increased." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... So the oxygenated atmosphere was inhibited by other elements, and therefore is not a problem for inorganic-->organic to occur. Pro, through Creation.com's argument, also mentions: "Without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced" My response: Proteins are made of polypeptides. If you have a polypeptide, amino acids joined together, it could consist of two or three amino acids simply bonding and repeating. You don't need 20 different amino acids; you need 20 amino acid residues, which can repeat. We could have a protein that has 20 amino acid residues of just Proline, Lysine, and Phenylalanine. I admit that you normally see more amino acid differentiation in proteins, but polypeptides can be repeating amino acid residues. The amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey type of experiments create proteins. It's a fact. Abiogenesis explains how life likely originated on earth given the inorganic compounds, pressures, and atmosphere likely of an earlier earth which are conducive to prebiotic protein synthesis from inorganic matter. Organic compounds can come from inorganic compounds; metabolism and replication can follow from this. This all indicates that there is no need to infer that the Christian god in particular created life on earth; abiogenesis has experimental evidence. This evidence has been demonstrated (experiments yielding amino acids). These demonstrations have been replicated (NCBI's more recent replications of the results). Accurate predictions about amino acid yield have been made given the understood nature of the demonstrated and replicated experiments. On to particulars... Pro whines: "And my opponent tried to (unsuccessfully) overturn quantum string theory, which has been supported by people with a bit more physics background than him. This is ridiculous." My response: So Pro really doesn't understand what an argument from authority fallacy is. https://www.google.com... I don't care if Albert Einstein rises from the dead and says that string theory's higher dimensions hypothesis is a fact. Without experimental evidence, scientists' support of a hypothesis is not a demonstration of the hypothesis. Appealing to "people with a bit more physics background than [me]" is an argument from authority, because it infers the truth of the claim based on who the people are (authority), not what the evidence indicates. Yes, Michio Kaku knows more physics and related math than I probably can ever grasp or apply, but without experimental evidence, his beliefs are simply conjecture with a possible solution to a mathematical conundrum of string theory. I agree that the ideas of string theory are fascinating and mathematically beautiful, but this does not indicate any truth of the claims, even if string theory is labeled a scientific theory. When a peer reviewed, credible, replicable experiment yields evidence for higher dimensions, I will be on board 100%. Until that time, higher dimensions must remain unfounded despite the support of authorities on the matter. So Pro then attempts "rebuttals" Pro defends his lack of focus on the "Christian" portion of Pro's burden: "Keep in mind that I am using YOUR definitions." My response: Pro is using "god and "created"...Pro is purposefully ignoring the definition of "christian" in the resolution. Pro then appeals to a child noticing a military plane. Though emotion-inducing, it is irrelevant. Genesis, is not an observation, it's a declaration from the bible's god of how everything was created. An observation would be if humans wrote the bible, and observed creation, not if god wrote the bible and explained creation. If Pro wishes to admit that Genesis is an observational account, then Pro admits his god did not write the bible, and therefore is not the christian god. Pro mentions scientific theories: "SCIENTIFIC THEORIES provide SUFFICIENT DATA to convince serious physicists." My response: The theories do not provide data. Experiments provide data. Theories are crafted around data gathered from experiments. The strength of the theory rests on the strength of the data gathered from experiments. Though scientists may align with a particular theory, the theory itself does not convince physicists. Instead, experimental evidence strengthens or weakens a particular theory irrespective of who supports the theory. Higher dimensions, which are a necessity for string theory, have not been demonstrated experimentally. Their mathematical implications are simply intriguing for physicists. Pro goes on to black holes: "We have a somewhat skewed and shaky data about the existence of black holes, but most of the scientific community is putting their money on it because some "serious physicsts" claim that they exist." My response: Check out my victorious debate on black holes, where I reference all of our accumulated knowledge on black holes that definitively demonstrate their existence. http://www.debate.org... Also, check out NASA. Just google NASA black holes, and they have videos, images, and explanations of everything black hole related. Conclusion: 1. Pro has not demonstrated or mentioned the Christian god creating life on earth, and instead has input some deistic, higher dimensional god in the place of an unfounded hypothesis in a scientific theory that is on life support because it lacks experimental evidence. No mechanistic explanation of how the higher dimensional god created life leaves me reasonable in rejecting such a claim. 2. Abiogenesis is a fact, and Pro's contentions with prebiotic synthsis of proteins have been thoroughly addressed. Abiogenesis negates the need for a god creating life on earth. 3. Pro plagiarized their 3rd set of 10,000 characters (3rd round), and the site from which they plagiarized, creation.com, is not credible on matters of biology, scientific knowledge, or the origins of life on earth. Their contentions with abiogenesis have also been addressed. 4. Pro claims that their argument is "better" organized than mine, and that this is interesting given that Pro is a student and I am a teacher... When you're an important boss, you never need to tell people that you're an important boss, because everyone already knows it. When you are winning in a competition, you don't need to tell people that you're winning, because your success is obvious. So, when someone usually says something to the effect of "I'm clearly better than my opponent" it's usually an indication of insecurity, much like how a man with tiny genitalia would compensate by buying an expensive sports car. If I can show people that my car is better than most, then maybe people will think my tiny genitalia is better too. Insecurity is ugly and obvious. Also, the christian god did not create life on earth.