Poll: Evolution and the other side

[DracoSuave]

Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

Regarding this concept, called chirality.

L-type amino acids (what you call right-handed, but actually means "left-handed") are prevalent in complex life forms.

However, most bacteria are D-type, (what you call left-handed, but actually means "right-handed")

Life exists on this planet with amino acids of both chiralities.

Ergo your claim is patently false. Not only is your claim on chirality completely false, D-type amino acids are not, in fact, toxic.

To prove this, you need only perform an experiment wherein you eat a substance containing both types of amino acids.

I'm going to go eat a bowl of yogurt now.

Continue.

 

[Knight Templar]

]I could say the same of you.

Did I suddenly change tactics and abandon a previous discussion?
No, you did so when you should have addressed my post.

But I did my best, I can't convince you of anything. Turning away from an argument after seeing that it is futile is not jumping ship, it is just common sense.

Correction: You are unable to put forth an argument. What you have put up, others have knocked down. Your own support is in fact opposed to you, that is why you can't convince anybody, you can't even stay consistent.

Now, respond to my point.

The Miller-Urey experiment while a related bit of history isn't about evolution. It has zero bearing on this discussion. It won't matter to evolution if god made the spark of life or not.


Now, respond to the post you ignored.

 

[cdstephens]

I used to be a creationist, now I'm a theistic evolutionist. Still Christian, just not science hating nor irrational.

 

[Evidencebased]

Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

Regarding this concept, called chirality.

L-type amino acids (what you call right-handed, but actually means "left-handed") are prevalent in complex life forms.

However, most bacteria are D-type, (what you call left-handed, but actually means "right-handed")

Life exists on this planet with amino acids of both chiralities.

Ergo your claim is patently false. Not only is your claim on chirality completely false, D-type amino acids are not, in fact, toxic.

To prove this, you need only perform an experiment wherein you eat a substance containing both types of amino acids.

I'm going to go eat a bowl of yogurt now.

Continue.

No, DracoSuave, don't do it! Don't you realize that (like amino acids) bacteria are totally fatal (I'm pretty sure this is true; our digestive tracts are totally free of all bacteria, right)?? If you eat that deadly yogurt, who will explain to them how chirality and hydrophilicity work while I giggle???

 

[poundingmetal74]

If there is anyone on this forum who legitimately believes in creationism, you really ought to research the bergess shale geological formation and the fact that boa constrictors are still born with legs/arms from time-to-time. Evolution is fact and every piece of new evidence scientists uncover further supports it.

I've always found that the term intelligent design simply makes god look bad. I would think an entity with a hands-on approach who tweaks every aspect of our existence would have created humans without cancer. And a planet without pollution. And ensuring plentiful food for every one of his creations.

If you seriously believe in creationism and aren't the least bit skeptical, you really ought to start asking more questions.

 

[Evidencebased]

snip

Has any creation scientist observed a god creating life?

Hell yes; women have babies all the time!

/radical feminist

 

[DracoSuave]

No, DracoSuave, don't do it! Don't you realize that (like amino acids) bacteria are totally fatal (I'm pretty sure this is true; our digestive tracts are totally free of all bacteria, right)?? If you eat that deadly yogurt, who will explain to them how chirality and hydrophilicity work while I giggle???

No dude.

I am totally serious.

See, this is how science works.

Hypothesis: D-type amino acids are poisonous to life, therefore feeding a substance full of D-type amino acids to something living will have a detrimental effect on that life form.

Experiment: Eat a tub of mocha-flavored yogurt.

I'll let you know the results later, but on first bite? All signs point to delicious.

Edit: 500g worth of yogurt, if you're curious. Not one of those tiny cups. A big tub of it. I'm backing my assertation up with science!

 

[kidd25]

well simple, God is a thing that is self-sustain and is all-powerful, thus creating the universe he shaped the world, and gave a sense of time to it as well. I don't really know how old the world is, but God claims to do all that is good. to put it in a human way of doing things, like an artist creating a wonderful, incredible painting that can never be duplicated in just a few days.

That still doesn't answer how someone can believe the earth is 6000 years old when we have proof of the contrary.

The keyword in the phrase 'Theory of Evolution' would be theory.
I just saved you a lot of time.

'Logic' is my Captcha. That's interesting.

most people, believe this theory as a fact, so Also if logic is your captcha then i am, sure you are ready to explain and define many things as you post in this thread ^_^

You have to keep in mind that a scientific theory isn't like every other theory. A scientific theory is backed up by substantial data and research, something creationism is not, the only "proof" there is of creationism is a book that's roughly 1700 years old.

well like i said, some creationist believe the world is older than that, also the thing is that people believe that book because it was their history (jewish) then later on jesus came and allowed anyone to go to heaven, etc, etc. ...wait i don't think i explain that well. the jewish people believed the book cause it was their history, people who followed jesus had to believe in the old testament as well for jesus cam to fulfill it. So i hope that answered your question, and asking, but why will lead to something off topic.

 

[NoeL]

I have seen as much "evidence" for Creationism that's out there (from AiG, ICR, etc.). The fact is the "evidence" doesn't point to Creation at all - all they ever try to do is cast doubt on evolution under some misguided notion that if science got it wrong they'll be correct by default. Not only that, but their criticisms of evolution are almost always based on lies and deception, deliberately misrepresenting what science claims and ignoring anyone that tries to clarify their misrepresentation.

Whilst Creationists themselves may be more gullible than dishonest, the "Creation scientists" are dishonest as fuck.

 

[Abedeus]

I wrote "no", because after give or take 13 years of Religion in school, and until I was 13-14 church every week (last time I've been there was on a walk with my dog, and it was only 'cause it was on the way ;d didn't even look inside), I have yet to see a convincing ARGUMENT, much less proof.

 

[kidd25]

what scientific evidence ?

can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?

creationism

well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.

 

[monfang]

If there is anyone on this forum who legitimately believes in creationism, you really ought to research the bergess shale geological formation and the fact that boa constrictors are still born with legs/arms from time-to-time. Evolution is fact and every piece of new evidence scientists uncover further supports it.

I've always found that the term intelligent design simply makes god look bad. I would think an entity with a hands-on approach who tweaks every aspect of our existence would have created humans without cancer. And a planet without pollution. And ensuring plentiful food for every one of his creations.

If you seriously believe in creationism and aren't the least bit skeptical, you really ought to start asking more questions.

Wasn't it covered in Genisis how the Serpent had it's legs taken away? Just saying.

Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

Regarding this concept, called chirality.

L-type amino acids (what you call right-handed, but actually means "left-handed") are prevalent in complex life forms.

However, most bacteria are D-type, (what you call left-handed, but actually means "right-handed")

Life exists on this planet with amino acids of both chiralities.

Ergo your claim is patently false. Not only is your claim on chirality completely false, D-type amino acids are not, in fact, toxic.

To prove this, you need only perform an experiment wherein you eat a substance containing both types of amino acids.

I'm going to go eat a bowl of yogurt now.

Continue.

I could be wrong. Lets look at some similar experiments. One by Louis Pasteur. He had a sterilized broth of amino acids, proteins, and DNA that he kept the air out of by using water in a bent tube. As seen here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v5i11g1.jpg

Note that there is no growth within the broth (dead things stayed dead) until the neck is broken and air is introduced. (life is introduced into a dead space and life grew) Pasteur proved that life only comes from pre-existing life.

Which brings us back to Dr. Miller.. Even if Stanley Miller?s experiment showed that all the amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc., found in living things today could be produced in high concentrations in water by natural processes, it would not matter because Pasteur?s experiment proved that those organic molecules would not come to life.

Organic molecules did appear after a few days. But only 8 of the 20 required amino acids were produced.

Which brings me to a mistake I made. You are right that left and right handed amino acids can exist together and not cause too much problem. However, Left and right handed proteins are different. Oddly enough, Evolutionists are apparently not wanting to speak of it from the lack of talk on 'their' sites. You can read more on these sites I found: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10b.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i11f.htm

 

[DracoSuave]

what scientific evidence ?

can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?

creationism

well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.

That's not scientific anything. That's philosophy, and there are competing philosophies that are equally rational given the same universe, thus this cannot not be a proof.

"I like this universe and it'd be nice if someone made it for us" isn't science, that's religion.

When science is asking for evidence, they mean scientific evidence not religious dogma.

That requires experimentation and observation. And no 'The universe exists therefore someone made it' is not even a logical proof. Lots of things exist that are not made by people, but by simple randomness. For example: The very beautiful cloud formations that form before a storm.

 

[thtool]

Creationism does not reflect reality, evolution does. Why the hell would I give it a chance if it's already wrong, incredibly religious-based, and has been proven to be dishonest and propaganda-spewing?

It's just damn christian evangelists thinking up lies to back up their idea that their own religion is the actual, 'true' religion.

 

[DracoSuave]

I could be wrong. Lets look at some similar experiments. One by Louis Pasteur. He had a sterilized broth of amino acids, proteins, and DNA that he kept the air out of by using water in a bent tube. As seen here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v5i11g1.jpg

Note that there is no growth within the broth (dead things stayed dead) until the neck is broken and air is introduced. (life is introduced into a dead space and life grew) Pasteur proved that life only comes from pre-existing life.

Which brings us back to Dr. Miller.. Even if Stanley Miller?s experiment showed that all the amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc., found in living things today could be produced in high concentrations in water by natural processes, it would not matter because Pasteur?s experiment proved that those organic molecules would not come to life.

And yes, without oxygen, most combustive reactions cannot occur. No one is refuting this point.

However, Louis Pasteur's exeriment was not endothermic. It was not adding energy... so absolutely no endothermic reaction would occur.

Organic molecules did appear after a few days. But only 8 of the 20 required amino acids were produced.

So, what then would happen if said experiment were continued for thousands of years?

Of course, that experiment also included electricity with that water. This allows for endothermic reactions to occur. Like, for example, the endothermic reaction where water becomes hydrogen and oxygen. Which is necessary for those amino acids (or, in fact, ANY acid) to form anyways.

Which brings me to a mistake I made. You are right that left and right handed amino acids can exist together and not cause too much problem. However, Left and right handed proteins are different. Oddly enough, Evolutionists are apparently not wanting to speak of it from the lack of talk on 'their' sites. You can read more on these sites I found: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10b.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i11f.htm

The point is... stating that most of the amino acids happen to be of the handedness that form bacteria isn't exactly debunking the idea that bacteria formed... OR that life could not form that could use either handedness.

You are correct in stating the experiment did not produce certain chemicals, however you are BLATANTLY WRONG in stating there'd be no oxygen, and you haven't proven that life could not have been formed under those conditions. The only thing proven is that a few days is not long enough to create the first bacteria.



EXPERIMENT UPDATE:

I have eaten the 500ml of mocha flavored yogurt, and I am feeling full. This is probably due two having eaten a pound of yogurt, but it could be the start of my death thrall.

Updates soon.

 

[kidd25]

well not every one agrees that it was 4,000 years ago some people say it was longer, but the thing about man is made of dirt, i thought man had traces of zinc and other substance found in rock in them, explain that please?

By longer do you mean 4.54 billion years longer? cause that's the correct age of earth.

And yes, there are trace amounts of zinc in fluids such as semen and plays a big biological role, which doesn't mean that we are made from metal.

So explain this anecdotal leap from having trace amounts of metallic chemical elements in our body to use being made from dirt.

yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time (like cancer research clinics) (i really am sure the cure for cancer has always existed) (pm if you want to hear about that to)
)

Are you high?

EDIT:

most people, believe this theory as a fact, so Also if logic is your captcha then i am, sure you are ready to explain and define many things as you post in this thread ^_^

Your ignorance and stupidity astounds me. The laymen term "Theory" is the equivalent of the scientific term "Hypothesis", while the scientific term "Theory" means something that has been proven and can be repeated with the same result coming up every time.

first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal, i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/

 

[coolkirb]

Do we really need another topic for athiests to prance around and pretend they are smarter then others.

 

[Knight Templar]

snip

I really must ask, do you intend to adress my points or can we expect you to react like this again?
Because it looks like you are unable to adress my post and are simply running from it.

 

[kidd25]

what scientific evidence ?

can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?

creationism

well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.

That's not scientific anything. That's philosophy, and there are competing philosophies that are equally rational given the same universe, thus this cannot not be a proof.

"I like this universe and it'd be nice if someone made it for us" isn't science, that's religion.

When science is asking for evidence, they mean scientific evidence not religious dogma.

That requires experimentation and observation. And no 'The universe exists therefore someone made it' is not even a logical proof. Lots of things exist that are not made by people, but by simple randomness. For example: The very beautiful cloud formations that form before a storm.

well made point, bookmarking that. To get this evidence you would have to then find a way to explain why is this world so orderly at its core, everything has matter, everything has a way of working. philosophies used to be part of science, so i cannot see why it won't work today? Well you also assume that we just made up God in sentence while this could turn into a argument about God it seem that it kinda has to, for asking the question why is this world, how it is? the bible says that we were created in his image, other words the ability to reason to ask questions to want to learn more. this will seem ignorant i won't lie, but to get to the point where you say "hey someone created this, we should study it, and learn as much as we can about it." doesn't seem bad. i grant you that in the old days people said God did this and that, and today we have scientific proof of just about alot of things, which is great. But yeah long story short, the universe was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang, science better not say anything until they study it more.

 

[Snotnarok]

I don't get why they're trying to apply science to religion, in most of the stuff I've read they pretty much say what happened, then filled in the cracks with "because God did it". That's...not how science works, theories are heavily tested, black holes exist, they've been proven to, not just because Steven Hawken said so, he PROVED it.

If you want to believe in religion that's fine, magic stuff happened and we're here. But trying to prove it scientifically doesn't work because it can't be proven. Call it gods will it can't be proven, I don't care. I've never seen science and religion work together.