Poll: Evolution and the other side

Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
When it comes to science I tend to have a default setting.

'Can I understand this?'

If the above is true:

'Can I refute this in it's own terms?'

I am not a scientist. My scientific knowledge extends to an A* GCSE in Physics and Biology. Therefore, if when reading an argument which claims to be scientific, and I can both understand and refute it without having to resort to using scientific terms, then it is not scientific.

I have yet to see a 'scientific' creationist (air-quotes intentional) argument that actually holds any weight as science. Flaws in common sense, lack of logic, lack of actual evidence or evidence of research. I didn't even have to watch your video to know that it would be full of all of the above. Because when it comes to this debate, if you want to seriously claim that a benevolent all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful deity created the world and all the cosmos, you're going to have to have flaws in common sense, lack of logic, and lack of actual evidence of evidence of research.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
monfang said:
I don't know how to add post numbers so when I type in between your quotes, it gets messed up. I'll stop that.
OK then. Actually, the post numbers get added automatically whenever you quote anything, so they should show up at least once unless actively removed.

Now, you are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that Mayor is the only person to ever come up with the idea that the Greeks were studying bones. I have never heard about anyone else even thinking of that idea. It's radial thinking that is only used to explain how the Greeks could do what they did.

The point I am trying to make is that these creatures are the only ones to be so detailed. Their discriptions match our modern models for the creatures that we only formed though simulations using bones and advanced computers. They did it ether using their own imaginations or perhaps they truely saw it.
Or they made it all up. The suggested studying and misinterpretation of bones is just an attempt at explaining how these legends might have been caused. This does not mean that, if the Greeks did not study and misinterpret bones, their assumption must be correct. If these gryphons actually existed, then there would be some way of finding evidence of their existence. Maybe they did exist, but unless such evidence is presented in a credible way, the only logical assumption is that these legends are, in fact, legends.


Read Flavius Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, translated by F. C. Conybeare, volume I, book III.XLVIII., 1921, p. 333.
As to the gold which the griffins dig up, there are rocks which are spotted with drops of gold as with sparks, which this creature can quarry because of the strength of its beak. ?For these animals do exist in India? he said, ?and are held in veneration as being sacred to the Sun ; and the Indian artists, when they represent the Sun, yoke four of them abreast to draw the images ; and in size and strength they resemble lions, but having this advantage over them that they have wings, they will attack them, and they get the better of elephants and of dragons. But they have no great power of flying, not more than have birds of short flight; for they are not winged as is proper with birds, but the palms of their feet are webbed with red membranes, such that they are able to revolve them, and make a flight and fight in the air; and the tiger alone is beyond their powers of attack, because in swiftness it rivals the winds.
No great power of flying. They are not winged. The man speaks about how it is able to fight dragons, elephants and tigers and win. Mine gold with it's beak. (Or perhap it is carving out a nest in stone like a woodpecker with wood.) I hope you understand that the Griffins that are seen in games like WoW is not the Greek Griffin.

That's all that I can find on the subject. You make your final point which I believe will go back to your prior point and I will wash my hand on the subject.
Of course that's all you can find on the subject, which is exactly what I was trying to say with my comparison to tribbles. Or Klingons if you want.
Hey, obviously Klingons exist and have made contact with earth. There are very detailed stories about them. We know they have lavender-coloured blood. There's even photographic evidence of their existence, and their language has been fully worked out and can be studied by anyone. Some terran books were even translated into that language. Obviously a species we know so much about must exist. How else would we know so much about them?

I already expected that the original ones aren't those shown in games.

And of course my point will go back to my prior point, because that's all there is to say about this. They are creatures in stories. As well thought out and conclusive these stories are, they are still only stories.
If you use that as proof for the existence of Griffins, then you must also acknowledge the existence of Klingons, Vulcans, Starfleet, the Galactic Commonwealth, the Draconis Combine, the Rebel Alliance, the Nomes, the Encyclopedia Galactice, Vogon Constructor Fleets, trolls (that one should be easy...), Optimus Prime, Unicron, Selenites, Martians and so on.
After all, most of them have far more detailed and conclusive stories tied to them than Griffins, so someone must have studied them extensively, right?

monfang said:
icaritos said:
Are you mental? Do you even know where lava comes from? Just because it erupted 50 years in the past it doesn't mean the rocks existed for much much longer.
What you aren't catching is that the lava was tested. Not the rocks. The lava was tested using the method of testing lava formations and it was found to be WAY off.
Let's try a thought experiment here, OK? Imagine there is an extremely old barn near your house. It's scheduled for demolition. You need some planks to build a shed in your garden. So, in order to save money, you go to that barn when it's being demolished, and take some of its planks to build your shed.
Once the shed is built, did the wood you used to build it get younger?

Or another one, with a closer analogy:
A medieval sword is becoming rusty. I'ts not a particularly historically significant sword, but you want to keep it. So, since its condition does not need to be preserved, you go to a blacksmith to have it repaired. The blacksmith decides the cause is lost, but since you insist on preserving at least the material (probably iridium steel, which is pretty cool), he melts down the sword, and uses the metal to make a new one. How old is the metal? Did it magically become younger by melting it?

What you don't seem to understand, and what icaritos and now I tried to explain to you is that the radio-dating methods (whichever element they used) test the age of the material, not the age of the formation. They rely mostly on sedimental layers which did not move since their deposition. Or, if they moved, everything inside that layer moved with them. This is the reason why it's usually not used on lava, because lava moves around. Also, it would be pretty unusual to find anything historically significant in a lava stream.
In case of sediments, the age of the material usually is the same as that of the structure's formation, because the percentage of radioactive elements tends to be mostly stable except for some near-cataclysmic events (meteor strikes and the like), so the time past since the elements were encapsuled in an isolated system (like sedimental rocks) can be determined with a resolution of only a few human generations.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
You also seem to think that a very, very simple organism would require 20 different types of amino acids to reproduce, which is simply not the case.
According to my research, life requires 20+ amino acids to form the proteins required for solid bodies to form and stay stable. Most Scientists agree. Until you can show proof that they have changed, then I must go with what I know.
You need twenty amino acids for some species of modern life, not all. Nor does the theory of abiogenesis state that modern life is what came about first.

Someone posted the video in this thread. It is awesome, and informative.[/b]

Also, everything shown in this theory of abiogenesis has been replicated in a lab, as well as the further evolution of this protolife to monocellular organisms with genetic code.

The experiment can also be replicated, showing that not only is this form of abiogenesis possible, it is, in fact, the most chemically probably situation to occur under the earth's starting conditions.

Life didn't start with dna. It started with amino acid polymers... i.e proteins... and protiens being what they are, the ones that could self-replicate, or could preform tasks that aid in the protection or survival or growth of the 'cell' they reside in would continue, while those that could not would be absorbed into more dominant strains.

Thus, you have competition, natural selection, reproduction, growth. In other words.... life.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Scientific evidence offered for creationism? Yeah, thats where they cherry pick 'evidence' to back certain things in the bible to prove god made the world. But wont show any evidence on any other stuff in the bible that they cant prove at all. They are totally biased. You cant pick and chose whatever facts fit you opinion, and ignore the rest that proves your opinion is wrong, thats not science.
 

Johnny Impact

New member
Aug 6, 2008
1,528
0
0
My brain hurts.

Your question is flawed in fundamental ways.

First, one does not research creationism. There is no research to be done on the subject. One researches by collecting evidence, discerning fact, and forming theories. Creationism doesn't involve any of the above. In the currency of science, creationism is a pauper. To understand creationism in its entirety, one need only understand "Everything is the way it is because God said so." You can ask an evolutionist if he has read anything on creationism. You can ask if he has spoken with a clergyman, or listened to all sides before making a decision. You can't ask if he has done research.

Second, the question implies evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Natural selection is an obvious fact of nature. If God made nature, then God made natural selection.

Third, you have poor English. Run-on sentences, bad grammar.... With your post phrased the way it is, you won't get many informed answers.

The answer to your question is no I did not. See "First," above. I listen to my Christian uncle when he talks because he's a good deal smarter than the stereotypical "redneck Christian." Intelligence notwithstanding, he's never said anything the least bit convincing.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
I have not read the actual, direct writings of creationists in great detail because frankly, it's a waste of time. What I have done is read many creationists hypothesis, and then read the peer reviewed, scientific background behind those hypotheses in a unbiased format (i.e. the evidence behind how evolution works in an arena where there is no debate going on, just an appraisal of the evidence). I know creationists have a lot to say about the irreducible complexity of the eye, for example, but I have already read how every component of the eye is in fact a very small change completely compatible with evolution. When there hypothesis are so completely and fundamentally flawed on a most basic level, I do not have to read the details for there theory any more then I have to to learn calculus to figure out that a complicated equation is wrong when I notice that part of the equation assumes that 1+1=3. Creationism may have great PR making people take it seriously, but at the core, it deserves no more inspection then a crazy man mubling about aliens on the street corner. Some creationists are very intelligent people. You can be very intelligent and still be horrible, embarrassingly, and obviously wrong.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
AlexNora said:
"evolutionist"
This doesn't exist.

Which makes it ironic considering what you are comparing it to.

Apples to Apples?

SonOfVoorhees said:
Scientific evidence offered for creationism? Yeah, thats where they cherry pick 'evidence' to back certain things in the bible to prove god made the world. But wont show any evidence on any other stuff in the bible that they cant prove at all. They are totally biased. You cant pick and chose whatever facts fit you opinion, and ignore the rest that proves your opinion is wrong, thats not science.
I'm not aware of any argument for creationinism that hasn't already been discredited.

It's sad because the arguments I see now are largely the same as they were 5-8 years ago, and about 5-6 years ago they had already been disproved.

Apparently making up new things is hard.

Denamic said:
Yes.
I did it in this establishment we Swedes like to call 'school'.
It's a rather neat place where you go to learn things.
I bet Swedish school is awesome. Kinda sad I didn't go. Must be nice up there :(. (No sarcasm, I envy Sweden).
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
You also seem to think that a very, very simple organism would require 20 different types of amino acids to reproduce, which is simply not the case.
According to my research, life requires 20+ amino acids to form the proteins required for solid bodies to form and stay stable. Most Scientists agree. Until you can show proof that they have changed, then I must go with what I know.
You need twenty amino acids for some species of modern life, not all. Nor does the theory of abiogenesis state that modern life is what came about first.

Someone posted the video in this thread. It is awesome, and informative.[/b]

Also, everything shown in this theory of abiogenesis has been replicated in a lab, as well as the further evolution of this protolife to monocellular organisms with genetic code.

The experiment can also be replicated, showing that not only is this form of abiogenesis possible, it is, in fact, the most chemically probably situation to occur under the earth's starting conditions.

Life didn't start with dna. It started with amino acid polymers... i.e proteins... and protiens being what they are, the ones that could self-replicate, or could preform tasks that aid in the protection or survival or growth of the 'cell' they reside in would continue, while those that could not would be absorbed into more dominant strains.

Thus, you have competition, natural selection, reproduction, growth. In other words.... life.
So organic molecules spontaneously combined to form amino acids, which combined to form proteins, which spontaneously combined to form DNA, RNA, and cell membranes, etc. Somehow the first cell formed, which reproduced, and natural selection caused it to evolve into all the life forms we see today.

Somehow simple molecules have to assemble themselves into more complex molecules (the ?building blocks of life?), which assemble themselves into the first living thing, which reproduces itself, in order to get the evolutionary process started. Molecules will not assemble themselves this way because they have to obey the laws of thermodynamics.

DNA molecules contain heat in the form of chemical energy. As everyone who listened to the expert testimony at the O.J. Simpson trial knows, DNA molecules are fragile. The slightest bit of external energy breaks DNA molecules into simpler molecules, allowing the heat to escape into the environment. Energy breaks molecules apart, allowing them to release even more energy. An unlit candle just sits there, holding its heat in the form of chemical energy until you bring a lighted match close to it. The warmth of the match breaks the wax molecules apart, releasing heat in the form of warmth, which provides the energy to break more wax molecules apart, which keeps the reaction going.

Organic molecules in food remain intact longer in the freezer than they do in the refrigerator. They remain intact longer in the refrigerator than they do sitting on the kitchen counter. That?s why you keep your most perishable food in the freezer or refrigerator. Heat eventually breaks downs DNA, RNA, sugars, proteins, and amino acids. It doesn?t put them together. Chefs know this basic fact.

Abiogenesis violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it requires heat to organize itself into localized chemical energy. Simple molecules have to combine into complex molecules which store more heat. Heat doesn?t naturally flow from cold places to hot places.

Stanley Miller knew that he would have to build a machine that would assemble simple gas molecules into amino acids, and he knew that this machine would need an external source of energy to force the molecules to combine. He initially used a spark for this purpose, but other forms of energy, such as ultraviolet light, were later used in similar experiments. But Stanley Miller ran into some trouble. Miller?s electric spark broke molecules apart faster than it created them. That is why he had to get the molecules he created out of the spark-filled chamber before the next spark. Stanley Miller proved organic molecules (amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc.) don?t occur naturally in sufficient purity and abundance to sustain life.

So long as Abiogenisis breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is dead on arrival. As long as Evolutionists require Abiogenisis to be fact in text books and in their lectures, then Evolution will be dead on arrival.
 

Raven_Operative

New member
Dec 21, 2010
295
0
0
BlueMage said:
Gentlemen, any source that is dedicated to finding the truth of the matter will be unbiased. Or perhaps you're correct, they will be biased - in favour of what is. A religious website offering information on evolutionary theory is as credible as Fox News doing a piece on videogame violence and its effects (or lack thereof) on children - there may be some validity to what they say, but their lack of perspective effectively poisons the well.

So, I ask again: a credible source?
Ah but they are always biased, even if they want to find the truth, since everyone has preconceptions about how things work/were created/etc. and these can lead to the scientist discounting evidence (or interpreting it as something else) that could possibly support something they find absurd. (like say, intelligent design)

My favorite quote to demonstrate this is: It is important to remember that even a fossilized chicken could be interpreted as a type of prehistoric bird-reptile, depending on the view points of the finders.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
lotr rocks 0 said:
kidd25 said:
Hyper-space said:
kidd25 said:
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.

AlexNora said:
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:
kidd25 said:
most people, believe this theory as a fact, so :p 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 :/
In case you were confused about this, no, humanity does not share a common ancestor with dirt. no animal mated with some dirt and created humans. You're welcome for this enlightening knowledge.
oh of course, just blobs of organism kept evolving into humans of course.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
UPDATE:

Apparently my experiment on L-type and D-type amino acids as edible substances is continuing well. I believe I am still living, an observation that is backed up by me posting in this thread.

I, however, am not satisfied so this morning I had another 500g of mocha yogurt.

The subject, me, seems to enjoy the sourness of the yogurt, combined with the bittersweetness of the mocha.

If I die, can someone else continue my experiment on eating sour things with bittersweet things to see if they are delicious?

Whoever said 'left-handed' (really right-handed) amino acids are poisonous to life? Consuder that myth BUSTED.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
DracoSuave said:
kidd25 said:
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.
Science doesn't say anything about it. It's willing to ask the questions, however, and willing to test what it can.

Thing with a pre-big-bang universe. It's hard to test with current technology. So... not a lot of actual science is going to go forward in this direction for now.

That is not to say it is impossible. Merely, not yet.
don't worry mankind will go back to try and answer that which it does not know ^_^
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
Hyper-space said:
kidd25 said:
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 :/
Goddamnit, this is Kidzworld forums levels of syntax.

First of all, those 20 different methods are ways of dating different things, as you wouldn't use the same method to date trees as you would a rock.

Secondly, how the fuck do you make the leap from man using a metallic chemical element that's pretty ubiquitous in nature, with man being made from dirt? Hell, even if zinc was only exclusive to dirt and human biological functions, it still wouldn't mean shit and would only amount to anecdotal evidence (which believe it or not, doesn't substitute scientific observation and experimentation).

And yes, I am pretty sure about that number, as it was extracted from radiometric age dating of meteorites, giving the age of the earth an upper limit of 4.567 billion years, with the youngest possible age being 4.404 billions.

Different models and predictions can range from a some million years to hundreds of million years, the exact date and time of earth is not know, but scientist have calculated that it might be 4.54 billion years +/- 1%.

But shit, I am only talking about physics, you however have a book that was written thousands of years ago, back when sea-monsters were a legitimate sea-faring hazard! OF COURSE IT MUST BE GROUNDED IN LOGIC AND SOUND SCIENTIFIC REASONING.
yep of course men who study something you don't even know about. they must always tell the truth these men use science which i don't use of so it must be true. this argument will lead us nowhere, so i say i'm done. have a nice day :/
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
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.
just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.
God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/

well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.
 

Evidencebased

New member
Feb 28, 2011
248
0
0
monfang said:
snip

The point I am trying to make is that these creatures are the only ones to be so detailed. Their discriptions match our modern models for the creatures that we only formed though simulations using bones and advanced computers. They did it ether using their own imaginations or perhaps they truely saw it.

Read Flavius Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, translated by F. C. Conybeare, volume I, book III.XLVIII., 1921, p. 333.
As to the gold which the griffins dig up, there are rocks which are spotted with drops of gold as with sparks, which this creature can quarry because of the strength of its beak. ?For these animals do exist in India? he said, ?and are held in veneration as being sacred to the Sun ; and the Indian artists, when they represent the Sun, yoke four of them abreast to draw the images ; and in size and strength they resemble lions, but having this advantage over them that they have wings, they will attack them, and they get the better of elephants and of dragons. But they have no great power of flying, not more than have birds of short flight; for they are not winged as is proper with birds, but the palms of their feet are webbed with red membranes, such that they are able to revolve them, and make a flight and fight in the air; and the tiger alone is beyond their powers of attack, because in swiftness it rivals the winds.
No great power of flying. They are not winged. The man speaks about how it is able to fight dragons, elephants and tigers and win. Mine gold with it's beak. (Or perhap it is carving out a nest in stone like a woodpecker with wood.) I hope you understand that the Griffins that are seen in games like WoW is not the Greek Griffin.

That's all that I can find on the subject. You make your final point which I believe will go back to your prior point and I will wash my hand on the subject.
Hmm, sounds like you're reading bits out of my Furry friend's LiveJournal. She was really into griffins in high school, too, but that doesn't mean they're real. And furthermore, how are you using Ancient Greece to support the validity of the Christian Bible/creation story? The Ancient Greeks were polytheistic -- also big fans of slavery and gay sex -- so how's your bible feel about all that stuff? I recall that your god isn't keen on any of that... ;p
 

dantoddd

New member
Sep 18, 2009
272
0
0
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
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.
just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.
God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/

well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.
what on earth are you talking about?
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
monfang said:
As to the gold which the griffins dig up, there are rocks which are spotted with drops of gold as with sparks, which this creature can quarry because of the strength of its beak. ?For these animals do exist in India? he said, ?and are held in veneration as being sacred to the Sun ; and the Indian artists, when they represent the Sun, yoke four of them abreast to draw the images ; and in size and strength they resemble lions, but having this advantage over them that they have wings, they will attack them, and they get the better of elephants and of dragons. But they have no great power of flying, not more than have birds of short flight; for they are not winged as is proper with birds, but the palms of their feet are webbed with red membranes, such that they are able to revolve them, and make a flight and fight in the air; and the tiger alone is beyond their powers of attack, because in swiftness it rivals the winds.
No great power of flying. They are not winged. The man speaks about how it is able to fight dragons, elephants and tigers and win. Mine gold with it's beak. (Or perhap it is carving out a nest in stone like a woodpecker with wood.) I hope you understand that the Griffins that are seen in games like WoW is not the Greek Griffin.
Did you even read what you quoted? It says that is has wings, just that they aren't good for flying.

Also, do you believe in dragons now too?
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
So organic molecules spontaneously combined to form amino acids, which combined to form proteins, which spontaneously combined to form DNA, RNA, and cell membranes, etc.
No. Amino acids, which already existed because of other endothermic reactions, eventually polymerized in lipid acid pockets, into peptides. That's it.

Fat (lipid acid) turns into bubbly pockets. Ever cook spaghetti? Sometimes stuff gets in those pockets. Amino acids are already proven to exist at this point. So they got in there, and formed peptide bonds cause that's what amino acids when there is heat. Those bonded amino acids could not escape because the surface tension of the fat pockets.

That's it. That's all. THAT is the first life form. RNA? DNA? cell membranes? None of those are necessary.

Somehow the first cell formed, which reproduced, and natural selection caused it to evolve into all the life forms we see today.
No. The cell didn't evolve for a while. At least, not the complex cell structures we know of today.

Somehow simple molecules have to assemble themselves into more complex molecules (the ?building blocks of life?),
Carbon-based molecules have a tendancy to do this. Carbon is kinda a slut in the chemical world.

which assemble themselves into the first living thing, which reproduces itself, in order to get the evolutionary process started. Molecules will not assemble themselves this way because they have to obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed. Horribly horribly flawed.

Also saying something that cannot happen but occurs millions of times a day in your body only shows your ignorance on the subject. But... here's the solution that solves your quandry. It's two words.

ENDOTHERMIC REACTIONS

Some chemical reactions require energy from an outside source to fuel them. Many reactions essential to life are endothermic reactions.

You should make a note of that, because the second law of thermodynamics only states that entropy must increase in closed systems. Once you have an endothermic reaction, you must also include the energy source, and any thing connected to or involved in that energy source.

In other words, you cannot take a chemical in a vacuum and say it cannot do things, and call it a closed system, when it is not, in fact, the sum total of what is going on there.

DNA molecules contain heat in the form of chemical energy. As everyone who listened to the expert testimony at the O.J. Simpson trial knows, DNA molecules are fragile. The slightest bit of external energy breaks DNA molecules into simpler molecules, allowing the heat to escape into the environment. Energy breaks molecules apart, allowing them to release even more energy. An unlit candle just sits there, holding its heat in the form of chemical energy until you bring a lighted match close to it. The warmth of the match breaks the wax molecules apart, releasing heat in the form of warmth, which provides the energy to break more wax molecules apart, which keeps the reaction going.
Why are you talking about DNA like it's somehow relevant to the point of abigenesis? Did you watch the video I provided?

Organic molecules in food remain intact longer in the freezer than they do in the refrigerator. They remain intact longer in the refrigerator than they do sitting on the kitchen counter. That?s why you keep your most perishable food in the freezer or refrigerator. Heat eventually breaks downs DNA, RNA, sugars, proteins, and amino acids. It doesn?t put them together. Chefs know this basic fact.
Actually, that has a lot more to do with this thing called 'bacteria growth'. You don't freeze stuff to prevent protein breakdown. You freeze stuff to prevent salmonella, botulism, and other such things.

Alternatively, you can accomplish the exact same thing by keeping the temperature above 167 degrees Farhenheit.

By the way, I've done my time in a kitchen.

Abiogenesis violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it requires heat to organize itself into localized chemical energy. Simple molecules have to combine into complex molecules which store more heat. Heat doesn?t naturally flow from cold places to hot places.
Okay. Now you're full of shit.

First off, reactions that require heat to start, and then give off energy (exothermic reactions) are completely possible in modern chemistry and physics. Proof: FIRE. What happens is the energy from one reaction provides the energy necessary to start another reaction. So, the heat given off by one of them reactions you claim is impossible, would then radiate, and would trigger other similar reactions, in what is called a 'chain reaction.'

But, that's not what's likely to be happening:

Secondly, reactions that require heat, but absorb energy (endothermic reactions) change heat into the energy of the chemical bonds. The heat is gone, and the temperature of the resultant molecule is less than that of the original components. As a result, you have a resultant molecule that is colder than the environment that is warm enough to start the reaction. Thus, you do not have the problem of energy travelling from cold to hot.

More over, this is actually not relevant to the current theory of abiogenesis.

Stanley Miller knew that he would have to build a machine that would assemble simple gas molecules into amino acids, and he knew that this machine would need an external source of energy to force the molecules to combine. He initially used a spark for this purpose, but other forms of energy, such as ultraviolet light, were later used in similar experiments. But Stanley Miller ran into some trouble. Miller?s electric spark broke molecules apart faster than it created them. That is why he had to get the molecules he created out of the spark-filled chamber before the next spark. Stanley Miller proved organic molecules (amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc.) don?t occur naturally in sufficient purity and abundance to sustain life.
Which is absolutely awesome, and has nothing to do with the CURRENT THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS.

Protip: They actually created life. Maybe you should actually watch the video.

So long as Abiogenisis breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is dead on arrival.
It doesn't, but that's okay. You didn't watch the video. Go watch the video.

As long as Evolutionists require Abiogenisis to be fact in text books and in their lectures, then Evolution will be dead on arrival.
Evolution is not predecated on ABiogenesis. And, so long as you make false claims like 'Abiogenesis breaks the laws of thermodynamics' then I'll say to you 'Abiogenesis has been replicated in a lab, and as it has -occured-, it does not break the laws of thermodynamics.'

I'll reiterate this to you.

Scientists. Actually. Did. It.

And you need to learn Second Law of Thermodynamics better, because in your understanding, the very things you mentioned to stop amino acid breakdown... refridgerators, and freezers... are impossible. Cause isn't that drawing heat from a cold source (the inside of the unit) to an outside source? (the very hot cooling racks in the back)

There's more to it than heat.
 
Dec 27, 2010
814
0
0
kidd25 said:
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 a very weak argument. I could just as easily say a monkey built it from the ruins of a past universe and then use your explanation as "evidence".
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
I have personally genetically manipulated organisms(bacteria in this case, but whatever). I did this by using the same mechanisms that the theory of evolution has hypothesized to be amongst the driving forces of bacterial evolution.

Now, has anyone here created a universe?
No?


Ten years ago, creationists were commonly considered fanatics amongst both religious and non-religious people. Now, suddenly, it's not uncommon to hear about idiots in denial that claim "evolution is a lie", further reinforcing the public image that USA is full of lunatics.
What the hell has happened to the American educational system in those last ten years? ._.