Creationism vs. science

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

First I'll correct an error. There is more than one part to "Evolution". There is the fact of Evolution, which is the fact that all currently living organisms have arisen from earlier organisms and that these forms diverge over time. There is also the Theory of Evolution which is the explanation of the how, why, where, and when of the facts of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is still being debated and refined… by no means is it complete and perhaps it never will be… such is the nature of the fossil record.

I always find it amusing when people claim that they believe in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution" for they seem to ignore a rather simple piece of logical reasoning; "A series of small changes carried on for a long time add up to a large change."

For instance: if you dug a small chunk of earth out of a large hill and place it in a pond the hill would still be a hill and the pond would still be a pond. However, if you and 1000 friends did this same activity every day for a few weeks you would find that soon there hill and the pond were gone. Continue the activity for longer and soon there would be a pond (or at least a hole) where the hill was and a hill where the pond was. Accepting that both "small changes over time add up to large changes" and "micro-evolution" are true; one is forced to find a biological mechanism that would prevent, reverse, or limit these changes to prevent a categorical shift such as one species evolving into another species. There is no such mechanism. "Macro-evolution" therefore is simply the logical result of "micro-evolution" over time.

1) Give examples of evolutionary transitions in which one species changes into another.

Here you go:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html[/quote]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

2) Specify the mechanism by which one species could change into another.
Genetic mutations happening over long periods of time. (Please see above.)

3) Specify the actual course of evolution in the past.
Which specific forms gave rise to which specific new forms?

Sorry, this hasn't been discovered and is not required. The best we can accomplish is which groups are related and something of the degree they are related, based upon homology of fossils and genealogy of living groups.

Another thing that is often ignored by those who do not believe evolution is the striking fact that the theory of evolution was developed before DNA was discovered or genetics was understood. In fact, the theory of evolution predicted that there must be a system by which such changes must take place… Evolutional Theory has a tremendous success rate. The prediction of what type of fossils we should find and where we should find them in the geologic column has been proven correct again and again.

~Raithere
 
"Some opinoins are true. "

You gotta laugh at that! By definition, an opinion is something that cannot be proven either way. But if you think you can do it, give me a "true" opinion.

"You tell me, is there any evidence? "

Yes there is evidence of the evolution of bacteria to more resistent forms. The hype about it is no conspiracy!

"Where is the evidence that one species changes into another, and what is the mechanism that allows this change?? "

I have answered this more than once, Im glad to know your reading my posts.....

"So every bit of knowledge you possess, you had to be convinced of it?"

Yup, and im pretty sure you did too. If it was not an other person that convinced you, than you convinced yourself.

"Modern scientist say that for something to be a fact, it has to have supporting evidence. Where is it? "

Hey, i understand. There are some things in science that I dispute, but some people consider fact. I don't believe the constancy of the speed of light, I don't believe in the uncertainty principle, or the second "law" of thermodynamics. But These are considered fact and all have a good amount of evidence.

There is a ton of supporting evidence, given in every fossil found. Look at Raithere's links.

"Where did this bacterial come from?
What was its purpose (apart from milling around)? "

As I said in my shpeel, I won't go into where it came from because that wasn't part of the question. The bacteria came from a more complicated process that I know less about. One laboratory took a bunch of non-biological junk and zapped it with electricity. What came out of it was some "biological material", in short, molecules that are found in living things. These biological molecules eventually assembled in a way in which they could survive and reproduce. If you want more detail than that, i guess you could ask....

Religious people like to find a purpose in things. According to pure science, there is no purpose in life, it is just an accident that happens under certain conditions, conditions which are by no means unique to earth.

"Where did they obtain the "ability?"
Where did the water come from?
In fact where did the Earth and Sun come from? "

The biological matterial that can be created from the muck in early earth assembled in millions of different ways. Some ways were not alive, some ways might have been alive, but not able to reproduce. The holy grail of this random activity was when ONE finally was able to survive and reproduce. One of millions, maybe even billions of "trys" came a living organism.

Raithere:

Well said.
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
"Where is the evidence that one species changes into another, and what is the mechanism that allows this change?? "

I have answered this more than once, Im glad to know your reading my posts.....

I am reading your posts and am growing impatient with your weak answers.

You said;

Genetic mutation is usually the way a species would change, for the good or for the bad. Natural selection is the mechenism for actual evolution.

The genetic code is a sequence of molecules in DNA adn RNA which governs the synthesis of proteins in the cell, a genetic mutation is a change in those sequences which result in production of different proteins. As i said earlier, these mutations only control details in biological form, variations within the established species. As yet there remains no info as to how GM could the whole range of a biological form, so where is your evidence?
As for "natural selection" being the mechanism by which one species changes into another, I would like you to tell me how this actually occurs, if nothing else it should be entertaining.

There is a ton of supporting evidence, given in every fossil found. Look at Raithere's links.

I am going to respond to Raithere's post in due time.

"Where did this bacterial come from?
What was its purpose (apart from milling around)? "

One laboratory took a bunch of non-biological junk and zapped it with electricity. What came out of it was some "biological material",

Info please! :)

According to pure science, there is no purpose in life, it is just an accident that happens under certain conditions...

Where's the evidence of an accident?

The biological matterial that can be created from the muck in early earth........

Where did the earth come from?

assembled in millions of different ways.

Where is the evidence?

The holy grail of this random activity was when ONE finally was able to survive and reproduce.

Of course you have verifialble scientific evidence to support this claim, I look forward to seeing it. :)

Raithere:

Well said.

Yes, i am also of the opinion that you need help. :p

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
"One laboratory took a bunch of non-biological junk and zapped it with electricity. What came out of it was some "biological material", "

Info please!

Stanley Miller's Experiment
He added sterile H2O, H2, CH4, and NH3 to the sealed system. Heat was applied under the flask to simulate volcanic action, and this was enough to turn a significant portion of the water into steam. A spark chamber periodically discharged electricity into the gasses to simulate lightening. In the return tube, the mixture was cooled to condense the water back into liquid, along with any organic compounds that might have formed from the mixture. Water and all the gasses Miller included are all “clear,” thus his experiment started out with transparent water and transparent gasses. However, after only one week, Miller had a brown, murky soup. Subsequent chemical analysis showed the presence of a number of amino acids and other organic compounds. Other researchers have since tried similar experiments with slight variations in the initial mix of chemicals added, and by now, all 20 amino acids, and a number of sugars, lipids, and nucleotides have been obtained in this manner. From this experiment, scientists generalize that if this can happen in a lab, it could have happened in a similar way on early Earth.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/origins.htm
Click to expand...
Self Reproducing Molecules
http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

Cellular Formation
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/98/980331.origin.of.life.shtml

Note that these do not necessarily explain precisely how life formed on Earth… that we may never know. What they demonstrate is that the components necessary for life can occur through wholly natural processes without any supernatural intervention. Thus, as Hawking said "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."

Where did the earth come from?

Are you seriously this ignorant or are you just trying to catch us up here?

Here's a rather nice site on it… they even go into evolutional theory as well:
http://www.cosmicvoyage.org/museum/h1f_earlyearth.htm

This one is not as pretty but has more of the basics:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/ph121/l7.html

Here's another nicely proofed site:
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/site/camps/a/index.html

Of course you have verifialble scientific evidence to support this claim, I look forward to seeing it.

The evidence is rather self-evident… the presence of life on Earth.


I must also correct one of your mistaken notions. When it is said that Scientific proof is based upon observation this observation is not limited to direct observation. This notion is so basic that is often overlooked. The truth of scientific theory is that it is in complete agreement with the observation and evidence that we do have without any verifiable contradictory evidence. The process, of course, is not immediate and absolute. Scientists are, of course, human and the process often moves fitfully… but it does work.

Helpfully,

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Raithere
There is also the Theory of Evolution which is the explanation of the how, why, where, and when of the facts of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is still being debated and refined… by no means is it complete and perhaps it never will be… such is the nature of the fossil record.

So you believe in evolution, but are still waiting for the facts of evolution to come rolling in, already your case sounds doomed, if you don't have the facts, then what do you actually know?

The fact that biological species are extremely stable and resistant to change is the single most important factor in any discussion on the mechanism of evolution.
(Science, 1980, 883)

A British biologist, William Thorpe, commented thus;

"What is it that holds so many guroups of animals to an astonishingly constant form over millions of years? This seems to me to be the problem now, the problem of constancy; rather that that of change. And here one must remember that the genetic systems...are constantly changing. Thus the control system is continually changing but the system controlled is constant, and constant over millions of years. This problem seems to me to stick out like a sore thumb in modern evolutionary theory."

For instance: if you dug a small chunk of earth out of........... [/]

What i like about this, is that the whole experiment relies on the consistancy of intelligence acting outside of known physical laws, to create the eventual change, not by any random or accidental activity.

In fact, the theory of evolution predicted that there must be a system by which such changes must take place…

How can it predict?

Evolutional Theory has a tremendous success rate.

What do you mean by "success rate?"

Stanley Miller's Experiment

His experiment combined atoms which formed amino acids, but it was later proven that his result actually weakened his case, as all known life uses amino acids, which are exclusively of the left handed form, not a combination of right and left handed forms. They can only be separated through highly advanced intelligence.
Aside from that gaping hole, there are other reasons why animo acids would disintegrate or fail to form;

Thaxton, Bradley

"........ in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario `the myth of the prebiotic soup."

Life obviously reuires more than animo acids, one real nesaccity is protiens.
What are the odds against animo acids ever combining to form the nesaccery proteins, by undirected means?

Evolutionist Paul Erbrich:

"The probability, however, of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater."

Note that these do not necessarily explain precisely how life formed on Earth… that we may never know.

Then it should not be regarded, in any way shape or form, as fact, that is most misleading.

What they demonstrate is that the components necessary for life can occur through wholly natural processes without any supernatural intervention.

But "life" cannot be created through a wholly natural process, or it has not been shown, which makes evolution fundamentally absurd.

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science.

If there are laws, then there must be a lawmaker, unless you think laws, although stable and constant, are random and accidental.

In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."

That is a fair enough statement, though ambitous, IMHO, but the universe is not life, it inhabits life. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the origins of life as coming from matter, which is an entirely different ball game.

The evidence is rather self-evident… the presence of life on Earth.

Okay!

What was the biological matter that was "created" and how did it eventually assemble itself to become a "living organism." The Stanley Miller method is null and void, as we know all living beings have left handed forms of amino acids, not a combination of right and left.

Scientists are, of course, human and the process often moves fitfully… but it does work.

Scientists are scientists, they have a job to do, like anyone else, and of course we know they are not perfect and may make many errors before coming to a fact. But the theory of evolution, should not be regarded as a fact.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Jan, although you claim to be open minded, you seriously turned out like all of the other religious believers I have talked to. To describe them I could use the words stubborn, illinformed, and non-objective.

Religious people tend to have a completely different mind-set, one that is almost completely irreversable, just as a science-minded person will never believe in god.

Two questions to you are: do you think you could be convinced that there does not neccesarily have to be a god? and Are you trying to convince me of anything?

"So you believe in evolution, but are still waiting for the facts of evolution to come rolling in"

As I have said before, there is no such thing as a fact we can know for certain. We have EVIDENCE, not facts. The evidence is right there for you to look at. If you have a problem with the scientific method, then that is your problem.

"I am reading your posts and am growing impatient with your weak answers. "

HA. You growing impatient with MY weak answers?! I have given evidence and examples, but you give vauge phrases and short contradictory sentences. I would like to see you give evidence AGAINST evolution! If you can do that I guarantee you the Nobel prize.

"these mutations only control details in biological form, variations within the established species. "

Actually, mutations don't control anything. Mutations are not controled, regulated, and they are not intelligent (unlike the Absolute Truth.....:bugeye: ). Mutations are things that happen because of certain environmental conditions and irregularites in reproduction.

"Of course you have verifialble scientific evidence to support this claim, I look forward to seeing it. "

I have no evidence of the first cell ever created on earth, you are right. Similarly we have no proof of the first humans, the first planet, the first solarsystem. But for there to be cells, planets, humans, or solarsystems now, there had to be a first. Think about it.

"How can it predict? "

You ask SO FRIKKIN MANY simple questions. TAKE BIOLOGY. Who the hell doesn't take BIO? How can you talk about stuff like this when you have had no education. Im pretty sure your not interested in Biology enough to study on your own.....

"If there are laws, then there must be a lawmaker, unless you think laws, although stable and constant, are random and accidental."

First of all, noone knows how the universes laws came about. We do not know everything. A lawmaker yes. An intelligent law maker, no. I don't believe in "random" or "accidents" as they are defined specifically. I believe things can happen that we can not predict yet, but they are not random. We could predict them if we had a good enough theory.

"as we know all living beings have left handed forms of amino acids, not a combination of right and left."

What the hell is a left handed amino acid?!

"Life obviously reuires more than animo acids, one real nesaccity is protiens."

Proteins are made from amino acids. As I said, take biology.

This is the reason I wanted to just stop talking to you in the beggining. Youll never learn if you don't try to understand.
 
"If there are laws, then there must be a lawmaker, unless you think laws, although stable and constant, are random and accidental"

Common flawed logic. Same idea as "if there's a watch in the forect, there must have been a watch-maker".

See, the problem with you is that you think whatever you observe in your little non-scientific Earth life must hold true everywhere. It's like saying "From everywhere on Earth I've ever been I could travel north, therefore from everywhere on Earth I can travel north". However, you certainly realize there is a place you cannot travel "north" from, no?
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So you believe in evolution, but are still waiting for the facts of evolution to come rolling in, already your case sounds doomed, if you don't have the facts, then what do you actually know?

Compared to what? The "theory" of Creation (actually it's only a disproved hypothesis) which has not a single piece of substantiating evidence and a tremendous amount of contrary evidence. A "theory" that is based solely in the hubris of religion where self-proclaimed and unproven "revelation" from God suffices as "knowledge". Talk about doomed cases. If you'd like to propose an alternative theory and provide substantiating evidence I'd be happy to consider it…

Until then, sorry, but Evolution is the best explanation we have. The facts have indeed been "rolling in" and they fit the theories quite nicely. Are there gaps in the fossil record? Certainly. Are portions of evolutionary theory still being researched and currently under debate? Yes. But this does not invalidate what we have been able to prove thus far. Not at all. None of the contradictions you've provided invalidate the fact of Evolution "All currently living organisms have arisen from earlier organisms and that these forms diverge over time."

Also, much of what you are contesting is not actually Evolutionary theory… theories regarding the genesis of life come under Abiogenesis not Evolution. Admittedly, due to the sparsity of evidence these theories are still largely hypothetical but what has been demonstrated quite well is that the components necessary for life can arise from natural processes. It is only whether this is exactly the way it happened that is questionable.

Now, I'll address the things you mentioned but keep in mind what I've already said. I'll also let you know ahead of time that I'll not continue along this vein… if you wish to propose an alternative explanation by all means do.


The fact that biological species are extremely stable and resistant to change is the single most important factor in any discussion on the mechanism of evolution.

…This seems to me to be the problem now, the problem of constancy; rather that that of change.

The consistency that we do see is well explained: 1) Evolution can only work with the materials at hand… it doesn't just create something from nothing. Thus a creature without feathers does not evolve into a creature with feathered wings in one or ten generations. The change is gradual. 2) The genetic process of replication includes a system of self-correction that attempts to correct most random mutation, thus stabilizing the pattern. 3) The process of Natural Selection weeds out less successful mutations, thus if a organism is well adapted to it's environment it's rate of change will be very slow. 4) There is a competing theory called punctuated equilibrium:

In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould revived this idea, under the name Punctuated Equilibrium. They agreed that transitional fossils are plentiful, and that smooth transitional sequences are sometimes found. However, they argued that these are not as common as theory predicted. Instead, we often see a species go on unchanged for a long time. And then the species is replaced, without any transition, by a new species that looks like a variation of the old one.
Their explanation is that a group of creatures was cut off from the rest of their species. Since the group probably lived in a small inhospitable fringe area, they would be under selection pressure. Being a small group, they were able to evolve fairly quickly. Then, later, they spread, and replaced their parent species.
Click to expand...
What i like about this, is that the whole experiment relies on the consistancy of intelligence acting outside of known physical laws, to create the eventual change, not by any random or accidental activity.

That’s not what I was addressing and you well know it. I was exemplifying how small changes can add up to large changes over time.

But if you'd like an example of "random or accidental" activity forming such tremendous changes over time you need only go visit the Himalayans, Grand Canyon, the salt flats in Utah, the Carlsbad Caverns. Here's where random activity, natural laws, and time caused tremendous change. So, obviously it does not take intelligent intervention.

How can it predict?

Certain conclusions can be drawn from any scientific theory. When the conclusions that are drawn match the physical evidence at hand it demonstrates the validity of the theory. But when the conclusions made are proven accurate with physical evidence only discovered after the conclusion was drawn… we call that prediction.

What do you mean by "success rate?"

Go buy a dictionary. But in until you do: In this case I mean that many predictions (see above) have been evinced.

His experiment combined atoms which formed amino acids, but it was later proven that his result actually weakened his case, as all known life uses amino acids, which are exclusively of the left handed form, not a combination of right and left handed forms. They can only be separated through highly advanced intelligence.
Aside from that gaping hole, there are other reasons why animo acids would disintegrate or fail to form;

This statement is blatantly false. It has been demonstrated that the polarization of light will affect which "handedness" of amino acids predominates. Thus, again, the effect is entirely natural and absolutely refutes the statement "They can only be separated through highly advanced intelligence." Your source is seriously mistaken or perhaps simply outdated.

"... in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur.

Even if the chemicals are destroyed this is not a one time occurrence. The chemicals would have continued to have been produced and destroyed in an ongoing process. Oh, and I should ask… proof, evidence?

Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet.

Hmm… first he mentions that the "destructive interactions" would have "diminished" or "altogether consumed" the chemicals and then he's confused that there is no evidence of the chemicals? Poor reasoning here… or at least bad writing.

It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario `the myth of the prebiotic soup."

This is hardly "clear" but even if it does become so this does not invalidate Evolution. As I mentioned above this topic is Abiogenesis.

Life obviously reuires more than animo acids, one real nesaccity is protiens.
What are the odds against animo acids ever combining to form the nesaccery proteins, by undirected means?

Very high. When considering this one must consider the number of interactions taking place, in parallel, every second (that is the number of amino-acids floating around and interacting in all the oceans of the Earth during that period of time) and also the amount of time (about 1 billion years) before life did evolve on Earth. Yes, the odds are very high but then if I try enough times eventually I'll eventually win at roulette too.

"The probability, however, of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater."

Here's a nice page on Abiogenesis and probability: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule

Then it should not be regarded, in any way shape or form, as fact, that is most misleading.

It's not. It's part of the hypotheses and theories regarding Abiogenesis.

But "life" cannot be created through a wholly natural process, or it has not been shown, which makes evolution fundamentally absurd.

And you believe in Creation? That's too funny. Care to "show" Creation to us?

If there are laws, then there must be a lawmaker, unless you think laws, although stable and constant, are random and accidental.

No, that's a misconception based upon the word used. There are human laws and natural laws and there is no reason to suppose an intelligent agent as the source of natural law. Or would you care to prove otherwise?

In addition, natural laws may quite possibly be random and accidental… there is no reason to suppose that this is the only Universe with the only possible set of laws. Just because something is does not mean that it must have been nor does it mean that it was deliberate.

What was the biological matter that was "created" and how did it eventually assemble itself to become a "living organism." The Stanley Miller method is null and void, as we know all living beings have left handed forms of amino acids, not a combination of right and left.

I've explained all of this above and in previous posts. Just reread it.

Scientists are scientists, they have a job to do, like anyone else, and of course we know they are not perfect and may make many errors before coming to a fact. But the theory of evolution, should not be regarded as a fact.

The theory of Evolution is not regarded as a fact.. that's why it's called "The Theory of Evolution". As I already explained there is the fact of Evolution and the theory of Evolution (theories actually)… go back and re-read. The important thing is that there are no contending theories in opposition. Creationism from the Biblical perspective at least has been thoroughly and completely discredited. Evolution fits the facts… it's not complete yet, but it agrees with what we know thus far.

The thing I love most about Creationists is that the think somehow if they're able to discredit Evolution that Creationism must somehow be true by default. This is a bizarre and absurd conclusions. It's like saying that if 2+2 does not equal 3 then 2+2 must equal 5.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Compared to what?

Knowledge is incomparable. You are talking about facts being compared, or I think so anyway.

But this does not invalidate what we have been able to prove thus far.

What have you really proved?

You cannot give any evolutionary transitions of one species to another, nothing direct anyway, you believe genetic mutation a mechanism of how one species could change into another even though there is no evidence that genes governs all aspects of biological form, you cannot say which specific forms gave rise to which specific forms. So I ask again, what have you actually proven?

I'll also let you know ahead of time that I'll not continue along this vein….

Hey……don’t let me hold you up, it doesn’t matter to me if you want to discontinue, I didn’t ask for your input. :)

There is a competing theory called punctuated equilibrium:

quote:

…..They agreed that transitional fossils are plentiful, and that smooth transitional sequences are sometimes found.

quote:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbools have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils”.

Steven Gould.

The “punctuated equiliberum” model, may well be impressive, but it is not “scientific” as it cannot be stated in terms of direct experience.
The fact that evolutionists believe that human beings have evolved from single-celled animals, is just a belief which lacks direct evidence from fossil records.
Is it not a fact that many-celled animals appeared before the remains of single-celled animals, according to fossil records, indicating that many-celled animals did not evolve from single-celled animals. Of course evolutionists will say that at some stage the oldest layer of rock slid over the newer layers, thereby putting them in “the wrong order”, but their reasoning has been proven inconsistant.
In fact, at no point on the evolutionary pathway can evolutionists give scientific evidence that a specific member of any group of animals evolved into a specific member of any other group. Evolutionists only hope of making direct contact between concrete experience, and the concept of evolution lies in specifying from the fossil record which species gave rise to which new species in the past. The fact that they can’t do this, means the concept of evolution does not meet or cross this world at any time. So unless you have evidence, evolution is nothing more than a modern-DAY religion, IMHO.

Your source is seriously mistaken or perhaps simply outdated.

Do you have any sources so’s I may compare?

Oh, and I should ask… proof, evidence?

I put forward that quote merely as something else for you to consider, as you are not aware of the “facts”, not as a case argument.

Hmm… first he mentions that the "destructive interactions" would have "diminished" or "altogether consumed" the chemicals and then he's confused that there is no evidence of the chemicals? Poor reasoning here or at least bad writing.

He is giving reasons why evolution is scientifically incorrect.

It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario `the myth of the prebiotic soup."

This is hardly "clear" but even if it does become so this does not invalidate Evolution. As I mentioned above this topic is Abiogenesis.

Sounds very clear to me.

Abiogenesis \Ab`i*o*gen"e*sis\, n. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? life + ?, origin, birth.] (Biol.) The supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; such genesis as does not involve the action of living parents; spontaneous generation;

Whether or not this comes under “evolution”, it is what we are discussing, this is what they teach in schools under the banner of “evolution”.

There are human laws and natural laws and there is no reason to suppose an intelligent agent as the source of natural law.

Maybe you should go buy a dictionary;

Law…. A law is that which is laid, set, or fixed; like statute, fr. L. statuere to make to stand. [/I]

As far as I can see, there are no definitions of the term “natural law”, or any type of law that doesn’t somehow include the above definition.

In addition, natural laws may quite possibly be random and accidental…

Such as?

there is no reason to suppose that this is the only Universe with the only possible set of laws.

That means nothing.

Just because something is does not mean that it must have been nor does it mean that it was deliberate.

We are talking about "law" a natural law, which means it is, was and may always be, i don't believe "nature" is wild, random or untamed, it acts very orderly, with more than a razor-sharp precision. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that its laws were made deliberately.

The thing I love most about Creationists is that the think somehow if they're able to discredit Evolution that Creationism must somehow be true by default.

Creationists don’t have to discredit evolution, upon close scrutiny it does that all by itself. Again and again. :p

This is a bizarre and absurd conclusions. It's like saying that if 2+2 does not equal 3 then 2+2 must equal 5.

That is non-sensical.

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Knowledge is incomparable. You are talking about facts being compared, or I think so anyway.

No I was talking about comparing various theories. You obviously disagree that the various Evolutionary theories best explain the available evidence. So, I query, which theory would you posit instead?

You cannot give any evolutionary transitions of one species to another, nothing direct anyway

Observed Instances of Speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020523075718.htm

you believe genetic mutation a mechanism of how one species could change into another even though there is no evidence that genes governs all aspects of biological form

No one has stated that genes govern all aspects of biological form. Only heritable aspects.

you cannot say which specific forms gave rise to which specific forms.

In some cases we can (see above reference). In other cases we only have a proven relation between particular species. Other relationships are based upon morphology.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbools have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils”.

I concur. Perhaps you'd like to posit another theory as to what exactly the "transitional forms" really are if not various branches of the evolutionary tree?

The “punctuated equiliberum” model, may well be impressive, but it is not “scientific” as it cannot be stated in terms of direct experience.

You obviously know little about Science. If science only "knew" what was directly observed we would, in fact, know very little. After all, when was the last time you observed gravity itself and not merely the effect of gravity?

The fact that evolutionists believe that human beings have evolved from single-celled animals, is just a belief which lacks direct evidence from fossil records.

It depends on what you mean by direct evidence. And don't forget genetic evidence in addition to fossil.

Is it not a fact that many-celled animals appeared before the remains of single-celled animals, according to fossil records, indicating that many-celled animals did not evolve from single-celled animals.

No. It's not.

In fact, at no point on the evolutionary pathway can evolutionists give scientific evidence that a specific member of any group of animals evolved into a specific member of any other group.

Read up: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

So unless you have evidence, evolution is nothing more than a modern-DAY religion, IMHO.

Religion, you mean as in utterly unfounded doctrine?

Do you have any sources so’s I may compare?

It's not hard to find online, but sure:

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/press/life.html

He is giving reasons why evolution is scientifically incorrect.

No… he's giving an expression of his mathematical calculations from "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," which is the paper this quotation is taken from. Two quick points: One, which you so often like to use is since he wasn't there how can he prove that his calculations are correct. Two, These chemicals do exist in space… his calculations are obviously incorrect. Otherwise how can he explain the evidence of amino acids in meteorites and those detected in space (see above reference regarding polarization)?

Sounds very clear to me.

I was referring to his saying "It is becoming clear… most implausible hypothesis." Which is something that is not "clear". He speaks as if he's proven his position which he obviously hasn't. He may have an argument towards his position but he definitely has not proven it in the scientific community.

Whether or not this comes under “evolution”, it is what we are discussing, this is what they teach in schools under the banner of “evolution”.

How Science is taught is not under discussion here. A failing of the educational system is hardly the fault of Science. But if you're pointing out that Science is poorly taught in most classrooms, I concur.

Maybe you should go buy a dictionary;

Law…. A law is that which is laid, set, or fixed; like statute, fr. L. statuere to make to stand.

As far as I can see, there are no definitions of the term “natural law”, or any type of law that doesn’t somehow include the above definition.

Well, now that you have a dictionary we'll need to teach you how to use it. Since the matter under discussion was science rather than the legal system it would make sense to use the definition that fits the topic at hand:

law 12. a. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
Click to expand...
This helps to avoid all sorts of confusion…. such as wondering, when was is speaking about bass, if one is talking about a fish, an instrument, a clef, a singer, or a beer. Such specificity is helpful in communication.

We are talking about "law" a natural law, which means it is, was and may always be,

This is not the case… such has been proven in various atomic and quantum experiments. The theory of relativity tends to bend this absolute view of natural law as well.

i don't believe "nature" is wild, random or untamed, it acts very orderly, with more than a razor-sharp precision.

Search under "quantum physics", "superposition", "non-locality", "entanglement", and "chaos theory". View the research done and then get back to me on how specific and razor-sharp the universe is.

There is absolutely no reason to doubt that its laws were made deliberately.

Sure there is… lack of evidence of anything that could have deliberately created them.

Creationists don’t have to discredit evolution, upon close scrutiny it does that all by itself. Again and again.

You missed the point which is that Creationists believe in something for which there is zero evidence. Which is why their only method of argument is to attack Evolution. Problem is, even if Evolution was disproved that would not make Creationism correct.

That is non-sensical.

Exactly my point. Thanks.

~Raithere
 
I want to be the first to say: I give up. Jan is a lost cause, not unlike all the other religious people out there. She doesn't even have an education in this field. Where more teenagers have a grasp on the theory of evolution in america, i guess whatever part of europe she lives in doesn't teach them science.

JAN:

Obvioulsy you missed my bolded questions. Do you think you can be convinced of something? And Are you trying to convince me of something?

My guess is no and no, from what you have said before. I'm not going to argue any more. You fail to see facts, acknowlege sources, and make up vauge references to biblical and mythalogical mumbo jumbo. Thats great if you don't believe in the most unchanged of scientific theories, but you have a problem even accepting simple statements. Now I don't want you quoting this an asking questions, if you want to talk to me anymore, just answer my questions.
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
JAN:

[/i]Obvioulsy you missed my bolded questions. Do you think you can be convinced of something? And Are you trying to convince me of something?[/i]

I didn't miss your questions, i was hoping you would either go away, or try and conduct yourself in a better manner.

Yes i think i can be convinced of something.
No, i am not trying to convince you of something, we are (at i thought we were) having a discussion.

You fail to see facts,

Unlike you, eh?

quote:

As I have said before, there is no such thing as a fact......

acknowlege sources,

Example!

and make up vauge references to biblical and mythalogical mumbo jumbo.

It would seem vague to you, because you are a blockhead. :D

if you want to talk to me anymore, just answer my questions.

You poor fool! :(

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
I stopped reading posts after page 4...sorry.

Here are some topics for discussion:

If God is the creator, who created God (or how was he created, or how did He become the creator)?

Is there an end to the universe?
 
Re: I stopped reading posts after page 4...sorry.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
Here are some topics for discussion:

If God is the creator, who created God (or how was he created, or how did He become the creator)?

God was created from a god-almighty bang, which seemed to come from nowhere!
One day, he wanted something to do, so he went to the job-centre and got the creators post.

The real question is.....who created the job-centre? :D

I'm just pulling yer leg mate, hope you can see the amusing side. ;)

There are no scriptures which state He was the product of creation, in fact they all state that He is unborn and eternal, due to His purely spiritual nature.

Is there an end to the universe?

I would say so, as it is made up of matter, which six transformations:

1) It comes into being.

2) It grows (develops).

3) Produces some by-product.

4) Stays around for sometime.

5) Diminishes.

6) Dies.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: I stopped reading posts after page 4...sorry.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
...He is unborn and eternal, due to His purely spiritual nature.

Proof?

;)

~Raithere
 
Ok, Jan you answered my question. Just to tell you, the fact that you avoided my bolded question any many others is one reason it is hard to discuss things with you.

"Yes i think i can be convinced of something.
No, i am not trying to convince you of something, we are (at i thought we were) having a discussion. "

Ok, Yes is good. I AM trying to convince you of something or at least give food for thought. I think when you say no you probably mean that you would rather give ME food for thought as well.

I have nothing personal against you, sometimes you seem quite rational. But, like other religious people i've talked to, we do not see eye to eye on fundemental subjects. This makes it impossible to understand the others point of view. Personally, I think (more like know) i am right, but I do understand your position, in which you feel exactly as I do. We may never agree and I would like to stop arguing here; i can no longer stand it.

"You fail to see facts,
Unlike you, eh?
quote:
As I have said before, there is no such thing as a fact...... "

As a parting gift, I will tell you that when I use fact generally, I mean evidence. If you had thought about it, im sure you could have recognized the connotation. By reading what you think they mean and not their words, it makes you a stronger debator and also makes you seem smarter. If you repeatedly miss meanings and focus on words then you seem simple minded. You sometimes get the connotation and sometimes miss, as everyone does. But try to glean the meaning in the future.

I think I will leave this forum and only may interject a few short answers from here on out.
 
Originally posted by Raithere
So, I query, which theory would you posit instead?

The best scientific minds, past and present, cannot posit a worth while theory, what chance do i have?

Observed Instances of Speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020523075718.htm

It may be the skeptic in me, but i am still not convinced that all species came (evolved) from a single cell.

In some cases we can (see above reference).

Maybe i didn't see, can you point it out to me?

In other cases we only have a proven relation between particular species.

Such as?

Other relationships are based upon morphology.

]"I still think that to the unprefudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation"

(Corner, 1961, 97)

The appearance of the earliest fishes is "one of the most perxing problems in the study of vertebrate evolution"

)Stahl, 1974, 30)

The “punctuated equiliberum” model, may well be impressive, but it is not “scientific” as it cannot be stated in terms of direct experience.

You obviously know little about Science.

So what? You know little about science compared to people who know more than you, about science. At the end of the day, an experiment was set up to find out if nature is the original cause of life. The experiment was a failure, no where close. You don't have to be a genius to "know" that. :)

If science only "knew" what was directly observed we would, in fact, know very little.

So if Millers experiment was successful, you wouldn't have known where life originated from, by your own statement?

After all, when was the last time you observed gravity itself and not merely the effect of gravity?

Is not the effect of gravity, proof of gravity, in your face, at that moment?

And don't forget genetic evidence in addition to fossil.

What genetic evidence?

No. It's not.

Well, there are examples, the world over, where fossils have appeared in different orders of the so-called evolutionary time scale.

Religion, you mean as in utterly unfounded doctrine?

That would depend on which religion.
No, as in people believing in the "religion" of evolution, without question.

Do you have any sources so’s I may compare?

It's not hard to find online, but sure:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/press/life.html

So why was my source "seriously" outdated or mistaken?

He may have an argument towards his position but he definitely has not proven it in the scientific community.

But what do the SC have to go on, they themselves have no proof, just suppositions.

A failing of the educational system is hardly the fault of Science. But if you're pointing out that Science is poorly taught in most classrooms, I concur.

This is exactly my point, at least we are in agreement. :D

Maybe you should go buy a dictionary;

it would make sense to use the definition that fits the topic at hand:

So far so good!

Such specificity is helpful in communication.

I was refering to the overall meaning of "law".

This is not the case… such has been proven in various atomic and quantum experiments. The theory of relativity tends to bend this absolute view of natural law as well.

Everything has its own law, this is natures law.

Sure there is… lack of evidence of anything that could have deliberately created them.

So because you have no evidence of things, they don't exist?

You missed the point which is that Creationists believe in something for which there is zero evidence.

You mean, "they cannot provide evidence". It doesn't mean evidence is not there, or that what they experience isn't real.

Which is why their only method of argument is to attack Evolution.

I'm not attacking evolution, i am merely asking for evidence, which scientists pride themselves on.

Problem is, even if Evolution was disproved that would not make Creationism correct.

For something to be dis-proved, it would have to be proven. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The best scientific minds, past and present, cannot posit a worth while theory, what chance do i have?

What I'm attempting to draw out is whether you believe in Creation or not and if so, why and based upon what reasoning or evidence. I thought that rather obvious. You enjoy attacking evolution but do you have a alternative theory that bears up to the evidence?

It may be the skeptic in me, but i am still not convinced that all species came (evolved) from a single cell.

I always applaud skepticism. Thing is, as far as what I've seen, all your skepticism comes to bear upon that which you already do not believe rather than being used to analyze what you do believe. Of course, you simply may not showing us this.

"In other cases we only have a proven relation between particular species. "
Such as?

There are various ways of measuring it. There is genetic comparison. One can also look at the categorization of species… for instance one may note the number of similarities that mammals share. Look at Biology, Bio-chemistry, diet, dentition. If all life was created by God he has an extraordinarily limited imagination as far as varieties of life on earth.

So what? You know little about science compared to people who know more than you, about science.

Actually, for a layman, I know quite a lot about science. But I was referring more towards the fundamental principles which you have misrepresented either through ignorance or a deliberate intent to deceive. I prefer to assume you are simply ignorant of how science works and what these principles are than assume you'd be so disingenuous.

At the end of the day, an experiment was set up to find out if nature is the original cause of life. The experiment was a failure, no where close. You don't have to be a genius to "know" that.

No, that was not what the experiment was about. Miller was not trying to create life in a test tube. Any such broad and general experiment would contain far too many variables to really be considered scientific. Evolution required the entire Earth (and possibly space) and a billion years to evolve life… how daft would a scientist have to be to expect to reproduce the same results in a few days or even years? Miller was trying to discover whether some of the components (in this case amino acids) necessary for life could arise from purely natural processes. And he succeeded quite marvelously.

This is how science works. Someone posits a hypothesis... the hypothesis is then tested to see if it bears up to the evidence. Miller was trying to prove chemical evolution, specifically the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis which stated that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. He helped to prove this hypothesis by doing so experimentally.

Of course, this experiment was originally carried out in 1953 and since then there have been some objections as to the initial conditions and there have been refinements made to the theory. However, the basic premise that organic compounds can form naturally has never been disproved. In fact, all the organic chemicals necessary for life have been found to exist in space.

So if Millers experiment was successful, you wouldn't have known where life originated from, by your own statement?

Miller's experiment did succeed… as to the rest of your sentence it makes no sense.

Well, there are examples, the world over, where fossils have appeared in different orders of the so-called evolutionary time scale.

And every such instance has been found to be caused by various geologic disturbances… you know, earthquakes, floods, etc. Things get jumbled up sometimes, the Earth is not static. The Geologic column is overwhelmingly in order… which brings up an interesting questions: How would you explain the overwhelming pattern we find in the geologic column?

No, as in people believing in the "religion" of evolution, without question.

The principles of science do not allow for such attitudes to persist within. As for everyone else, I cannot speak as to their beliefs… many people believe things without question or understanding… one needs only look to religion or politics. Most people are intellectually lazy and prefer to have others do their thinking for them. Such people I have no respect for what-so-ever.

So why was my source "seriously" outdated or mistaken?

Do you really not see this? The finding that I cited utterly destroys the argument you quoted. The reason for the predominance of left-handed amino acids has been demonstrated not only in the laboratory but has been found to occur in nature. His ignorance and prejudice also becomes quite apparent in the comment "They can only be separated through highly advanced intelligence." something that has been demonstrably false since the 1930's. There are only a couple of reasonable explanations for the source being so wrong: 1) The quotation occured prior to the 1930's and this was simply not yet known. 2) The quotation is after the 1930's and the source was ignorant of the facts. 3) The source knows full well that the statement is a lie and is deliberately misinforming people.

I was refering to the overall meaning of "law".

That is known as a fallacy of definition, specifically of being too broad.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/broad.htm

Everything has its own law, this is natures law.

No. Everything has the same laws… this is physics.

So because you have no evidence of things, they don't exist?

No… but I don't run around claiming they're true… particularly when they lack not only evidence but even a logical argument or sound theoretical model. And lack of evidence is always a reason for doubt.

You mean, "they cannot provide evidence". It doesn't mean evidence is not there, or that what they experience isn't real.

No, I mean lack of evidence. If there was evidence someone would be able to provide it. Subjective experience is not evidence.

I'm not attacking evolution, i am merely asking for evidence, which scientists pride themselves on.

And you've been given evidence of evolution. You're only argument at this point consists of questioning certain particulars which, even if some are individually disproved, does not discredit evolution as a whole. You clearly demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the process and method of science… how it works and what it's about.

For something to be dis-proved, it would have to be proven.

Incorrect. For something to be disproved it needs only be posited. Many things have been disproved that were never proved… such as the notion that the moon is made of green cheese.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Raithere
What I'm attempting to draw out is whether you believe in Creation or not and if so, why and based upon what reasoning or evidence.

Yes, of course I believe in creation, my evidence…………. life comes from life.

You enjoy attacking evolution but do you have a alternative theory that bears up to the evidence?

I don’t enjoy it……well, just a bit, but there is no alternative theory other than evolution.

Thing is, as far as what I've seen, all your skepticism comes to bear upon that which you already do not believe rather than being used to analyze what you do believe

So much for your sight.

If all life was created by God he has an extraordinarily limited imagination as far as varieties of life on earth.

So, lets see, at the rate of the Miller experiment, we would see a single cell form about……………….err! never dude. :p

Miller was not trying to create life in a test tube.

Then what did he try to do then? :confused:
Why, as soon as you ask someone for evidence of life coming from non-life, do they point to Stanley Millers experiment?

Any such broad and general experiment would contain far too many variables to really be considered scientific.

Whether they are broad and general, is a matter of opinion, but you have very nicely summed up my argument. Thanx. :)

…..how daft would a scientist have to be to expect to reproduce the same results in a few days or even years?

I would say, extemely.

Miller was trying to discover whether some of the components (in this case amino acids) necessary for life could arise from purely natural processes. And he succeeded quite marvelously.

Yeah right! In an interview with Miller, an author by the name of John Horgan reported that after Miller completed his 1953 experiment, he...

...dedicated himself to the search for the secret of life.

This, to me says two things, 1) his first experiment failed, “2) he is continuing his study.

Hogan goes on to say…

He developed a reputation as both a rigorous experimentalist and a bit of a curmudgeon…

Hmmmm, sounds like sour grapes.

....he fretted that his field still had a reputation as a fringe discipline, not worthy of serious pursuit....

He’s getting warmer.

Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as "nonsense" or "paper chemistry."

Hmmmmm!!!!!

He was so contemptuous of some hypothesis that, when I asked his opinion of them, he merely shook his head, sighed deeply, and snickered--as if overcome by the folly of humanity.

And to close…

Miller acknowledged that scientists may never know precisely where and when life emerged. "We’re trying to discuss a historical event, which is very different from the usual kind of science, and so criteria and methods are very different," he remarked... (Horgan, 1996, p. 139). From the book “The end of science”.

He helped to prove this hypothesis by doing so experimentally.

He simply created the condition, which produced organic junk, as he himself stated, he doesn’t know the origin of life.

In fact, all the organic chemicals necessary for life have been found to exist in space.

Maybe so, but what is “life.”

And every such instance has been found to be caused by various geologic disturbances…

Nonsence!
There are thousands of square miles of formations all over the world in which the order of the layers contradicts the theory of evolution, America, Europe, 2 in Scotland, loads in the Alps, Sweden, N. Africa, Asia Minor, and the Himalayas.

The Geologic column is overwhelmingly in order… which brings up an interesting questions: How would you explain the overwhelming pattern we find in the geologic column?

Please rephrase the question.

The principles of science do not allow for such attitudes to persist within.

That is why evolution of the species (EOTS) is not a scientific concept.

His ignorance and prejudice also becomes quite apparent in the comment "They can only be separated through highly advanced intelligence."

So you posited circularly polarized light as the separating agent.

Quote:

This can destroy one form more readily than another. However, because the light also destroys the ‘right’ form, this method would not produce the necessary 100% homochirality required for life.

Dr. Jeremy Bailey, the author of the “Science” clip you gave me admits……that he hasn't discovered the required circularly polarised ultraviolet light nor any evidence that amino acids are produced in nebulae. Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, and an expert on chirality, is sceptical. He said, 'It's just a series of maybe steps. To me, that makes the whole thing a big maybe.'7 And even if we grant this wishful thinking, the chemistry would produce a mere 5–10 % excess.7

something that has been demonstrably false since the 1930's.

????

Subjective experience is not evidence.

Subjective experience does not require physical evidence. If I experience something, then why would I need proof.

And you've been given evidence of evolution.

I’ve been given a load of hooey, supposition and wishful thinking, I hardly regard that as evidence.

You're only argument at this point consists of questioning certain particulars which, even if some are individually disproved, does not discredit evolution as a whole.

Yes it does.

You clearly demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the process and method of science… how it works and what it's about.

You clearly demonstrate the fundamental misunderstanding of what life is and how it could possibly have come about, but you don’t see me crying about it. Lighten up will ya! :D:p:bugeye:

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top