Debating creationists

Robittybob1 said:
The people here are only wanting to kick the "Young Earth Creationists" around. I can't imagine this thread lasting more than 5 minutes, for there is nothing to say after a while.
:)
Click to expand...

People here kick around YEC coz its been disproven too often. But I am willing to know ur point of view. I think protolife emerged from simple enzyme like chemicals to prion like and up the chain from pro to eukaryotes and to man like:
Prion > Rna virus > Viruses > Bacteria > Eukaryotic single cells > Mulicell collonies > simple multicell organisms > sea worms and mollusks > fishes > amphibians > reptiles > mammals > primates > apes > great apes > homo > modern man.

No god needed, coz of occam's razor.
 
leopold said:
and how are you going to do that? words?
Click to expand...

NO, that's for woosies. I'm gonna incarnate the devil using the magic in the god particle. (Whatever that is).

In you!

Just foolin. ....NOT!. ...No really, I am!!! (I can't really do that, Leopold, since I'm only a lower demon, aka smart ass, etc.)

Maybe you'd care to take up one or two of the arguments using Science.?

Go ahead. Make my day. (Just kidding, everybody get a grip.) :cool:
 
aaqucnaona said:
People here kick around YEC coz its been disproven too often.
Click to expand...

I get a kick out Creationist arguments about radioactive dating precision, then they throw out a number for the age of the Earth which is nearly 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the age determined by process that is well within 1 order order of magnitude.
 
Aqueous Id said:
I get a kick out Creationist arguments about radioactive dating precision, then they throw out a number for the age of the Earth which is nearly 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the age determined by process that is well within 1 order order of magnitude.
Click to expand...
Well I'm a Christian and a scientist so I could see a problem with the YEC. So I have the ambition to find the solution to the dilema of how to align the two together. So I believe in God, and I understand evolution so the problem is where do the two meet.
So I am going into the research with an open slate no preconceived ideas other than I have told you.:)
 
aaqucnaona said:
People here kick around YEC coz its been disproven too often. But I am willing to know ur point of view. I think protolife emerged from simple enzyme like chemicals to prion like and up the chain from pro to eukaryotes and to man like:
Prion > Rna virus > Viruses > Bacteria > Eukaryotic single cells > Mulicell collonies > simple multicell organisms > sea worms and mollusks > fishes > amphibians > reptiles > mammals > primates > apes > great apes > homo > modern man.

No god needed, coz of occam's razor.
Click to expand...
Are you teachable? You have already been advised to take out Prion, RNA viruses and Viruses out of that list.
Those things need other life forms to work, so I doubt if they are the first life forms.
The other thing is you need to know how to apply Occam's Razor properly.:)
 
Robittybob1 said:
Are you teachable? You have already been advised to take out Prion, RNA viruses and Viruses out of that list.
Those things need other life forms to work, so I doubt if they are the first life forms.
The other thing is you need to know how to apply Occam's Razor properly.:)
Click to expand...

I mean prion like life forms not the prions themselves. Same 4 Rna viruses and viruses. I know they arent defined as living. I am just professing an idea. I want to know what other perspectives on abiogenesis are, thats why I am in this discussion.
And whats wrong with my application of occam? Dis I miss something or some bias I have, tell me, I wanna know.
 
aaqucnaona said:
I mean prion like life forms not the prions themselves. Same 4 Rna viruses and viruses. I know they arent defined as living. I am just professing an idea. I want to know what other perspectives on abiogenesis are, thats why I am in this discussion.
And whats wrong with my application of occam? Dis I miss something or some bias I have, tell me, I wanna know.
Click to expand...
Read about Occam's razor on Wikipedia. It clearly states you can't use it like you were doing. You reply with the quote as to whether it can be used to decide between two theories?:)
Very little is known about abiogenesis, but from a gut feeling, after a long period of thinking about it, I will say it didn't happen on planet Earth.:)
 
Arioch said:
@Rob --

Fortunately science doesn't really pay attention to "gut feelings".
Click to expand...
I don't say "gut feeling" is evidence, but it gives me courage to start looking beyond the Earth. So when I first read about panspermia this opened up a new possibility.
So don't you have gut feelings regarding where life started? For you surely haven't got proof or evidence. You might think you know but when you really look in to it, it is all hypothesis at this stage.:)
 
Robittybob1 said:
Read about Occam's razor on Wikipedia. It clearly states you can't use it like you were doing. You reply with the quote as to whether it can be used to decide between two theories?:)
Very little is known about abiogenesis, but from a gut feeling, after a long period of thinking about it, I will say it didn't happen on planet Earth.:)
Click to expand...

Go just a little past abiogenesis to the oldest fossils. Start there. At that point you will be drawn into an apparent reality that is equally disturbing to (most, may be not you) Creationists: atmosphere building. The air wasn't created. Nor designed by intelligence. It was merely built by bacteria.
 
Aqueous Id said:
Go just a little past abiogenesis to the oldest fossils. Start there. At that point you will be drawn into an apparent reality that is equally disturbing to (most, may be not you) Creationists: atmosphere building. The air wasn't created. Nor designed by intelligence. It was merely built by bacteria.
Click to expand...
I had know about that for years.:)
 
Aqueous Id said:
Go just a little past abiogenesis to the oldest fossils. Start there. At that point you will be drawn into an apparent reality that is equally disturbing to (most, may be not you) Creationists: atmosphere building. The air wasn't created. Nor designed by intelligence. It was merely built by bacteria.
Click to expand...

I would like you describe How the anaerobic bacteria nourished itself were did got it's raw material for reproduction specially ribose for the RNA or deoxyribose for DNA. Keep in mind the element most abundant on the crust is oxygen that is excluding the oxygen in the atmosphere ( check me out )
 
arauca said:
But scientist do a lot of hand waving , and take science as if they know it all.
Click to expand...

Only when they're doing the pop-culture glamourisation of science.
Not when they're doing actual science.
 
arauca said:
I would like you describe How the anaerobic bacteria nourished itself were did got it's raw material for reproduction specially ribose for the RNA or deoxyribose for DNA. Keep in mind the element most abundant on the crust is oxygen that is excluding the oxygen in the atmosphere ( check me out )
Click to expand...

By carbon and nitrogen fixation, under energetic sources then present - solar, geothermal and chemical sources.

Water-related sediments have been found dating from as early as 3.8 billion years ago. About 3.4 billion years ago, nitrogen was the major part of the then stable "second atmosphere". An influence of life has to be taken into account rather soon in the history of the atmosphere, since hints of early life forms are to be found as early as 3.5 billion years ago.

The Precambrian builds the oxygenated atmosphere in the Great Oxygenation Event:

420px-Oxygenation-atm-2.svg.png


When evolving life forms developed photosynthesis, molecular oxygen began to be produced in large quantities, causing an ecological crisis sometimes called the oxygen catastrophe. The oxygen was immediately tied up in chemical reactions, primarily with iron, until the supply of oxidizable surfaces ran out. After that the modern high-oxygen atmosphere developed. Older rocks contain massive banded iron formations that were apparently laid down as iron and oxygen first combined.

In a 2011 review of the evidence, Thomas Čech suggests that multiple self-replicating molecular systems probably preceded RNA. Proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities came about only after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization, although amino acids and short peptides were present in the earlier mixtures.
 
Well I'm a Christian and a scientist so I could see a problem with the YEC. So I have the ambition to find the solution to the dilema of how to align the two together. So I believe in God, and I understand evolution so the problem is where do the two meet.
So I am going into the research with an open slate no preconceived ideas other than I have told you.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what you mean by "aligning" the two. Can you find a way to reconcile science with Biblical literalism? No. Can you accept the facts of science (the observations we make) as established, and work from there? Sure. The Dali Lama has remarked that "Where Buddhism and science disagree, Buddhism must change."
 
@Robbitybob, re:

RichW9090 said:
The Dali Lama has remarked that "Where Buddhism and science disagree, Buddhism must change."
Click to expand...

Note also:

The Catholic Church has adjusted its dogma over the ages. Ten years after Darwin published, Pope Pius IX proclaimed that religion and reason can not be at odds. In 1950 Pope Pius XII extended this to include the theory of evolution. In 1996 John Paul II declared that the theory was more than a hypothesis and affirmed that the Church must defer to science. The current Pope, Benedict XVI has elaborated that the standard models for the origin of the universe and of life including the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution, are matters of science that on best evidence appear to be true and are not in conflict with Church teachings.

The current position is that, in matters beyond the scope of science, such as the existence of a soul created by God, the Church maintains that science can not conflict with religion.

Some prominent Catholic officials have insisted that Creationism and Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classrooms, but that they should be restricted to appropriate curricula such as religion.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
 
Aqueous [I said:
When evolving life forms developed photosynthesis, molecular oxygen began to be produced in large quantities, causing an ecological crisis sometimes called the oxygen catastrophe. The oxygen was immediately tied up in chemical reactions, primarily with iron, until the supply of oxidizable surfaces ran out. After that the modern high-oxygen atmosphere developed. Older rocks contain massive banded iron formations that were apparently laid down as iron and oxygen first combined.[/I]

No problem with the paragraph

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In a 2011 review of the evidence, Thomas Čech suggests that multiple self-replicating molecular systems probably preceded RNA. Proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities came about only after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization, although amino acids and short peptides were present in the earlier mixtures.
Click to expand...


" self replicating molecular system PROBABLE proceeded RNA"
To my understanding RNA is not very stable if it does not have a cover ( polymer ) " in order to have self folding polymer RNA was necessary "
Is it ? to have RNA you need a DNA and tRNA will pick up the amino acid and take them to a Reticuilom or Ribosome , That is the process to make proteine . Did we have that , If we had it , how did we get it . and so we ho into a circle. I think we need much more information before we invoke primordial soup.
I rather think there was life before us and perhaps some one brought it from other place. God knows, hopefully He will lead us to the understanding .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top