What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: borntowatch

How hilarious that you try to turn it all around and put the onus on other posters once again to make your own point for you in contravention to how a debate or dialogue normally works.

Your link attempting to refute the Miller-Urey experiment is based on incorrect and extremely outdated information.it makes claims that simply are not true. The fact of the matter is that in life, naturally, there are 20 amino acids that occur, the Miller-Urey experiment produced in excess of what occurs naturally, well over 20.

Its widely accepted and understood at this point that the atmospheric conditions thought to have occurred on the early Earth by Urey and Miller and then used as the basis for the initial experiment were incorrect. Te Methane based atmosphere is one of the less likely scenarios and one based on hydrogen and sulfides as a result of massive volcanic eruptions is a far more likely scenario. Additional experiments utilizing different conditions have all produced simple precursors to life in varying degrees over the past 60 years. Wat this shows us is that not only is this process a distinct possibility but that the Erth isn't as special as some people would want to believe and that life is able to form in varying conditions under various atmospheric conditions. The implications of this are actually rather far reaching and show us that types of non terrestrial life are possible not just thought the cosmos but in our own backyard within our own solar system. To me that's exciting, to you it's a fraud based on falsified data because it defies your religious inclinations. That's too bad.

You keep being offended at being referred to as ignorant and closed minded. But it is the truth unfortunately. People who work in varying scientific disciplines follow the data and evidence. If the evidence ever turned out that we were wrong abut something, we then account for that and revise what we think. That includes the possibility of all sorts of deities, including the Judeo-Christian god. Are you that willing to admit you could be wrong or accept evidence tat is contrary to your worldview and paradigms? Highly unlikely, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't actually know you. Your stubborn unwillingness to look at actual scientific data or peer reviewed papers is far more arrogant than anything myself, Barcs or Krazyshot have stated because we are willing to accept what the evidence says whereas you are only interested in maintaining your own worldview and are completely unwilling to accept anything contradictory to that view point.

I'm glad you actually attempted to show a citation but once again you demonstrate that you don't even understand the basics of the science utilized in the experiment so you fell for something that purported to support your point of view

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

How hilarious that you try to turn it all around and put the onus on other posters once again to make your own point for you in contravention to how a debate or dialogue normally works.

Your link attempting to refute the Miller-Urey experiment is based on incorrect and extremely outdated information.it makes claims that simply are not true. The fact of the matter is that in life, naturally, there are 20 amino acids that occur, the Miller-Urey experiment produced in excess of what occurs naturally, well over 20.

Its widely accepted and understood at this point that the atmospheric conditions thought to have occurred on the early Earth by Urey and Miller and then used as the basis for the initial experiment were incorrect. Te Methane based atmosphere is one of the less likely scenarios and one based on hydrogen and sulfides as a result of massive volcanic eruptions is a far more likely scenario. Additional experiments utilizing different conditions have all produced simple precursors to life in varying degrees over the past 60 years. Wat this shows us is that not only is this process a distinct possibility but that the Erth isn't as special as some people would want to believe and that life is able to form in varying conditions under various atmospheric conditions. The implications of this are actually rather far reaching and show us that types of non terrestrial life are possible not just thought the cosmos but in our own backyard within our own solar system. To me that's exciting, to you it's a fraud based on falsified data because it defies your religious inclinations. That's too bad.

You keep being offended at being referred to as ignorant and closed minded. But it is the truth unfortunately. People who work in varying scientific disciplines follow the data and evidence. If the evidence ever turned out that we were wrong abut something, we then account for that and revise what we think. That includes the possibility of all sorts of deities, including the Judeo-Christian god. Are you that willing to admit you could be wrong or accept evidence tat is contrary to your worldview and paradigms? Highly unlikely, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't actually know you. Your stubborn unwillingness to look at actual scientific data or peer reviewed papers is far more arrogant than anything myself, Barcs or Krazyshot have stated because we are willing to accept what the evidence says whereas you are only interested in maintaining your own worldview and are completely unwilling to accept anything contradictory to that view point.

I'm glad you actually attempted to show a citation but once again you demonstrate that you don't even understand the basics of the science utilized in the experiment so you fell for something that purported to support your point of view

No, see, I am not trying to convert you to evolution, as clearly explained again and again and again, I accept you believe in evolution.
From my position you are trying to explain why you accept evolution. I think its dumb.
So yes, the onus is on you, because you choose to be here, you seem to want to convert me.

The Miller Uray experiment produced excess aminos, so what?
I know, you have a theory that suits your theory, doesnt mean anything. Just suits your chosen belief. What does it prove, nothing. Possibly something but scientifically squat, unless of course you have faith that it does prove something, to you.

You keep saying its the truth then pepper your statements with words such as, believed, widely accepted and understood, used as the basis of, and possibility. Sell it to some one else, I am not buying, its a guess, best guess but a guess none the less.

And again, you say I am offended at being called names, yet here I am. I am not offended, I expect to be derided (I have a bible quote about being called names as a good thing, want to read it?)

Now you say I am unwilling to accept evolution as a Christian, please read slowly and consider what I say.
I know Christians who accept evolution, they are Intelligent Design proponents, now do you understand what I have said?
If I can accept they are Christians, I can accept Christians can believe in evolution, now do you understand what I have said?
Simply for you, I can accept that Christians can work with evolution, believing in evolution does not make a person a non Christian.
So, in such a circumstance I do not have an issue with accepting evolution, I dont accept it because its a stupid belief.
Do you understand that, any questions, need clarification?

Now I didnt show a citation, I took a big stick and whacked you on the nose with it.
You stand by your secular proofs and deny anything spiritual, demand I do the same.
Well I wont, I will take your stance, I will only accept any evidence from those that are anti secular and deny anything that questions my spiritual view, deny anything that is secular. Same as atheists do, just different.
See you want to play the game, yes its a game, we play by my rules, I am no longer playing by your rules, rules made up to give secularists the advantage.
I deny your biological evolutionary scientists as loons and crackpots, as you deny the bible.

See the scientific data that I look at comes with theory, your theory, secular theory, its not logical, I cant come to the same reasoned outcome as them, I am left with more questions that answers.
Formaldehyde and cyanide are not building blocks for life. So you fell for something that purported to support your point of view

Sadly you still dont get it, the whole thread is pointless because of people just like you.

You have to win, you have to exercise your vast intellect to feel superior.
This thread wasnt designed to do that, it was made to mock people like you.

If you cant accept I have a different opinion, for my own reasons,

a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

a reply to: borntowatch

Natural Selection and Evolution
When discussing natural selection as a possible mechanism for evolution, it is important to define both terms. Evolutionists and biblical creationists view these terms differently, but it comes down to how we interpret the evidence in light of our foundation. Do we view natural selection using God’s Word as our foundation, or do we use man’s truth as our foundation?

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
I honestly believe that this is what the bible speaks of when it talks about the Deception which will be spread in the end times. Even the elect and the intelligent among us have been fooled by theses lies.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
This is what I have learned as Speciation. This explains where we get the different species of animals from. This also explains how the Ark which Noah built could hold all Kinds of animals, in not having to hold all species.


AIG has some more information on the subject.
answersingenesis.org...

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

I dont know, I didnt bring it up.

My guess is it has something to do with abiogenesis, guessing the evidence assumed by Miller Uray is enough to prove abiogenesis to some.
I am just guessing

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

Absolutely nothing, but borntowatch thinks that the theory of evolution includes anything that ever changes over time, and thinks that according to science, evolution is this magic all encompassing process applies to everything that ever developed in the universe. He's essentially trying to debate materialism as a whole, rather than evolution. He just threw the word "evolution" in the title to because the biological theory of evolution makes him upset inside.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

Absolutely nothing, but borntowatch thinks that the theory of evolution includes anything that ever changes over time, and thinks that according to science, evolution is this magic all encompassing process applies to everything that ever developed in the universe. He's essentially trying to debate materialism as a whole, rather than evolution. He just threw the word "evolution" in the title to because the biological theory of evolution makes him upset inside.

Its sad you are qualifying my comments to suit your argument
Its baseless dishonest and wrong
My OP does not address The Theory of Evolution as a single subject, it addresses evolution
Maybe you should re read the op again.

I am talking about evolution, including the theory of evolution, including is the operable word.
I am listing it with OTHER kinds of evolution and explaining why I see a link and why I consider all the links to be important and necessary in the chain.

You seem some what flabbergasted so have to decide what you want me to be saying, so you can win the argument.

The biological evolution theory is in no way any more or less important to me than any of the other kinds of evolution listed.
take any type of evolution away and biological evolution will collapse

Its sad barcs that you have to address me and not the topic, I guess a testament to your inability to prove your belief.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

It doesn't. This thread is a Gish Gallop and probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

I dont know, I didnt bring it up.

My guess is it has something to do with abiogenesis, guessing the evidence assumed by Miller Uray is enough to prove abiogenesis to some.
I am just guessing

OK -- Then what does the Theory of Evolution have to do with abiogenesis?

Life did not "evolve" from non-living material (at least not using the precise definition of that word under standard model of the Theory of Evolution). The Theory of Evolution does not really concern itself with how life began in the first place.

a reply to: borntowatch

My guess is it has something to do with abiogenesis,

Correct.

guessing the evidence assumed by Miller Uray is enough to prove abiogenesis to some

What does "the evidence assumed" mean? They presented evidence, others have built upon the evidence over the last half century (plus some change). It doesn't carry the same weight as modern evolutionary synthesis, hence it's just a hypothesis at this stage. I've never heard anyone claim that the Miller-Urey experiment, or even any of the experiments in the same field that have taken place since the original, "prove" abiogenesis. But the evidence is building that the concept is a sound one.

I am just guessing

Also correct.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

Absolutely nothing, but borntowatch thinks that the theory of evolution includes anything that ever changes over time, and thinks that according to science, evolution is this magic all encompassing process applies to everything that ever developed in the universe. He's essentially trying to debate materialism as a whole, rather than evolution. He just threw the word "evolution" in the title to because the biological theory of evolution makes him upset inside.

Its sad you are qualifying my comments to suit your argument
Its baseless dishonest and wrong
My OP does not address The Theory of Evolution as a single subject, it addresses evolution
Maybe you should re read the op again.

I am talking about evolution, including the theory of evolution, including is the operable word.
I am listing it with OTHER kinds of evolution and explaining why I see a link and why I consider all the links to be important and necessary in the chain.

You seem some what flabbergasted so have to decide what you want me to be saying, so you can win the argument.

The biological evolution theory is in no way any more or less important to me than any of the other kinds of evolution listed.
take any type of evolution away and biological evolution will collapse

Its sad barcs that you have to address me and not the topic, I guess a testament to your inability to prove your belief.

I addressed the topic like 20 pages ago. I broke down each one with links. You denied it and didn't offer a single counterpoint beyond misunderstandings of evolution. If you refuse to offer valid counterpoints, what is the point of trying to debate this in the first place?

The things you mentioned above are in relation to materialism NOT evolution. There aren't "kinds of evolution" in science. There is one evolution. Biological evolution. Every other thing you mentioned uses a completely different definition of evolution, which is the layman's term for "change over time". This is not a scientific definition, so using this to debate science is intellectually dishonest as you are using the fallacy of equivocation with the meanings of the terms.

I asked to you define evolution, so we can better understand your argument but you refused. Is that my fault? You refuse to have any meaningful conversation on the topic. We answer your concerns, you deny the answers. There's nothing else to talk about.

And the fact that you bumped a thread of mine from 2008 to tell me I'm an egomaniac and hate creationists speaks volumes of your intentions here. You are preaching, you are not interested in debating or having any type of rational conversation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

It doesn't. This thread is a Gish Gallop and probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

Is gish gallop a word you just learned and you want to let everyone know you have developed your vocabulary, thats good to see.
We get it, you dont like the thread, so why not just run along.
You only need to complain once, not harp on

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

Absolutely nothing, but borntowatch thinks that the theory of evolution includes anything that ever changes over time, and thinks that according to science, evolution is this magic all encompassing process applies to everything that ever developed in the universe. He's essentially trying to debate materialism as a whole, rather than evolution. He just threw the word "evolution" in the title to because the biological theory of evolution makes him upset inside.

Its sad you are qualifying my comments to suit your argument
Its baseless dishonest and wrong
My OP does not address The Theory of Evolution as a single subject, it addresses evolution
Maybe you should re read the op again.

I am talking about evolution, including the theory of evolution, including is the operable word.
I am listing it with OTHER kinds of evolution and explaining why I see a link and why I consider all the links to be important and necessary in the chain.

You seem some what flabbergasted so have to decide what you want me to be saying, so you can win the argument.

The biological evolution theory is in no way any more or less important to me than any of the other kinds of evolution listed.
take any type of evolution away and biological evolution will collapse

Its sad barcs that you have to address me and not the topic, I guess a testament to your inability to prove your belief.

I addressed the topic like 20 pages ago. I broke down each one with links. You denied it and didn't offer a single counterpoint beyond misunderstandings of evolution. If you refuse to offer valid counterpoints, what is the point of trying to debate this in the first place?

The things you mentioned above are in relation to materialism NOT evolution. There aren't "kinds of evolution" in science. There is one evolution. Biological evolution. Every other thing you mentioned uses a completely different definition of evolution, which is the layman's term for "change over time". This is not a scientific definition, so using this to debate science is intellectually dishonest as you are using the fallacy of equivocation with the meanings of the terms.

I asked to you define evolution, so we can better understand your argument but you refused. Is that my fault? You refuse to have any meaningful conversation on the topic. We answer your concerns, you deny the answers. There's nothing else to talk about.

And the fact that you bumped a thread of mine from 2008 to tell me I'm an egomaniac and hate creationists speaks volumes of your intentions here. You are preaching, you are not interested in debating or having any type of rational conversation.

Barcs I think you might have a few Narcissistic tendancys

It is irrelevant if you think I am right or wrong, I think that the theory of evolution stands on the other theorys of evolution aforementioned.
I get that you and science dont think they are linked
Irrespective, I see a link

For me to accept the TOE, I need evidence that the other evolutions as described are supported.

Clearly by this stage you should have noted that your arguments, facts and beliefs are not enough to change my mind, something I have not denied.

The opening post was not an invitation to an argument, just a statement explaining why I dont accept the TOE as it stands, I dont think the TOE can stand alone in this universal system

I bumped your thread to show at some stage you accepted that you felt you were missing something, that to be complete you had to change. That you personally wanted to change something in your life to make it better.

This is it, this is where you can start. Just accept that I am wrong, just say, "He is wrong, probably wants to be wrong, I am fine with that, he can choose what suits him, sounds happy" and move along.

You want to clarify, control and win.

Thats how I feel towards you, I understand your position, agree to disagree and move on.
I am not here to win you over or preach,be converted or preached at by you.
I just set out my position, explained my reasoning.
Its funny, you cant accept it, have to win, have to force your view.

Sadly for you, you dont validate my life, winning your appreciation and acceptance is invalid to me.
I care to such a point that I would like to have people understand my position, not accept it fine, just understand.

I can accept others beliefs in evolution, accept them, you cant do that to creationists
Think about that

I will move along

originally posted by: mikefougnie


5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
This is what I have learned as Speciation. This explains where we get the different species of animals from. This also explains how the Ark which Noah built could hold all Kinds of animals, in not having to hold all species.

The term macro evolution is merely a taxonomic term that gets misrepresented on this topic quite often

This question is directed at borntowatch:

What evidence convinced you to believe what you believe? At what age did you determine that evolution is not valid and what evidence led you to that decision?

I have no desire to convert you or convince you of anything, only to better understand your beliefs and your position on the matter.

originally posted by: Answer
This question is directed at borntowatch:

What evidence convinced you to believe what you believe? At what age did you determine that evolution is not valid and what evidence led you to that decision?

I have no desire to convert you or convince you of anything, only to better understand your beliefs and your position on the matter.

The realisation that I didnt accept evolution? I guess when I was around my mid thirties, maybe even later.

What evidence convinced me.
The lack of evidence, then the understanding that a code needs to be written and communicated between cells.
The whole world is a code, a language, a pattern

That a DNA code is similar to a computer code and that needed to be created

Warning its a Christian site so wont meet your expectations.
www.freechristianteaching.org...

Then the more I searched the more I disbelieved in any type of evolution, I came away with more questions than answers.
Not one piece of evidence, but millions of pieces.

I could ask a similar question to you but it would be pointless, I know your answer, I can see your logic, I wont deny that what you believe makes some sense.
I just dont see it as fact, something completed

a reply to: borntowatch

That a DNA code is similar to a computer code and that needed to be created

Not really similar. Computer code is a set of algorithms.

DNA is not a set of algorithms, it is a molecule which produces various proteins. DNA evolved, just as life evolved.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: borntowatch

That a DNA code is similar to a computer code and that needed to be created

Not really similar. Computer code is a set of algorithms.

DNA is not a set of algorithms, it is a molecule which produces various proteins. DNA evolved, just as life evolved.

No very true they are not the same, but you could imagine, no doubt, one evolving in to another given time and the right circumstances.
I would expect
You know an inanimate over time becoming animate for no apparent reason

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: borntowatch
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the past 43 pages, but what does the Miller-Urey Experiment have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

It doesn't. This thread is a Gish Gallop and probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

Is gish gallop a word you just learned and you want to let everyone know you have developed your vocabulary, thats good to see.
We get it, you dont like the thread, so why not just run along.
You only need to complain once, not harp on

Does it make you upset that I won't let that slide? It must because of this post. Oh well, as long as this thread exists and stays active, I won't let people forget. It is after all a travesty and VERY ignorant of reality.

originally posted by: borntowatch

You know an inanimate over time becoming animate for no apparent reason

Nobody as a good working theory as to how inanimate material became life, although there have been a few experiments that show under certain conditions that molecules can show signs of self-organization and self-replication.

Primordial RNA Replication and Applications in PCR Technology