Evolution: Anyone care to Fill in the Huge Blank?

I played nice for as long as I could! The Evolutionist get to ignore the obvious flaws in their point of view. However they insist that the Creationist (like me) prove Every detail of our position. The last thead I read, the writer didn't even want anyone to point out his flaws in logic! If you all want a Real Scientific discussion, you have to consider all the facts, not just the ones you like!

Now, Creationism explains how and why life exists. It has a beginning point! Evolution doesn't, It starts with the assumption the life was always there. Do we really need to prove what doesn't make sense here? Sciencs has proven that the OLDEST fossil of a living orginism is ONLY a couple Billion years old! Even the micoorganisms we know of have an approxamate age. It is a matter of fact that nothing is of infinte age. Every living orginism or fossalized orginsm has a difinitive age to it. Ok, It is proven that for evolution to be possible, orginisms need to breed and create new living orginisms!

Any of the brilliant Darwinist care to tell me where the first living Orginism came from?

Do Not even start with the whining and the cheap shots! Please stick stirctly to the question I've asked.

I'll give it a shot. In the beginning, the earth was a hot and violent place. Electric storms, volcanic eruptions, high methane content in the air, quakes, asteroids and comets. It was just an all around hospitable place. Then in some soupy pool of hot mineral water, some lightening struck right in the middle. The reaction of the mineral water and electricity, backed by the methane components in the atmosphere, created a new molecule. An Amino Acid. That is your first instance of how life may have begun.

I honestly believe in Evolution. I know there are many flaws in it, but there is more evidence of evolution than creationism. HOWEVER, before I get hacked to death for saying God didnt do it, let me just say that I think God DID do it. I look at it like this. Got got bored and started to play with his chemistry set to see what he could come up with.

BUT, the process that life has come from is natural and scientifically explainable. I just think God sent the lightening bolt that started the chemical reaction for life



[edit on 7/11/05 by Kidfinger]

Lets see how you go.

I find it ironic that you've already accused people of picking and choosing facts.. yet you obviously haven't even researched the facts yourself.. there is no assumption that life has always existed.. that is your own assumption. All evolution requires is one single living cell to come into existence.

I don't understand this.. you are arguing that the 'hole' in evolution has no begginning.. yet no doubt the answer you are driving at is 'god' which apparently has no begginning.. but you've already said that 'It is a matter of fact that nothing is of infinte age'.. by this logic this includes a deity.

For the record.. enviroment created life.. to say it wouldn't of had the power would be to say it wouldn't have the power to sustain us now.

Firstly, a scientist is expected to demonstrate all the details, so if creationism is supposed to be looked upon as authoratively as evolution, then yes, it'd better demonstrate that the majority of its statements are correct. But more importantly that what should happen, is what is actually requested, and the biggest request that evolutionists have for creationists is that, rather than demonstrate every 'detail', that they demonstrate any part of 'creationism'.




Correct. Of course,it does so by saying, literally, 'God did it', which, while technically an 'explanation', isn't much of one.


This is hardly a problem tho. Evolution is a theory about how organisms change over time. Obviously that theory considers what happens with organisms, not how they may have arisen from non-life in the distant past. Abiogenesis deals with the origins of life, and its simply a completely seperate theory from evolution. Its not like in phyiscs where physicists try to explain things on one level (of say matter and energy) and then try to get to a 'more fundamental level' (just as quarks and sub-atmoic particles) in an attempt to explain how those other things arose and operate. The science that deals with how life arose is distinct from the science that deals with how life operates. Thats simply how it is, its not a 'flaw' of evolution.




Perhaps instead you should try to study the topic in a little more detail, before asking such a ridiculous question. And the question itself is at least one that modern biology and the people researching abiogenesis (not evolution of already existant organisms) are attempting to answer, whereas so called 'creation scientists' merely say 'In the bible it says god made life. Period." How in the world is that supposed to be an answer?

And if creationism is supposed to be a valid scientific theory, well whats the theory of creationism then?


You do realize that all you've done in this post is whine that creationism is treated unfairly and made cheap shots at evolution, criticizing it for a field of science it doesn't even claim to study?

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Nygdan]

Interesting thing, creation vs. evolution. They both seem to require a great deal of faith, . Evolutionists must believe there is empirical evidence for "evolution" having-
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

mmmmm possible. And I guess a big wind could blow through a junkyard and assemble a 747. Is that really more believable than the idea of intelligent creation, regardless of your religious perspective? I sure don't know which (if either) is correct. But I think anyone completely rejecting the possibility of intelligent creation is not paying attention.

yeahright...

As Nygdan pointed out, evolution deals with the way life changes and adapts to environment AFTER it came into existence, which nullifies your 1st three points.

As to points 4 and 5. Evolution is the theory and evolutionary scientists are in the business of looking for both phsyical and empirical evidence to support the theory.

That is my point, you need to have adleast one cell for a Starting Point! How did this "Cell" come into existance? It had to come from somewhere! Something Can't come from nothing!


I don't understand this.. you are arguing that the 'hole' in evolution has no begginning.. yet no doubt the answer you are driving at is 'god' which apparently has no begginning.. but you've already said that 'It is a matter of fact that nothing is of infinte age'.. by this logic this includes a deity.

You're entitled. For me, I'm not able to separate the issues intellectually. I believe one leads to the other. Either the universe was created by design and we're no accident, or not. Just food for thought in case you've never seen this- "Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation "- www.halos.com...

Energy and a prehistoric atmosphere aren't 'nothing'.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by riley]

Am I the only one who finds it highly amusing and supremely ironic that the best argument this guy can up with against evolution is that 'something can't come from nothing'?

Well, I'm no Darwinist. And I'll leave my evaluation as to the appended adjective to the members of this board (among others).

I think that it has been shown statistically that while Darwin had it right in general, the particulars of random mutation and survival of the fittest can not result in the amount of variation that we see today and in the fossil record. To me this means merely that there must be some other driver(s) of evolution operating in conjunction with these two.

Any strict Darwinist out there can correct me on this if they think I'm wrong. I may be.

But back to the above question on abiogenesis. I guess you are aware that amino acids have been created in the lab using a combination of electricity (lightning) and the ocean contents and atmospheric gases theorized to have existed several billion years ago on earth. Of course, amino acids are a long way from proteins, which themselves are a long way from life. But these experiments were conducted in the 60's (I think), probably more has been learned since then.

Anyway, the last reading on this I have done involved spontaneous self-assembly of rod and sphere shaped manufactured (microscopic) colloids into organizational relationships that on first sight appear to violate the principle of entropy (the principle creationists hold so dear.) Entropy was of course not violated, the self-assembly, while decreasing entropy locally, was shown to increase entropy in the overall closed system containing the colloid.

Here is a quote and a link. The link goes to a summary, which is how I usually read of such things, not being a scientist myself.



newton.ex.ac.uk...

So to answer your question (partially), the first cell came from some proto-cell which came from some self-assembling glob of goo which came from protiens that probably assembled themselves from the sea full of amino acids that were created by lightning and the primordial soup/primordial atmosphere.

Additionally, I do remember reading what probably amounted to scientific speculation on the assembly of either (proto) DNA or RNA from raw materials based on a particular structural property of clay. Apparently the structural somewhat crystalline arrangement of clay could have aided in the formation of early DNA-like materials. The materials could have used the structure to arrange themselves in an ordered fashion, apparently. I can't find my link to this info, but if you insist, I think I know where to retrieve it at another board where I posted it before.

So there's a bone for you. Clay, get it? Just like the Bible says.

That being said, I will echo the sentiments above that abiogenesis is not in the proper purview of evolutionary theory.



Yeahright,
I went to the site you linked and found a pretty good argument for re-examining the current thinking on universal expansion. But while the current theory may be flawed, the author of that website has allowed many of his own flaws into his thinking:

(my bolding)

The author ridicules cosmology for inventing the "cosmic expansion factor" and perhaps justifiably so, yet he invents an entirely new "repulsive force of the vacuum" without batting an eye.

Additionally, consider the words I bolded in the above quote in conjunction with the following two quotes from the same webpage:





Now, there are probably enough people on this board that are in the know regarding relativity that I can be confident here that someone hopefully will correct me if I'm wrong about this, but isn't relativity predicated on the idea that no one frame of reference is preferable over another, nor does any frame of reference have more legitimacy than any other?

If this is correct, then the author of your linked website has thrown relativity out the window while at the same time using relativity to explain observed redshifts. He believes that there is actually a center of the universe nearby us in space, and that is why we see galaxies receding from us, not because the entire universe is expanding.

Somebody help me here. If a real center of the universe existed, would that center not provide a point against which everything else could be measured, and thereby constitute a reference frame that would have more legitimacy than any other? And would that not invalidate the very need for time dilation and contraction of length that the Special Theory so brilliantly predicted and which has subsequently been observed many, many times over to exactly match the predicted quantities?

It seems to me that that website has more holes in it that the big bang theory. To paraphrase, they souldn't be concerned about the mote in the big bang's eye, rather they should see to the beam in their own.


Harte

Ahhh... Yet again, someone misses the point.

It's been said more than a thousand-million times.

Trying to shoehorn evolutionary theory into explaining the creation of life and the universe is like trying to force the theory of gravity into explaining the creation of life and the universe.

I have started a thread on abiogenesis HERE. Please drop by - it's severely lacking a Christian perspective.

Zip

Zipdot,



I hope that this was an open invite as I will take you up on the offer once I get off all these pain killers. Will probably join in the romp next week

Every scientist has to 'beleive' this. This is like saying that your car mechanic can't repair your car, because he has 'faith' in the 'big bang'.

Yes, its called cosmology and the science of planet formation. These are sciences, the theories about them are in the public literature and are hashed out like every other scientific theory. It doesn't require 'faith'.

this is called abiogenesis, and there has been big advances in that field. While no-one has been able to replicate the conditions that result in the formation of life from non-life, thats hardly a reason to stop the research and say 'god must've done it'.

If you think that this is required, then I am sorry to say that you do no know what you are talking about, literally. Evolution doesn't require any such 'interest'. Evolution is a consequence of this process.

I suspect, from the progression that you've presented, that you are getting this from the rather silly 'different definitions of evolution' plank that is often presented by the creationist political movement.

Again, you are patently ignorant of what evolution is if you think that that is in anyway analagous to it.

Funny words comming from a guy who obviously hasn't paid any attention to what evolution is, and is instead mouthing the usual well-rejected propaganda from the creationist political movement.

So you wouldn't say that a simple lever can work, because we haven't established how everything everywhere came into being?

Actually, this is yet another 'standard' cretaionist arguement that was refuted long ago and is constantly represented as being 'unrefuted'.

Short Refutation


This is how the creationist political movement operates. Its not necessarily centralized and directed by a board or anything like that, but its ends up working like this, makeing completely inaccurate statements about evolution, creating false data or making genuine, but huge, mistakes in interpretation of data, and then, even when its been addressed, ignoring that, repeating it, and pushing it. And then if anyone's been paying attention and realizes that these arguements are false, stating that 'you can't explain everything, therefore you can't say that yuou are right'. Which is also a result of misunderstanding science (and that helps support the idea that they're not a scientific group too, they don't even know what science is). Science does not 'prove' things, evolution (that natural selection results in speciation thur adaptation, etc) has not been 'proven', its a theory, just like the theory of gravity, its not a fact. Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Light is a fact. The scientific theories about their causation and operation, etc are hypotheses, that can (potentially) be refuted by experiment. If creationists were practicing science, then they'd be doing experiments that can refute evolution, and also experiments that can refute creationism. But they don't, instead they issue pamphlets and tracts and lobby and go to court. Thats why its a political movement, not a scientific theory.


Lets put it this way, what about teh current theories and researches into abiogenesis, such as the rna-world hypothesis, auto-catalytic rna, the smith-cairns solid state genome hypothesis, etc etc, do you see as refuted and thus are failures?
I mean, you are asking 'how'd the first cell come into being'? There is research out there on this. Why are you assuming that its immpossible? I won't pretend to say that the research is complete, but what does that matter? There research hasn't been going on for that long, and there are big strides that have been made over the years. It'd be stupid to say that because there is no answer yet, that because we don't know the answer, that there isn't one.


That is correct. Basically, in modern evolutionary biology, there is controversy, and some evolutionary biologists might reject the label of 'darwinist'. But they are still evolutionists. Its sort of like being a fan of the car racing sport. Some people are Forumla One fans, others are Nascar fans. Not being a formula one fan doesn't mean that you don't like car races. SO the distinction between 'non-darwinist' but still evolutionist is a technical one, and its very fuzzy. Stephen J Gould could've been described as a 'non-darwinist'. It'd be preposterous to think that he didn't think that evolution occured naturally or that natural selection doesn't operate and isn't very influential. But Gould didn't feel that Gradualism and Anagenesis were, infact, predominant in evolution (anagenesis meaning that a population morphs slowly over eons into another kind of animal in total, as opposed to populations splitting, and some traveling down one pathway with others staying the same, etc). Richard Dawkins, indeed, is normally thought of as a Darwinist. Infact, he's sometimes called an "Ultra-darwinist'. But Darwin felt that the individual was the 'unit' upon which selection acts, not anything that makes up individuals nor groups of individuals (like species). Richard Dawkin's disagrees completely, and thinks that natural selection is operating on individual genes, so in that way he's not 'darwinian'. Then there's a guy named Kimura, who is an evolutionist, but who thinks that most changes in genes are Neutral, have no effect one way or antoher, and that this accounts for lots of 'invisible' variation (stuff that can't even be acted upon by natural selection, this is probably what you are thinking of above).
So there's controversy, but not over 'whether or not evolution occurs' and people aren't 'dropping that old fool darwin', as its sometimes represented.

And, before they were done, everyone thought it was immposible. Now we even have things like self-organizing rna, and even peices of rna (which, of course, is like dna) that have functions. IOW we have stuff that is both the genome and the actual thing that does something, instead of a seperation.
But, again, I caution, science is far from having a really strong theory of abiogenesis, there are strong reasons why, for example, the RNA-world hypothesis is ultimately rejected as 'the anwer' for how life came about.

I'd think that this causes a problem for the so called thermodynamic anology with information, wherien IDists state that there can not be a natural increase in information in a system. Sounds intersting.

Wow, Nygdan. Obviously, you're a lot more passionate about this topic than I am. And I appreciate your taking the time to post such a lengthy reply. I'm just a goof trying to learn and willing to try. I certainly do not view evolution and creation as mutually exclusive concepts, but as you have surmised, I do have a specific religious frame of reference. I won't bother to go back point by point because I see that as an exercise in futility. I do believe in a Divine Hand at work and respect your view that there isn't. We could go back and forth on that ad nauseum and I'm sure neither of us would change our minds.

Thanks for the short refutation re: polonium halos. I'll definitely look into that a little closer.

NOte to ghost-before you post a topic check what your saying.

In evolution there isnt a 'everything came from nothing' there are many theories on how it came a bout scientifically.

Yes the very start of absolutly everything cant be explained yet by evolutionalist(scientists) but creation have the exact same hole where did everything start?

Also can I ask whihc has more sciencific fact? -the bible
-Science

And now can i ask for proof of creationalism besides
1.the bible or any other holy book
2.A feeling in your head
3.(dont read this one if you are easily offended) Your cell mate in the insane asylum

Wait, I thought I was just a goof trying to figure it out?

Just to be clear tho, evolution and being a pious christian are not exclusive, I just think that saying that god created the different types of animals at once and from clay or whatever isn't compatible with the theory that life arose once and evolved thru time into all the different inter-related forms we see today.


That index is a useful tool. I can't stress enough how often a lot of the common arguments you or I hear have actually been addressed.

some sort of cespool of water(70% of human body), methane(when you pass gas) and electricity(how your brain functions with messages run between synapses).

Besides, how do creationist account for the dinosaurs who roamed the panet 250 million years ago?

there are six different meanings to the term evolution.
first you would have to have:
Cosmic Evolution- The origin of TIME/SPACE/MATTER
second
Stellar Evolution- The stars would have to form.
third
Chemical Evolution- The chemicals would have to evolve.
fourth
Organic Evolution- Life somehow has to get started.
fifth
Macro Evolution- Evolution from one kind of animal to another.
and last
Micro Evolution- Variations within the Kind of Animal.

The first five are purley religious none of those first five have every been proven. you have to believe that it all took place.
the only one that has been observed is micro evolution. (bad term but it happens) you can get different species within the same kind. you will never get a monkey from a human or get a human from a monkey. it wont happen.

My next door neighbor had a chocolate lab and a golden retriever. both got together and the mother ended up giving birth to a litter of 7 Black labs. how is that possible? well that is called micro evolution (its just a variation) but it happens.

between stellar evolution and chemical evolution there is a chicken and the egg problem, you need chemical to make up the stars but you need stars to make up the chemical (by means of fusion, although you cant fuse past iron)
so there is a propblem. and also the evolutionist is often stuck with the the embarrassing assumption that all chemicals evolved the same throughout the entire universe. hey the universe is pretty big, you expect me to believe that all the chemicals evolved the same throughout the entire universe?
also you expect me to believe that uranium evolved from hydrogen?

The geologic Collumn by which all fossil dating and strata dating is done, was made by charles lylle back before radiometric dating was invented. by the way radiometric dating is very inaccurate. it is based on many faulty assumptions. if you want more on that, let me know. the geologic collumn is also based on the assumption that the layers are different ages.

www.halos.com
the scientist on this site proves that the earth was never a hot molten mass. by the way, the earth was never a hot molten mass and this guy proves it.

See what I believe agrees with many scientifc facts.
I believe in the bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth"
that one verse explains the origin of time/space/matter.
and all three of those have three demensions and also work in what is called a continuum.

and by the way, not every scientist in the world believes in evolution, they dont go out claiming that they do becuase they will wither get fired, lose their grant money or be forgotten.
Evolution is not an open minded theory, it is a tax funded and carefully protected religion.
if you want for me to explain how evoution is a religion, ill be more that glad.

Bluetooth

and by the way. Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible at least 9 times. they werent called dinosaurs back then, they were called dragons. and if the bible is true like me as well as others believe it to be, that means that dinosaurs were always with man and were created within the same six days.