Originally posted by grad_studentActually it's even less than random it's EXTREMELY rare. If we assume that there are billions of planets orbiting stars, and so far zero life forms anywhere else, then we have a one in a billion (less probably) chance of life.

Just a quick note, I had pretty big numbers myself using Drake's equation just in the Milky Way alone..

Originally posted by grad_studentNow, the creationist will of course point out that this is why it was "created" by God and so on, after all, there ought to be life elsewhere as well if we believe Darwin.

Because of above answer I looked and have come to the conclusion that God never says MAN and EARTH are the only life......actually the Bible implies that there are other lifeforms indeed, angels being one.

Wars in the Heavens........

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticWhat if we did discover extraterrestrial life? What would that mean to you, Ed?

I dont feel the need to discover it, its already been here since the beginning.


What some would term ET , I call a fallen angel (at least that is the way I am leaning)



[edit on 21-8-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticFaith is pure, unquestioning belief. That's incredible! It's right up there with love.

We can finally say we agree on something.







Can someone help explain to me the last point? I am not too good at that subject. This is from the original post, #12 on the list?

Come on someone here should be able to shed some light on this?


[excerpt]
One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.


[edit on 21-8-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
What? Yes, they have, that's the only reason we are able to have science.

?? What do you mean? I'll agree that natural selection can produce the appearance of design, but I don't think that one can say that that is design. Please explain how to distinguish between the 'design' produced by natural selection and regular design.

And I think it's reasonable to believe that evolution is directed, after all, gravity on earth directs objects down.

I'l agree, I was being to unspecific, natural selection can provide 'direction', unitelligently.

it could just as easily be another law of nature in regards to biological organisms.

That seems contrary. If its a law of nature then by definition its not an intelligence. Unless we are talking about things like archetypes and organisms evolving by "approaching" perfect, but still natural, archetypes.

Benevolent Heretic
It's actually about believing in 'unproven' things.

I would say, for what its worth, that religion is about irrational beleifs, not what those beleifs specifically are (whether seen or unseen things), whereas science is about having a rational, logical basis for 'beleifs' and physical evidence to support it.

edsinger
The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite.

This has been addressed inthread. Post Number: 1622553 page 1


Also, looking back, I missed a few points you brought up.

Still those first amino acids that formed the chains to make life, how can that be by chance? The mathematical odds are daunting for sure.

This is why the Miller-Urey experiment is important. Lots of peopel think miller-urey was a failure becuase it didn't produce life. Quite the contrary, their famous experiment (this is the reducing atmosphere with electric sparks experiement) demonstrated that amino acids can form entirely naturally. THe end result of their experiments were lots of organic chemicals, including amino acids.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Benevolent Heretic
It's actually about believing in 'unproven' things.

I would say, for what its worth, that religion is about irrational beleifs, not what those beleifs specifically are (whether seen or unseen things), whereas science is about having a rational, logical basis for 'beleifs' and physical evidence to support it.

My comment was about 'faith', not religion. We can have faith in many things, not just religion.

Whether one's religion is rational or not, I would say is a judgment call. Someone's religion may not seem rational to you or me, but I'm pretty sure it's rational to them. It makes sense, it's logical, or they wouldn't 'believe'.

I think religion is based on faith, and science is based on evidence. They just have no business being entangled .

Originally posted by Nygdan

edsinger
The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite.

This has been addressed inthread. Post Number: 1622553 page 1

I did miss it, I will have too look in more detail later...thanks

The Idea behind Natural Selection is that over time stronger, better adapted designs replace ones that can't survive as well! If this is correct, genetic defects that hinder survival should disappear over time. So, Why are there certine defects, such as albinoism (the lack of pigment in skin and hair), that show up over and over, both in nature and in the human population. A fox or a deer that is born with fir that makes them Easier for a preditor to find, clearly is at a disadvantage in terms of survival. So why does this happen over and over? Shouldn't the defective geans that cause this have been removed from the gene line by "Natural Selection"?

Any Thoughts?

Tim

Ghost,

The albino gene is a rare recessive gene. Along with others, it is not expressed unless two recessives are put together. Therefore, you could be caring this genes for genereations before it even shows up in the population.

Many cave animals also have no pigment yet they thrive.

In my thoughts the statement "Evolution is False and Impossible," gets to the core of authority verses science. At each stage of the progress of science we hear such words as "impossible." For example "heavier than air flight is impossible." Of course never mind that birds are heavier than air.

To get more to the point, the problem is one of assuming authority from science and basically gobbling it up as did the middle ages into dogma. But the proofs of science are so very strong, that you could enter into a case where religion and religious belief become overly influenced by science. Where science says something is impossible, and where religion knows that it knows, and I mean where people know that they know, their deepest inner convocations and experience can be unduly influenced.

Those are the dangers to religion when it attempts a coup de etat of science.
As stated before, keep theology as theology, and science as science.

Originally posted by ghost
So, Why are there certine defects, such as albinoism (the lack of pigment in skin and hair), that show up over and over, both in nature and in the human population.

(180 degree spin)

If we're made in God's image, why do we have defects?

Forget albinosim... our spins are terrible at keeping us upright without being prone to injury (among serveral issues with the structure of the human body).

Yes, it's a recessive gene which cna be there for generations without showing up. And furthermore evolution is an ongoing process. There is no end product. We humans, and the animals species that exist now are not end products. They are no different in a sense than long extinct lifeforms like Mammoths, trilobites or megalodons.

Defects and "bugs" will always be there because we are never an end product. You can compare life with (usually beta) versions of computer software. There will always be revisions. But those revsions (which are adaptations to the ever changing enviroment) take thousands or millions of years.

Originally posted by slank
.
Jungle animals leap from tree to tree.
One freak has a flap and can glide a little, so perhaps it can glide further than a predator can leap.
It survives while others didn't.
bigger skin flaps better escapes from predators,
better dispersal of species in a region by being more mobile.

bigger skin flaps allow small mammal to catch flying jungle insects.
bigger skin flaps almost fly like insects = more insects = better fed = healthier = reproduces more and is more attractive to mates.

Flight.
.

Big Round of Applause for Slank!!

You hit the nail on the head!!!

This is actually one of the main precursors to the Wing. Evolution is irrefutable and anyone who thinks that they could prove otherwise has flawed information or logic.

And for the posters benefit.... Please Visit a Natural History museum and above all get some education.

NeoN HaZe.

Originally posted by ghost
So why does this happen over and over? Shouldn't the defective geans that cause this have been removed from the gene line by "Natural Selection"? Any Thoughts?

If expression of the gene is delayed beyond the reproductive years, like Alzheimer's disease perhaps, natural selection has no way to weed it out. Some bad genes also may be tightly linked to adjacent good genes, so it would be hard for natural selection to work on them in isolation. It should further never be expected that natural selection could possibly weed out all defective genes, as mutations, errors in the copying of DNA, will always happen. One should merely expect an equilibrium. Recessive traits are further more difficult than dominant ones to weed out. Such traits may be carried from generation to generation and not show up until two specimens carrying the same recessive gene are bred.

Originally posted by ghost
The Idea behind Natural Selection is that over time stronger, better adapted designs replace ones that can't survive as well! If this is correct, genetic defects that hinder survival should disappear over time.

This is incorrect. Evolution doesn't say that things get 'bigger, better, stronger' over time. It says that organisms adapt to their environment via natural selection. This means, for example, speed in cheetahs, but extreme slowness in sloths.

So, Why are there certine defects, such as albinoism (the lack of pigment in skin and hair), that show up over and over, both in nature and in the human population.

Look at the genetics of albinism andyou'll have an answer.Look at Sickle Cell anemia and you will see a trait that is similarly maintained.

Originally posted by Nygdan

I'll agree that natural selection can produce the appearance of design, but I don't think that one can say that that is design. Please explain how to distinguish between the 'design' produced by natural selection and regular design.

I don't think there is a difference between the two. That's my point.

LMAO my freind! Go look outside at the world around you, its been developing, adapting, changing for millions of years all without your 'clever' thesis!
Nature dont care how we see it, think of it, just how we treat it!
Seems to me birds dint need you to tell them they were doin it wrong!
How the hell can you know what purpous if any a half grown wing stub might have? must of been of some use since why else be there.
Nature just simply works, no ifs no buts, no maybes, just gets on with it.
Nature dosent need the support of wacky scientist with big heads, or of religious nuts or you either mate!
Science can show that nature adapts to changes, its simple fact, undeniable ,weather you like it or not!
reactions can be measured, divinity cannot, Nature can be seen, divinity cannot.
Nature dosent give a # eitherway, your clever ideas wont change that im afraid.
whats the point for you anyway? why not just enjoy nature and quit trying to put yourself above it, thats whats wrong with todays world, no respect for planet.
In anycase, wheres your homework?
you say whats the point in wingstubs, so what are the pros and cons, not just from an evolutionary veiwpoint but from a biological one aswell.
whats the point in wings for a flightless bird? and they still have them!
Its great to conjure up a clever idea but you need to show you actually thought about it.
what you have is a list of ten points but very little substance to any of them.
wether you beleive in evolution or not makes no difference to the quality of your argument.
how about a pros and cons list for each point (in your own words, No links)
Then we can understand how your thinking.


[edit on 103131p://530810 by instar]

Originally posted by instar must of been of some use since why else be there.Nature just simply works, no ifs no buts, no maybes, just gets on with it.

Well I can believe that it adapts, but since it had to have a beginning then it was just a spontaneous cosmic fart.

We are all the result of space gas.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Well im still waiting on biological thinking on this one

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The earth is seismically active and has geologically changed much over millions of years, you cant expect everything that ever lived to have been preserved perfectly for all time, you can only go on what you have and what makes sense.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Folk once thought the earth was flat too, whats your point, today we know better, we still cannot create life but how does that prove evolution wrong? it simply refutes an older school of thought.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring

Oh really, is cancer from sun exposure enviromental? is any cancer not enviromental? these can indeed and do offect offspring.
How is a downs syndrome birth from a chromosomally 'normal' mother occuring?

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

Then explain downs syndrome!
According to that it shouldnt be possible

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

Ants would seem to defy that, soldier ants leafcutters, very complex structure/form

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

Downs syndrome people not only breed and pass on their genes, but manage to exist at all.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong.

How exactly Edsinger?

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong


The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Lmao really? Theve explored every inch of it now have they?

I have no idea how that disproves evolution

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

What The????

Theve checked out the known universe too? lmao
oh god please tell me how that means evolution is wrong!!!

Its great to conjure up a clever idea but you need to show you actually thought about it

Originally posted by Al Davison
It'll take time to read all of this but, one problem I noticed in several places as I was scanning it - there is the near constant refrain of "it must be false because we haven't yet discovered it".

If every field of science has now concluded that everything that can be known is already known and science is pretty much finished all its work, then I somehow missed that announcement. Can you help me find that memo?

Thanks!

You have voted Al Davison for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.
Way to go Al!
How does the question of the origins of life itself come into the question of life on earth?
did the rest of the universe vanish overnight to makeway for a new hyway? aka douglas Adams.

Originally posted by ghost
The Idea behind Natural Selection is that over time stronger, better adapted designs replace ones that can't survive as well! If this is correct, genetic defects that hinder survival should disappear over time. So, Why are there certine defects, such as albinoism (the lack of pigment in skin and hair), that show up over and over, both in nature and in the human population. A fox or a deer that is born with fir that makes them Easier for a preditor to find, clearly is at a disadvantage in terms of survival. So why does this happen over and over? Shouldn't the defective geans that cause this have been removed from the gene line by "Natural Selection"?

Smart thinking Tim,
I wondered about that too, and it seems that enviromental factors might well cause cellular changes which might interfere with D.N.A
I cant honestly think of any 'advantage' to say, albinoism, either from an 'survival of fittist' veiw or biological. Im not aware of any real studies into enviroment/chemical effects of pollutants in the enviroment, and genetic 'throwbacks' excepting that enviromental pollutants are causing serious numbers of genetic defects in frogs.
With that said, whos to say (till its tested) that enviromental polution etc dont genetically effect higher organisms including us.
I would like to heatr some ideas about why albinism might occure in a species not evolutionarily made so, like cave dwellers etc.
Any Thoughts?

Tim