DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Apparently you aren't a biology professor either.

Here's the quote in context, from Meinesz's "How Life Began: Evolution's Three Geneses", since you're just quote mining:

The balance sheet of the last 50 years of research on the origin of life is simple. No empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction. Even if our alchemists one day reconstruct in their laboratories part of the puzzle of how bacterial machinery arose, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that that is how things actually happened on Earth. By contrast, we are witnessing the emergence of a group of new arguments and a new piece of evidence in favor of an alternative hypothesis : an extraterrestrial origin. I will add that, if this hypothesis is supported by other sorts of tangible evidence, many of the articles contesting the first reports that appeared in 1996 will be thrown into question. After all, if a research team proves that these traces could be of inorganic or terrestrial origin, there is no decisive reason to choose between the two hypotheses – there is doubt. The two demonstrations cancel one another. However, if other lines of research prove that the rock really does have traces of life, it is worth reexamining the previously disputed finding.

As you can see, his objection isn't to abiogenesis but which version of abiogenesis occurred, and he includes panspermia.

And to say that "no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction" is subjective. Witness "The Origin of Life by Means of Autocatalytic Sets of Biopolymers", a Doctoral thesis published last year by Meng Wu.

Yeap, seems the "misquote" started with the Watch Tower folks
www.tj-encyclopedie.org...

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by boncho

 

Can you please point out with elements on the periodic table are "living" and which ones are 'non-living'?

Ok that is a facetious question, not one worth answering .
But......
Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction"

Are you a professor of Biology ?

Here is where creationists fail and anyone who simply acknowledges science has an upper hand. Do you know why that is? Because people who acknowledge science also tend to source their information, and creationists have the habit of ignoring or suppressing sources and facts.

I could simply nullify this ground breaking quote you presented with the simple logic that one person's opinion does not negate the entire scientific establishment and all the peer reviewed work therein. I personally know a biologist who because she was raised devout Catholic (forced on her by her parents) she doesn't believe in dinosaurs (personal opinion, not professional.) When I raise obvious contradictions in her life, she gets rather upset... As it's hard for her to come to terms with the major conflict her parents have instilled in her.

In any case I don't have to use that argument because I can easily debunk your misquoted test:

Alexandre was taken completely out of context by "The Watchtower"

* Did you authorize the Watchtower to make reference to your book ?

Of course, not !

* Do you support the creationist view of JW ?

Absolutly not !

* Is this quote correct?

They’re making reference to my book on page 32 to 60 but this is not what I wrote. The sentence they are mentioning appears on page 47 but taken out of its context. They made an amalgam starting on a discussion where I examined 2 possibilities of life rising up on earth (cells coming from space or cells formating on earth) and I develop my opinion supported by numerous current datas (for me there is no evidence that it happened on earth so it's the other hypothesis (life began elsewhere) which should be considered as well as the other hypothesis. That's it !

Source

Essentially, Alexandre was leaning towards the idea that we came from outer space. And he had been working on that hypothesis for a good while. (See hypothesis, not theory.)

In any case you are mixing abiogenesis and evolution again. And evolution (which this thread is about) is a stand alone theory with empirical evidence. By itself, it is scientific fact. It does not need abiogenesis to make it credible, believable, or understandable. Unlike your urge to explain everything, and make things up as you go, scientists take data and create models and theories supported by evidence. And after many theories are created eventually a model that can explain an entire system will form.

Life could have been made by abiogenesis, the mystical magical man in the sky, unicorns or dwarf farts from dimension X, it doesn't matter because evolution is a separate theory that could tie in to any of those, should those be proven fact.

Luckily for us, abiogenesis was shown to happen in a lab in 2009:

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

www.wired.com...

www.nytimes.com...

He has solved a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life — how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth.

You flat out lied and misquoted a Biologist which was an outright fabrication of what he said. Anything to say for yourself?

Or does god give you a pass if you're lying in his name...

reply to post by iterationzero


reply to post by Pauligirl



Dammit! You two both beat me. My response was more dramatic. I wanted to be the one who showed creationists lie and misquote biologists!

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by vasaga

 

Your comment on abiogenesis

At least... To the majority here. It has direct implications on evolution, but no one here ever admits that, so, I go along with it

They don't want to go there because it weakens the the whole concept of a theory, it is intellectually dishonest.
Well I go there as much as I can, because people who continually say they aren't linked just don't want to deal with it.

Nope. I already explained it thoroughly, and you ignored it. Just because you don't like the explanation, doesn't make it wrong. Nobody's saying they aren't linked. Everything is linked somehow in the universe. It's just not required for evolution to take place. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, then present it. If not, then there is no validity to your claim. It doesn't weaken evolution, because the core of evolution is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Please explain how abiogenesis (or lack thereof) goes against that fact. Evolution requires life with DNA to be present. No DNA = no evolution. It doesn't specify HOW the life got there. I don't understand why that very basic concept is so difficult to grasp. Would you like to know what really counts as intellectual dishonesty? Claiming you know more than a scientist about a topic, failing to present any evidence whatsoever for your side, while at the same time making sweeping generalizations about the opposing viewpoint. People love to blindly dismiss evolution, but they have no evidence of ANY OTHER EXPLANATION of the diversity of life on earth. It would be different if there was actually a competing theory, but there's not. There is no evolution debate, only people that enjoy arguing.

Perhaps scientifically by pure definition Evolution does not cover the first one. But conceptually and culturally it does for almost all people, except for the ones that want to debate it ad nauseum as they want to make a point of saying by pure scientific definition you are wrong.

Conceptually and culturally it does for almost all people? Why would you just pull that out of thin air and assert it to be true? Most educated people who have been to college and taken a biology course know the difference between the 2 fields of study and don't confuse them OR confuse the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory. Only the people that have beef with evolution for religious or other emotional reasons even bring up silly arguments like that.

You are welcome to believe in or follow whichever faith you like. Science is looking to figure out HOW things work. Religion is about the WHY. Even if god did create all life, he could have used evolution as a tool, to account for changes on the earth. It shouldn't conflict with your faith, unless you take the bible 100% literally. If you do, that may be the issue. You may forget that the ancient texts where written by incredibly simple folk, who lived in a culture where 90% of the people were illiterate. Their descriptions and words used could be off or could have meant completely different things at the time that it was written. You say that faith makes you clump evolution and abiogenesis together since you believe god did it, but they would still be 2 different events. One was done once, a long time ago, and the other is an ongoing process that's still happening today. Evolution and god are perfectly compatible.

reply to post by flyingfish

I understand that RNA itself is a chemical. That much is obvious.

I don't need to be a biologist to understand that those incredibly complex cell mechanisms don't just 'run themselves'. I mean, those structures are on the molecular level, there's no 'motor' acting on them. There's conscious activity going on.

Try to deny it all you want, but common logic will prevail.

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

You're right. But I've beaten them at their own game multiple times. Thing is, they will never admit it, and will keep repeating the same thing over and over, and that they've debunked my claims multiple times. Just wait for it. Someone will reply to this, and tell me I'm talking nonsense, that I was never right, that they explained everything blah blah.

Allow me:

You're talking nonsense.

You just said above that you admitted that abiogenesis wasn't part of your argument, and you understood the difference. Now you agree with the argument all of sudden and claim its "beating someone at their own game". Please.. That's like saying gravity is wrong and referencing electromagnetism or big bang theory as your evidence; except it's worse because I mentioned established fields of scientific study.

The problem is the anti-evolution side lacks evidence. If there was even a competing alternative theory, you might have something, but there is no objective evidence whatsoever that suggests ID is accurate or that evolution is false (2 separate things). Nobody has ever addressed the evidence for evolution link.

Are you saying we should believe the theory because they will be able to explain it?

This is all you took out of my post I guess. I'm saying we should believe it because evidence has confirmed the premise the theory is based on, the fossil record shows it, genetics shows it, heck everything we do in science these days does nothing but confirm evolution. There are tons of pieces of verifiable evidence, which I have posted. You are dismissing all of that work, simply because we don't have a complete explanation for every single organism to ever live on planet earth. If you wish to address science you need to be specific. You can't just say, "Well gee willickers, I can't imagine how a single cell could become a living breathing conscious intelligent human".

reply to post by boncho

Dammit! You two both beat me. My response was more dramatic. I wanted to be the one who showed creationists lie and misquote biologists!

First is not always best, sir.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by boncho

 

Dammit! You two both beat me. My response was more dramatic. I wanted to be the one who showed creationists lie and misquote biologists!

First is not always best, sir.

Tell that to the dinosaurs!

Oh wait...

These last few posts have made me realize just how powerful the internet has made evolution & atheism in 2013.

Think you are winning, oh the battle is ongoing, and it does indeed appear that you are winning from the posts, but the war on this debate will end one day, and most decisively.

You know how they say there is no atheists in "fox holes", imagine that feeling spurred on by worldwide events.
You see God will want you to know he exists, that yes he is the creator, even if it is only just to curse him in anger and disagreement. But he will make it so denial is no longer mentally and emotionally possible, and that has not happened, yet.

reply to post by iterationzero


I have some tapes of a christian biologist who has found evidence there was a 1mile thick ice sphere that surrounded the earth thousands of years ago allowing people to live for 1000+ years because it stopped all radiation from space that ages us every day.
In response you stated that would raise the temp of the earth to boiling point, You are jumping to conclusions with out thinking about it.
The ice layer would be spinning at the same speed as earth and if it was at the right distance would be geosynchronous and balanced because of inertia just like our satilites in space..It would also reflect a lot of heat from the sun, this in turn would lower the temp of the earth.I know there are a lot of god haters on here but dont discount info just because you dont like it. In genesis it states "the firmament above the firmament" this means water in space whether you like it or not.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


It has nothing to do with atheism. There is no debate. There is no battle. There is no war. There are things that can be backed up by scientific fact, and things that cannot. One requires faith the other does not. I think we all know which is which. Just like the guy directly above this post. He doesn't post any evidence or fact based info at all to support his side and neither have you. There is no debate here, only stubborn folks, who have an agenda against any science that goes against their literal interpretations of ancient texts. It's obviously apparent to anyone reading the thread as well. One side provides facts and backs up claims, one does not.

reply to post by Barcs

It has nothing to do with atheism. There is no debate. There is no battle. There is no war.

Really......this tells me it's on...


But.....

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


i fail to see the relevance to evolution or science that is based on fact.

reply to post by supergravity

I have some tapes of a christian biologist who has found evidence there was a 1mile thick ice sphere that surrounded the earth thousands of years ago allowing people to live for 1000+ years because it stopped all radiation from space that ages us every day.

What "christian biologist"? What "evidence"? Did he make his "evidence" available for peer review?

In response you stated that would raise the temp of the earth to boiling point, You are jumping to conclusions with out thinking about it.

This should be good...

The ice layer would be spinning at the same speed as earth and if it was at the right distance would be geosynchronous and balanced because of inertia just like our satilites in space..It would also reflect a lot of heat from the sun, this in turn would lower the temp of the earth.

The heat generated by an atmosphere under the kind of pressures you're talking about, and please remember that you said the following in this post:

The ice layer compressed the atmosphere many times what it is today CAUSING BLOOD PLASMA TO TAKE ON OXYGEN .

So take a step back and calculate what the atmospheric pressure and average surface temperature would be under such a canopy.

I know there are a lot of god haters on here but dont discount info just because you dont like it. In genesis it states "the firmament above the firmament" this means water in space whether you like it or not.

I'm discounting canopy theory because it's untenable, not because I don't like it. What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
These last few posts have made me realize just how powerful the internet has made evolution & atheism in 2013.

Think you are winning, oh the battle is ongoing, and it does indeed appear that you are winning from the posts, but the war on this debate will end one day, and most decisively.

You know how they say there is no atheists in "fox holes", imagine that feeling spurred on by worldwide events.
You see God will want you to know he exists, that yes he is the creator, even if it is only just to curse him in anger and disagreement. But he will make it so denial is no longer mentally and emotionally possible, and that has not happened, yet.

edit on 28-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

So in other words once all the facts have been presented in an argument to show creationism as the complete BS that it is, and once evolution is confirmed, the position of the creationist is to say:

You guys with your science and your facts and your evidence, just you wait until god comes along and strikes you all down for being heretics. Repent now or pay for your sins!

Fear porn.

Great.

For some reason, I find creationist threads to be no different than the Nibiru threads pre 2012. I hope you realize that bible thumpers have been uttering these words for 2000 years by the way. And for the 250 some odd generations, they were all wrong.

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero

 

I have some tapes of a christian biologist who has found evidence there was a 1mile thick ice sphere that surrounded the earth thousands of years ago allowing people to live for 1000+ years because it stopped all radiation from space that ages us every day.
In response you stated that would raise the temp of the earth to boiling point, You are jumping to conclusions with out thinking about it.
The ice layer would be spinning at the same speed as earth and if it was at the right distance would be geosynchronous and balanced because of inertia just like our satilites in space..It would also reflect a lot of heat from the sun, this in turn would lower the temp of the earth.I know there are a lot of god haters on here but dont discount info just because you dont like it. In genesis it states "the firmament above the firmament" this means water in space whether you like it or not.

edit on 28-5-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)

Yes but 10,000 years ago there was a Indian boy named Kumar who could should fireballs out his arse and he revealed himself to be the true creator but people feared him so he locked himself in a cave for 10,009 years only to return as a much gentler ruler and god.

See how easy it is for me to post stuff without facts or sources?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Barcs

 

It has nothing to do with atheism. There is no debate. There is no battle. There is no war.

Really......this tells me it's on...


But.....

edit on 28-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

How many times have you tried to change the parameters of this "DEBATE", this supposedly is a debate right? You've been proven wrong in all your assertions and claims, which then you proceed to threaten all non-believers, and not a post later you claim there is a new debate, creationists vs atheists.

Here's an idea and you should keep this around your bobbly little brain... Not everyone in here explaining evolution to you is an Atheist. You can acknowledge, appreciate, understand or be a proponent of evolution without being an Atheist.

These lines that you are drawing for everyone, it's you that is drawing them.

You lost the debate so now you are trying to turn it into and argument of Atheism vs. Creationism. But no one in here (as far as I saw) was saying anything about Atheism.

All these things that you believe (not us) are mutually exclusive, they are not mutually exclusive!

Give it a rest already...

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero

 

I have some tapes of a christian biologist who has found evidence there was a 1mile thick ice sphere that surrounded the earth thousands of years ago allowing people to live for 1000+ years because it stopped all radiation from space that ages us every day.
In response you stated that would raise the temp of the earth to boiling point, You are jumping to conclusions with out thinking about it.
The ice layer would be spinning at the same speed as earth and if it was at the right distance would be geosynchronous and balanced because of inertia just like our satilites in space..It would also reflect a lot of heat from the sun, this in turn would lower the temp of the earth.I know there are a lot of god haters on here but dont discount info just because you dont like it. In genesis it states "the firmament above the firmament" this means water in space whether you like it or not.

edit on 28-5-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)

Even Answers in Genesis won’t use that argument anymore

A major problem with the canopy theory

Vardiman11 recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth.

Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution,12 but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapor in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 40 feet (12 meters) to only 20 inches (.5 meters). Further modelling suggested that a maximum of 2 meters (6.5 feet) of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored.13 Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the flood.

Many creation scientists are now either abandoning the water vapor canopy model14 or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain.15 In the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood,16 volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.

Nevertheless, whatever the source or mechanism, the scriptural statement about the windows of heaven opening is an apt description of global torrential rain.

A vapor canopy holding more than 7 feet (two meters) of rain would cause the earth’s surface to be intolerably hot, so a vapor canopy could not have been a significant source of the flood waters.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

If a billboard -- or more generally a public proclamation -- of ones belief or lack of belief in a deity constitutes a "war", then can you tell us all who started putting up billboards first? Was it atheists or theists?

Doesn't DNA add/create from existing molecules.. Where does it get new info?

Also, where do the elements come from? Stars? I thought you cannot fuse past Iron?