Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 1 of 73 (487431)
10-31-2008 12:57 PM


In the thread The irresolvability of the creation/evolution debate, message 35 Chemscience posted a list of what he believes to be standard dogma for both religion and evolution, what follows is this list.
Chemscience writes:
A. Standard religious Dogma:
1. We’re immortal beings who cannot die
2. God is love
3. He’ll fry most/us in everlasting agony even if we never heard of him.
4. He’s an incomprehensible trinity who frequently prayed to himself
5. He’s the Prince of Peace.
6. In his service we must slaughter each other wholesale if Caesar asks it
7. The clergy are his collection agents, pay 10% (pretax)
8. God Created the universe in 144 hours
9. Satan put the fossils there to test our faith
10. God will eradicate the universe when he comes back(must have messed up)
11. He promised “The meek will inherit the earth” but he’ll burn it!
12. Good folks all go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
The above illogic motivated ones to conjecture an alternative:
B. Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma):
1. Every effect must have an equal cause
2. 100 billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom
3. Came now the Big Bang
4. Don’t ask what made the BB, it was a Singularity. O ye weak of faith!
5. The universe has less than 10% of the matter required for the BB
6. So there must be Dark Matter, it’s never been found, but believe!
7. There’s also Dark Energy, ditto
8. The early non-oxygenic atmosphere was poisonous methane, ammonia, etc.
9. Lightning created oceans full of an amino-acid “prebiotic soup”
10. 100s of AAs accidentally became proteins, Just levo, left handed ones
11. Amino acid links, a dehydrating process, can't happen in H2O but did!
12. Without ozone/oxygen, solar radiation is lethal to life, but the AAs
and proteins survived
13. Suddenly the atmosphere converted to Nitrogen & Oxygen, No one knows
how.
14. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated, but it made everything alive.
15. All living things are accidents, without design or purpose
16. Accidentalism (“evolution”) took 2 billion years to produce all life
17. Yet the first metazoan fossils, trilobites, etc are only 543 million
years old and had no daddys & mommys
18. There were at least 9 extinctions, five major, the Permian event
killed 99% of species (By recent estimates)
19. A Montana T-Rex with elastic odiferous tissue is nevertheless
70,000,000 years old
20. The Lewis Overthrust, 800 Trillion tons/rock slid 50 miles sideways,
left no trace of abrasion & ground rock between layers.
Coyote and I both replied to this list, coyote's response was more brief:
Coyote writes:
Your list of 20 "Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)" includes at least 15 that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Of the remaining 5 some are wrong, while others are meaningless statements.
You're not doing too well. Perhaps you need to cut and paste from more accurate sources.
My response was more in depth (though still rather shallow):
Huntard writes:
chemscience writes:
Endlessly repeating: “evolution is science” doesn’t make it so, but only ignores the impossibilities of the theory and a mindset rejecting evidence, or unexposed thereto.
Nor does endlessly repeating "evolution's NOT science" make it so
But let's have a look at your points shall we:
1. Every effect must have an equal cause
2. 100 billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom
3. Came now the Big Bang
4. Don’t ask what made the BB, it was a Singularity. O ye weak of faith!
5. The universe has less than 10% of the matter required for the BB
6. So there must be Dark Matter, it’s never been found, but believe!
7. There’s also Dark Energy, ditto
8. The early non-oxygenic atmosphere was poisonous methane, ammonia, etc.
9. Lightning created oceans full of an amino-acid “prebiotic soup”
10. 100s of AAs accidentally became proteins, Just levo, left handed ones
11. Amino acid links, a dehydrating process, can't happen in H2O but did!
12. Without ozone/oxygen, solar radiation is lethal to life, but the AAs
and proteins survived
13. Suddenly the atmosphere converted to Nitrogen & Oxygen, No one knows
how.
14. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated, but it made everything alive.
These have NOTHING to do with evolution, moving on.
15. All living things are accidents, without design or purpose
They aren't "accidents" they came about by mutation and natural selection, the latter is not a random process, thus not accidental.
16. Accidentalism (“evolution”) took 2 billion years to produce all life
Don't know if this is exactly right, but I don't see what the problem is here.
17. Yet the first metazoan fossils, trilobites, etc are only 543 million
years old and had no daddys & mommys
Of course they have mommy's and daddy's, they couldn't get born otherwise, now could they. I think you mean we haven't found fossils of their "mommy's and daddy's". I'm no palaeontologist, so I don't know a lot about fossils, but I might think that's because they didn't have any "hard" parts to get fossilised.
18. There were at least 9 extinctions, five major, the Permian event
killed 99% of species (By recent estimates)
I'm pretty sure you got that number wrong, it IS true however that 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct, I don't think that happened all in the permian though. And even if it did, what's your point?
19. A Montana T-Rex with elastic odiferous tissue is nevertheless
70,000,000 years old
Going to leave this one open, as I don't know what you're talking about here. Further, I don't see this tying into evolution.
20. The Lewis Overthrust, 800 Trillion tons/rock slid 50 miles sideways,
left no trace of abrasion & ground rock between layers
Has NOTHING to do with evolution
Well, seems your points are either wrong, or have NOTHING to do with evolution. Nice try though
Since it was off topic in the thread where it was presented, the we could not discuss the list any further. Chemscience expressed interest in answering me, but couldn't in that thread, it was suggested he make a new one for this discussion. He hasn't come round to it yet, so I offered to do it for him, he mistakenly thought Onifre had offered it and gave the go, so here it is.
I would like Chemscience to answer the points I raised about his list, and perhaps Coyote (or anyone else for that matter) to go deeper into the arguments against or in favour of the list.
I realise the topics of this list are far too broad to be discussed in a single thread, so I suggest we pick one or two (that have actually something to do with evolution) and focus our discussion on them. Of course, if you have some general remarks, those can always be inserted.

I hunt for the truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 11-01-2008 4:57 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 7 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 2:20 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 73 (487513)
11-01-2008 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
10-31-2008 12:57 PM


Right. Hello Chemscience, you reacted to Onifre, who said :
Onifre writes:
but your first post with the 20 or so things that are wrong about evolution was just flat out nonsense.
To which you replied with. I'll give a brief reaction to that reply, and of course invite Onifre to give his oppinion on the matter as well in this thread.
Chemscience writes:
The initial 7 have to do with cosmology, the origin/creation of the universe, 8-11 concern undirected assembly of the amino-acids from which the proteins in all living things are consstructed.
Yes, and so have nothing to do with evolution, as you did claim in the naming of your list.
On the Origin of the Universe there are generally agreed to be only 2 possibilities.
Only two, I can think of at least 20 right now.
A. God created the both the design and substance of the universe. I hold this belief, which has a great economy for comprehension: God did it/.
Perhaps, there is however no evidence cor this.
B. Somehow the universe designed and created itself out of nothing. Usually evolutionists believe this. This necessitates an infinite series of undirected fortunate events producing all creation.
First of all, the univerese did not come out of "nothing". Secondly, evolutionists MIGHT believe this, but it's physicists that are really the ones to ask about this, since it's their field of study. I'm not going to comment on the "This necessitates an infinite series of undirected fortunate events producing all creation." part, since I'm not very strong in the department of physics, other then a layman's understanding of the subject.
My statements:
1. “Every effect must have an equal cause” derives from the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms.
Yes, which has NOTHING to do with evolution. Which you calim it did by naming your list: "B. Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)". And that's not what the first law says, it actually states:
quote:
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
2 & 3 “100 Billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom: is the basic premise of the Big Bang paradigm, which posits that all matter & energy were originally compressed into a sub-microscopic point which exploded into our universe. BBT (Theory)holds that nothing existed prior to the BB
First of all, this, again, has nothing to do with evolution. Secondly, that's not what the big bang theory says. Nothing "exploded" it was an expasnion of spacetime. Secondly, we don't know how the universe looked prior to T=10-43. It certainly wasn't nothing though. And since time began with the big bang, there is no "before" the big bang.
And the galaxies did not come out of the big bang fully formed, it took a while for the first galaxies to appear after the big bang. In fact, that took about 500 million years, and that's for the very earliest galaxies, of which about 10 are known today.
4. The explosion event is called a Singularity by believers. Right here comes an unanswerable objection which is expressed in Colin Ronan’s book “The Universe Explained”: “One of the most vexed questions facing astronomers is that of how much matter there is in the universe . results suggest there is barely 1% OF THE MASS THAT THE UNIVERSE SHOULD CONTAIN ACCORDING TO THE BIG BANG THEORY. There must be a vast amount of “dark matter that we simply cannot see.”
Again, nothing to do with evolution. And again, the big bang, was NOT an explosion, it was the expansion of spacetime. Further, the expansion is not called a singularity. The term singularity refers to anything prior to T=10-43 at which point our maths break down. And about dark matter, we cannot "see" it with our eyes, no, but we CAN measure it's effects on the rest of the universe.
“There must be” is a statement of faith, metaphysics.
Well, yes, however, as pointed out, we CAN measure the effects of dark matter.
There's no reality to this conjecture, it’s simply a patch required if you're committed to the BBT.
We CAN measure the effects of dark matter.
The 1% figure has been fudged up to about 20% since the book was published in ’94 by Henry Holt & Co., New York.
Nothing's been "fudged". New data became available that showed earlier calculations to be wrong, and the number was adjusted. That's how science works, it corrects itself.
Believers agree most of the mass in the universe is invisible, doen't occlude or radiate light, and is undetectable except by arcane derivative ad-hoc theorizing.
Actually, as I've said a number of times now, we CAN measure the effects of dark matter.
[Or it could be that they don’t understand gravity.] The universe doesn’t hold enough matter to fulfill the mathematics of the theory.
Yes it does, it's called "dark matter".
The poet said:
As I was going up the stair. I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today, O how I wish he’d go away!
How nice of the poet. It has nothing to do with dark matter though.
6 & 7 Dark matter & dark energy are now imagined to supply the necessary mass (weight) required to make the BBT possible. No one has seen either, they are simply ad-hoc propositions. But today’s osmologists fervently search/imagine/theorize their existence.
No evolution again. Furhtermore, the effects of dark matter can be measured.
8. In 1952 H. Urey & Stanley Miller at the Univ/Chicago produced amino acids by exposing a mix of gasses (CO2, Methane CH4 & Ammonia NH3) to a 50,000 volt spark for a week. The reaction products were isolated from the energy source to prevent decomposition. They assumed that Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, non-oxygenic, similar to the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus; and lightning & cosmic radiation supplied the energy to duplicate their lab experiment, forming amino acids which precipitated into the sea until it became a vast “pre-biotic soup”.
This is called the “Spark in the Soup Theory “ in Richard Milner’s Encyclopedia of Evolution.
Yes, it has however NOTING to do with evolution. And what is the point you're trying to make here?
9. There’s no evidence at all that Earth had such an atmosphere, which would be evidenced geologically. It would be fatal to life. No one explains how it converted to the 78%N + 21%O we enjoy.
The early atmosphere of the earth was indeed different, so, subsequent experiments were conducted using that composition. It turned out that the building blocks for life still formed in these experiments. And the transition was brought about by plants and algea.
10. Amino acids are small structures, over 100 have been identified. Random synthesis produces equal quantities of right handed and left handed ones, but only levo, left-handed, are used in the proteins of all living things. There are 20 in our flesh, composed of 10 to 27 atoms each, variously assembled into 30-50,000 proteins some with 10,000 amino acids, strung together like beads on a chain which electrostatically influence their configuration with one another in such a way to form the specific molecules of life.
AAs are labil, break down easily. Linked AAs are called peptides. Proteins could be called large biological polypeptides. For example hemoglobin is a construction of 574 amino acids in 4 polypeptide chains. These are absolutely specific. Substitute Valine for Glutamic Acid at position 6 of the B chain and you get Sickle Cell Anemia.
No evolution here. What's your point anyway?
11. The assembly of AAs into proteins takes place in our cells by a linkage which involves the loss of 2 Hydrogen atoms from the amino [NH3] site and the loss of an atom of oxygen form the carboxyl [CO2] site of the adjacent amino acid, forming a molecule of H2O. It’s a DEHYDRATION PROCESS and could not accumulate in the sea, nor persist, because peptides dissolve when hydrolyzed.
No evolution once more. And the poin you're trying to make is?
On authority lists 19 separate steps and dozens of enzymes required for protein synthesis within cells. The critical question is: Source of information.
What information?
Where did the precise design for tens of thousands of proteins in you originate? Or for the tens of millions of species which have existed on our planet?
What design?
I think the doctrine this perfection of precision came without a designer is simply ludicrous!
Argument from personal incredulity. Just because you can't believe it happened, doesn't mean it didn't.
Your body also makes sugars, fats, DNA, and living cells more complicated than the electrical/communication systems of a city of millions. Consider the complexity of a single micro-organism which Jehovah placed in you to combat pathogenic invaders, T4 PHAGE, it hunts down and eats bacteria:
Molecular weight of its DNA: 120,000,000 120 million!
Specificity is 10 to the 78,000th power = 1 chance in 10 X 78,000 zeros.
No matter how many athiestic materialists shout the evidence down: it calls for a design & designer, who's name alone is Jehovah. Psalm 83:18
Even IF your "evidence" points to a designer, which it doesn't, then how do you know this designer is jehovah?
SO WHERE'S THE "FLAT OUT NONSENSE", ONIFRE?
I think I pointed some of it out. Perhaps Onifre would like to add to this?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2008 12:57 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by bluescat48, posted 11-01-2008 8:15 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 15 of 73 (487606)
11-02-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by chemscience
11-02-2008 2:20 AM


chemscience writes:
Hello Huntard, You and I share strong opinions!
We SHARE opinions? I'd say we're rather opposed in this manner, but whatever.
I don’t know how to highlight your comments, so I’ll use quotes. I’ll appreciate instruction on how to highlight. I've truncated some of below:
Like Granny pointed out:
Granny Magda writes:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy


or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
(Cheers RAZD!)
If you want to know more about formatting messages, take a look here;
http://EvC Forum: Posting Tips -->EvC Forum: Posting Tips
or click on the dBCodes(help) link that appears on the left hand side of the reply screen. You can also see how other members have formatted their messages by hitting the "peek" button that appears in the bottom left corner of every post. This will let you see all the coding.
Thanks for that Granny.(And RAZD, of course)
chemscience writes:
I said: The initial 7 points have to do with cosmology, the origin/creation of the universe, 8-11 concern undirected assembly of the amino-acids from which the proteins in all living things are constructed.
You said the 7 points: “have nothing to do with evolution, as you did claim in the naming of your list.“
OK, Huntard, there may have been a better name for my original post. Pick one for me, if you please.
Well, if I had to, it'd be:
"20 points I heard from creationists and didn't bother to investigate myself, but I'm going to claim they are true anyway."
I disagree that cosmology has “nothing to do with evolution”.
Then you are wrong.
Creation of the universe without God MEANS creation of life w/o God.
No it doesn't God could've created the universe, and life could've developed on its own after that, or god could've found the universe allready existing and think, "Hmm, something is missing.....Ah I know! Life" and poof! there it was.
In my hand is THE ORIGIN OF LIFE by the late M. G. Ruten, Prof/Geology, Univ/Utrercht, Netherlands.
He's a Geology professor? Why is he talking about evolution then? It's not his field of study. Further, I did some research, and it seems The Origin Of Life was Written by A.I. Oparin, which you state only wrote the foreword. This book is OVER 80 years old, you can't expect it to be up to date with current research in this subject.
The preface is by the illustrious evolutionist A. I. Oparin. which covers some of the same ground I did.
Like I said before, Wiki claims A.I Oparin wrote the book, not M. G. Ruten. (which, by the way is not his name, it's Rutten, with a double T)
Page 155 presents:
“The theory of evolution is based on 7 assumptions:
(1) Non living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
(2) Spontaneous generation occurred only once
(3) Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
(4) Protozoa gave rise to Metazoa
(5) The various invertebrate phyla are interrelated
(6) The invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates
(7) Within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to etc etc etc
“the first two assumptions, as we have repeatedly seen in this text, are still hypothetical.
Perhaps back in 1924, when this book came out they were. We have numerous experiments now that confirm the building blocks of life DO form spontaneously.
“CHAPTER 8 Stages in the Early Evolution of Life Hypothetical character of assumptions about the early evolution of life: We will in this chapter consider some aspects of the early evolution of life which at some stage or other must have played their part during the early evolution of life. It is, however, impossible to tell . most obscure . even more hypothetical . Nevertheless there are certain considerations to be drawn as to what must have happened anyway sometime.”
Here's Evolutionism in full bloom: WING IT! IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED!
Again, this book was published in 1924, research has come a LONG way since then, I suggest you read up on it. Here are some of Oparin's "tenets":
quote:
1. There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combination of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter.
2. Taking into account the recent discovery of methane in the atmospheres of Jupiter and the other giant planets, Oparin postulated that the infant Earth had possessed a strongly reducing atmosphere, containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. In his opinion, these were the raw materials for the evolution of life.
3. At first there were the simple solutions of organic substances, the behavior of which was governed by the properties of their component atoms and the arrangement of those atoms in the molecular structure. But gradually, as the result of growth and increased complexity of the molecules, new properties have come into being and a new colloidal-chemical order was imposed on the more simple organic chemical relations. These newer properties were determined by the spatial arrangement and mutual relationship of the molecules.
4. In this process biological orderliness already comes into prominence. Competition, speed of growth, struggle for existence and, finally, natural selection determined such a form of material organization which is characteristic of living things of the present time.
Wow! seems he DOES support evolution. Which doesn't really matter anyway, the only thing that matters is the evidence supporting evolution, and there is an enormous quantity of that.
Huntard: You repeatedly say “Dark matter & dark energy are detected by their “effects on the rest of the universe.” Be frank about it: They have no known characteristics other than gravitational attraction.
Which, can be measured. I also recommend you read this: Dark matter - Wikipedia as it points out the observational evidence we have for dark matter.
“First of all, the universe did not come out of nothing”
Some authorities differ: BB cosmologist Heinz R. Pagels explained in Perfect Symmetry: “The very origin of the universe”how the fabric of space, time and matter can be created out of nothing.”
Argument from authority, NOT evidence. If you say the universe came out of nothing, you have to show this to be the case, not quote some guy who agrees with you.
Paul Davies in: Physics and Our View of the World: “The appearance of the Universe from nothing need not violate the laws of physics.”
Well, even though this is, again, an argument from authority, it seems to disagree with you. Lucky for you it doesn't count as evidence.
You say on the Origin of the Universe: "I can think of at least 20 right now.” I’m sincerely curious, please list some!
All right:
1)It's a simulation
2)I'm a brain in a jar thinking all this up
3)The flying spaghetti monster made it only last thursday
4)The invisible pink unicorn made it.
5) and till infinity) ANY imaginary creature you can think of made it.
Yes, those were just 5 (actually, they were infinite ), but I got bored listing them, so too bad.
A. God created the both the design & substance of the universe. "Perhaps, there is however no evidence for this." Perhaps you just haven't seen it.
No, there just isn't any.
Every effect must have an equal cause” derives from the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. YOU explain: “That's not what the first law says, it actually states: quote: The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.”
You correctly give the formal law, which we’ve both seen expressed in other words, often it’s called the law of conservation. Note that I said “derives”.
I've never seen it expressed ANY differently, except from creationists. And it's NEVER called "the law of conservation", it i however an expression of the more universal law of "conservation of energy", which, as I'm sure you can guess, deals with energy, NOT matter. And you can say you derived it all you like, first, The FLOT is concerned with the movement of heat, NOT with matter. And as I'm quite sure you understand, heat and matter are two VERY different things. Second, if you say it is derived from the law, please show how you "derived" it.
So what caused the BB? You said, “the laws of physics break down”. I don’t believe they did for a preposterous everything-out-of-nothing theory for which the only proof is that scientists can’t figure out what holds the universe together.
I NEVER said that. I said our maths break down. You do know the difference between maths and physics, no? Our failure to model it does NOT mean the laws of physics break down, merely that we don't understand how they behave at that point. And what does the universe prior to T=10-43 have to with anything holding our universe together?
2 & 3 “100 Billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom: is the basic premise of the Big Bang paradigm, which posits that all matter & energy were originally compressed into a sub-microscopic point which exploded into our universe. BBT holds that nothing existed prior to the BB
“Nothing "exploded" it was an expansion of spacetime. Secondly, we don't know how the universe looked prior to T=10-43. It certainly wasn't nothing though.”
BBT estimates the velocity of the expansion at the speed of light or a multiple thereof. And you quibble that I call it an “explosion”, I’m not the first
It doesn't matter, it's NOT an explosion.
“And since time began with the big bang, there is no "before" the big bang.“
A senseless idea.
A senseless idea? Really? Perhaps you'd like to tell me what's north of the north pole then?
“galaxies did not come out the big bang fully formed” Did I say they did?
You certainly gave that impression by stating: "100 Billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom." If there were no galaxies, they could not be compressed.
4. The explosion event is called a Singularity Here comes an unanswerable objection which is expressed in Colin Ronan’s book “The Universe Explained”: “One of the most vexed questions facing astronomers is that of how much matter there is in the universe . results suggest there is barely 1% OF THE MASS THAT THE UNIVERSE SHOULD CONTAIN ACCORDING TO THE BIG BANG THEORY. There must be a vast amount of “dark matter that we simply cannot see.”
“It was the expansion of spacetime. Further, the expansion is not called a singularity. The term singularity refers to anything prior to T=10-43 at which point our maths break down.”
I accept your “singularity” correction, I misspoke.
Admitting one's mistakes is always good .
Several times you repeat:
8. In 1952 H. Urey & Stanley Miller at the Univ/Chicago produced amino acids by exposing a mix of gasses (CO2, Methane CH4 & Ammonia NH3) to a 50,000 volt spark for a week. The reaction products were isolated from the energy source to prevent decomposition. They assumed that Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, non-oxygenic, similar to the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus; and lightning & cosmic radiation supplied the energy to duplicate their lab experiment, forming amino acids which precipitated into the sea until it became a vast “pre-biotic soup”. This is called the “Spark in the Soup Theory “ in Richard Milner’s Encyclopedia of Evolution.
“Yes, it has however NOTHING to do with evolution. And what is the point you're trying to make here?”
This is the basis for the modern theory of chemical evolution. There’s no evidence at all that Earth had such an atmosphere, which would be evidenced geologically. It would be fatal to life. No one explains how it converted to the 78%N + 21%O we enjoy.
“The early atmosphere of the earth was indeed different, so, subsequent experiments were conducted using that composition. It turned out that the building blocks for life still formed in these experiments. And the transition was brought about by plants and algea.”
You are just wrong, here. They claim it was similar to the “gas planets”, but have zero evidence, which would be found in the composition of rocks. This is another WHAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY, SOMETIME excuse.. Ammonia will kill algae and plants in a minute. This mother-goose proposition is grossly unscientific & without a shred of evidence.
Like I pointed out before, MANY experiments were conducted with MANY different compositions, and MANY of them had the building blocks of life forming. But, abiogenesis is still an ongoing study,I'm pretty sure we'll have the definitive answer sometime in the future.
10. Amino acids are small structures, over 100 have been identified. Random synthesis produces equal quantities of right handed and left handed ones, but only levo, left-handed, are used in the proteins of all living things. There are 20 in our flesh, composed of 10 to 27 atoms each, variously assembled into 30-50,000 proteins some with 10,000 amino acids, strung together like beads on a chain which electrostatically influence their configuration with one another in such a way to form the specific molecules of life.
AAs are labil, break down easily. Linked AAs are called peptides. Proteins could be called large biological polypeptides. For example hemoglobin is a construction of 574 amino acids in 4 polypeptide chains. These are absolutely specific. Substitute Valine for Glutamic Acid at position 6 of the B chain and you get Sickle Cell Anemia.
“No evolution here. What's your point anyway?”
My point is: Complexity of life: impossible without God.
And this shows from your point ten because? You merely point out some of the science that goes with this, there is no conclusion in there, and it certainly does not show that god created life.
10 & 11 The precision of biological structures defies probability, makes undirected evolution a fairy tale. The theory is that the “prebiotic soup” was pulled up on the shoulders of volcanoes into shallow pools where at 175 degrees or so the amino acids polymerized into polypeptides & proteins, all this in a toxic atmosphere which contained no oxygen. UV & other hi-energy radiation forms Ozone [O3] from diatomic oxygen [O2]. This is what shields us from the lethal UV & cosmic radiation. Unshielded, the suns rays would destroy the burgeoning “precursors” of life. The whole spark-in-the-soup idea is unscientific baloney.
M G Ruten wrote in Origin of Life: “One of the many paradoxes encountered in the early history of life lies in the fact that The same rays of the sun which formed the building blocks of the molecules of life were lethal for life.”
First of all Rutten (double T remember) Didn't write that book. Second, that book is OVER 80 years old. Third, this is, again, an argument from authority, and thus, NOT evidence.
The assembly of AAs into proteins takes place in our cells by a linkage which involves the loss of 2 Hydrogen atoms from the amino [NH3] site and the loss of an atom of oxygen form the carboxyl [CO2] site of the adjacent amino acid, forming a molecule of H2O. It’s a DEHYDRATION PROCESS and could not accumulate in the sea, nor persist, because peptides dissolve when hydrolyzed.
Protein synthesis takes place in the ribosomes in our cells, which exclude free water so dehydrating peptide linkage can proceed.
“No evolution once more. And the point you're trying to make is”
On authority lists 19 separate steps and dozens of enzymes required for protein synthesis within cells. The critical question is: Source of information.
What information?
Where did the precise design for tens of thousands of proteins in you originate? Or for the tens of millions of species which have existed on our planet?
What design?
I think the doctrine this perfection of precision came without a designer is simply ludicrous!
What you THINK is irrelevant, what the evidence SHOWS isn't.
If you don’t perceive design, this exchange is hopeless.
If I don't perceive design, that means design is NOT apparent, and you have to point it out to me. I'm open to ALL evidence, as long as it truly IS evidence.
Your body also makes sugars, fats, DNA, and living cells more complicated than the electrical/communication systems of a city of millions.
And your point is?
Consider the complexity of a single micro-organism which Jehovah placed in you to combat pathogenic invaders, T4 PHAGE, it hunts down and eats bacteria:
Please provide evidence of:
A) This organism being designed
B) The designer being this Jehovah chap.
Molecular weight of its DNA: 120,000,000 120 million!
Yes, molecules are small, what's your point?
Specificity is 10 to the 78,000th power = 1 chance in 10 X 78,000 zeros.
Sorry what? What does this "chance" calculation have to do with anything. And I don't see how you arrived at your conclusion either, could you be more specific?
No matter how many athiestic materialists shout the evidence down: it calls for a design & designer, who's name alone is Jehovah.
What evidence?
Psalm 83:18
First of all, a psalm is NOT evidence. But let's see what it says, ok?
Psalm 83:13:
quote:
O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.
Since Psalm 83 talks about the "enemies" of god, I suppose it is the "them" in this sentence. So, god should make his enemies "like a wheel"? Strange way of dealing with one's enemies, won't you say?
“Even IF your "evidence" points to a designer, how do you know this designer is Jehovah?”
If you have an interest, I’ll provide abundant evidence.
I sure do!

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 2:20 AM chemscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 6:21 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2008 8:56 PM Huntard has not replied
 Message 52 by aftab, posted 11-04-2008 8:44 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 29 of 73 (487691)
11-03-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by chemscience
11-02-2008 6:21 PM


Re: GOODBY HUNTARD
Hello again Chemscience.
chemscience writes:
HUNTARD: The complete name of the book I have is
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE BY NATURAL CAUSES The full name
isn’t On the spine, only inside. I hadn’t noticed the
last 3 words of the title. Elsevier Publishing Company
Amsterdam London New York 1971 Library/Congress #73-118255
No worries, everybody makes mistakes, it's admitting you are wrong that is the hard part. And when you do, it shows you are willing to progress in life.
But, according to RAZD, this is still not the title of the book.
RAZD writes:
See The geological aspects of the origin of life on earth. by M. G. Rutten
Published in 1962, Elsevier Pub. Co. (Amsterdam, New York)
LCCN: 62010363
Dewey: 577.01
LC: QH325 .R82
Subject: Life ” Origin.
Geology.
also listed on Amazon.com
Still not a biology book eh?
In which of course he is right, it's NOT about biology.
“He’s a Geology professor? Why is he talking about evolution then?” You have strange rules!
Strange rules? What do you mean strange rules? Would you hire a bricklayer to do chemical analysis in that plant of yours? I wouldn't. And I would want a biologist to talk to me about biology, not a geologist.
“I’m pretty sure we’ll have the definitive answer sometime in the future” But no one has now!
Just like no one knew where lightning came from a few hundred years ago, so we still don't know exactly how life first got started on this planet. Does this mean that god was a valid alternative for how lightning came to be?
I cited Psalm 83: EIGHTEEN, not 13.
Whoopsee! See, everyone makes mistakes, and I'll admit I was wrong about the psalm you cited. That doesn't change the fact that Psalms AREN'T evidence.
Your “20 points I heard from creationists, etc.” says I don’t think for myself.
You wanted a better name for your list, and I gave you one. Don't ask people for something, and then when they give it to you complain about it. But, I'm not saying you don't think for yourself entirely, just where these points are concerned. Like RAZD points out, they are PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Your entire list is made up of them, there is evidence that refutes each and every point, yet somehow, you never came across it, while you only have to search the internet for a very short while to come up with that evidence.
Of course the first law is called the “Law of conservation of energy”, I abbreviated.
Oh alright, I might have overreacted there a bit. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't deal with matter though.
I was curious about your 20 cosmologies. You name “Pink unicorns & spaghetti monsters, ridiculing believers, myself included.
I did not mean to ridicule you, my apologies if you got offended. The point I was trying to make is that you can dream of any entity and claim it created the universe. When there is NO evidence to support it, everything is equally valid, and thus, not valid at all.
Spin your fantasy, but find another target. I’m not your fool.
My fantasy? What fantasy? I'm talking about reality all the time.
I asked you to present some evidence which you say you have. I'm sad to see you haven't done so yet.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 6:21 PM chemscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by chemscience, posted 11-03-2008 3:01 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 30 of 73 (487692)
11-03-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by chemscience
11-03-2008 2:12 AM


Re: RAZO, YOU'VE DONE ME A KINDNESS!
chemscience writes:
Thank You, RAZO!
His name is RAZD, but I'm sure he'll forgive you.
The assumption that one who believes in Creation is ignorant or dumb colors many posts.
That's probably because we've seen many who are. When presented with evidence that refutes their position, they usually cry "NUH-UH!" and then claim the are still right. That's not the hallmark of a person of intelligence, now is it? At least when it comes to that bit of their lives, they DO seem to be ignorant and dumb. This doesn't mean they can't pass complicated tests or anything, just that they seem closed of to some part of reality.
That mindset lets slip the hounds of arrogance & vituperation, and forecloses the prospect of learning.
The problem is these people often claim to be right even when shown evidence that they are wrong. This frustrates the people who show them the evidence, as they feel like all their effort was in vain.
Bad manners offend.
Yes, though people get offended FAR too easily these days.
You said it's a fray, Razo. It's more like a boxing gym with Christian punching bags.
No, being christian has NOTHING to do with it, it has to do with denying evidence. As pointed out, MANY of the people on this board are Christian, and MANY of them are scientists.
Sometimes a donkey can surprise you with a load of gold.
Of course he can, he has to present the gold though, not just assert he has it.
I'm an evangelist. This isn't the right forum for such, I think I'll cause others, as I've seen, to mock God.
This is indeed not a forum for preaching, this is the science bit of the forum, meaning you have to present evidence for your claims. And not agreeing with you is NOT equivalent to mocking god.
I certainly don't want to be part of that.
You're not, you're not responsible for other peoples actions.
Evolutionism's takeover is abetted by Christendom's failure to teach the truth of the Bible, a complicated/beautiful book in which we find:
For something to be considered TRUE, it needs supporting evidence.
100 times it says the soul dies, they're never called immortal/deathless.
A soul is simply a "breather", animal or human. The dead are asleep.
No torture in Hell, it's the grave. The Lake of Fire = annihilation!
In the Old Testament [75% of Bible] no one hoped to go to heaven
Heavenly life was first offered at the last supper to a "little flock"
Most of mankind will populate Earth forever in perfection. Thy Kingdom Come!
The resurrection is for both the righteous & unrighteous Acts 24:15
Christians must forsake war. JWs died in Nazi ovens & USSR slave camps.
None of us is paid or titled: "Freely you received, freely give."
Christianity isn't a business. It requires a spotless life, in peace.
Jehovah is God, Jesus isn't. There's no mysterious Trinity.
God's Kingdom will save the Earth & human race, soon!
If you say so. There are a whole lot of people though, not in the least other Christians, who will disagree with you on that. Especially the "Jesus isn't god" part
This Forum aside, mountains of evidence & 70 years of research convince me the Kingdom promises are real. I like sharing them. Probably better elsewhere.
Please present these "mountains of evidence". Oh, by the way, shouldn't god be take on faith alone? And if you want to believe the promises in the bible are real, go right ahead, don't claim they are supported by evidence without presenting that evidence though.
So, I'll ask you again. Please provide the mountains of evidence for your claims, or stop claiming there are mountains of evidence.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by chemscience, posted 11-03-2008 2:12 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 32 of 73 (487697)
11-03-2008 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by chemscience
11-03-2008 3:01 PM


Re: OK, HUNTARD
Hello again Chemscience.
I'LL OFFER EVIDENCE, BUT WHERE?
Well, since this is the cience part of the forums, I wouldn't really know a better place to provide evidence then here.
ADM MADE CLEAR EVANGELISM ISN'T FOR THIS THREAD.
That's cause it isn't science.
I LIKE TO KEEP THE RULES.
Good, then there is no problem presenting evidence here.
MY LAST POST SIMPLY IDENTIFIED A THEOLOGICAL POSITION, A SORT OF MANIFESTO.
A philosophical argument? Well....That would be best placed in one of the "social and religious issues" part I guess.
I'LL GO ANYWHERE YOU TRANSFER THE DISCUSSION, WOULD LIKE TO START AFRESH.
If you really have evidence, it can be presented here. If you have a Philosophical argument, start a new thread in the "proposed new topics" Board and outline it there, it will be placed in the correct forum by an admin.
MY FORMAL EDUCATION GOES BACK OVER 50 YEARS & I'VE NOT USED ALL OF IT. THE FIELDS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE SEEN MUCH CHANGE/DEVELOPMENT/
MODIFICATION, OF SOME OF WHICH I'M NOT AWARE.
Of course, we're here to point you in the right direction.
I MAY BE OUT-OF-DATE, OR WRONG, BUT I'LL NOT BE DISHONEST, NOR TWIST CITATIONS.
Good, I won't either.
DISCUSSION RULES:
THE HEARER IS KING, YOU DECIDE IF "EVIDENCE" IS VALID
Well....That's not completely how science works, it will all to soon become an argument from personal incredulity. "Because I can't believe that, it must be false" I try not to argue like that, since it gets you nowhere.
"THUS SAITH THE LORD" ISN'T PROOF IN ITSELF.
"truth" can only be determined by supporting evidence.
CHALLENGE IS WELCOME, BUT NOT RIDICULE. I'VE BEEN TO 100,000 DOORS, AM COMFORTABLE WITH DISAGREEMENT, LEAVE WHEN ACRIMONY COMMENCES.
TRUE CHRISTIANITY IS CONSIDERATE AS WELL AS EVANGELICAL.
I rarely ridicule people in debates, that would be ad hominem attacks, and those are not valid arguments. Unless they REALLY ask for it, I'll not ridicule anyone. I may make a poor attempt at humour, but that's merely intended for a laugh.
I NEED TO CITE AUTHORITIES, SINCE I'M NOT A UNIVERSAL EXPERT.
Neither am I. Yet JUST citing an authority is not a valid argument. I could cite the pope, who says that evolution is true, and not a threat to Christianity. Would you accept that argument?
YOU DECIDE IF THE AUTHORITY(S) ARE ADMISSABLE. I CAN'T PRESENT CONVINCING ARGUMENTS ON JUST MY SAY-SO.
Cite EVIDENCE, and there will be NO problem. You can cite an authority and then point to the evidence he had to make the claim he did, there's nothing wrong with that, but just a bare quote is NOT evidence of anything.
PLEASE SIGNAL IF EVIDENCE IS SATISFACTORY ON A POINT.
Oh I will where I can.
TO AGREE ON ONE CONCEPT ISN'T SURRENDER.
This goes for you as well.
THIS ISN'T A CONTEST WITH WINNERS & LOSERS
If we are truly open to the evidence, we'll all be winners.
FIRST ON THE MENU IS "FULFILLED PROPHECY AS CONFIRMATION OF SCRIPTURE". OK?
Fine with me. Though if I may, I do think I can already spot a flaw there. If one part of the bible is true, does that make ALL of it true?
One final statement I think is in place here. I am not telling you your faith is wrong. Faith is NEVER wrong. I am however objecting to people saying they are using science to "prove" god (who should be take on faith ALONE) when there is NO evidence for it.
Oh, and please turn off your caps lock key, it looks like shouting over the internet, and is not very pleasant to read.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by chemscience, posted 11-03-2008 3:01 PM chemscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by chemscience, posted 11-03-2008 6:36 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 50 of 73 (487728)
11-04-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by chemscience
11-04-2008 12:49 AM


Re: CHEMSCIENCE ANSWERS COYOTE
Hello Chemscience.
I agree with the people here who say this thread is becoming way too diverse way too fast. I'd like it if you could pick one or two topics you wish to discuss, and let's stick to them for now. Else it will be very hard to follow this thread. Thanks
Edited by Huntard, : Spellings

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by chemscience, posted 11-04-2008 12:49 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 54 of 73 (487743)
11-04-2008 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by aftab
11-04-2008 8:44 AM


Re: Nice analogy
aftab writes:
Nice analogy Huntard. I would never have thought that up.
I didn't, I read it on this very forum for the first time, I believe I saw cavediver use it in exactly the same situation. But thanks for the compliment nonetheless.
You have a very developed brain. Which of course means someone designed it. Which is of course the Lord, i'm guessing.
As Coragyps points out, having a developed brain is NOT evidence for that brain being designed. And even if it was, what points to god as that designer?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by aftab, posted 11-04-2008 8:44 AM aftab has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 73 of 73 (487781)
11-04-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by chemscience
11-04-2008 4:19 PM


chemscience writes:
EvC Forum Director, Percy:
Please delete me entirely from this Forum. Remove my registration or whatever else it takes to cut me off.
Thank you!
Well, that's a disappointment. If you would just stay on topic, none of this would be necessary. But ah well, some come some go, I'll go argue with someone else then. If you're still willing to do this, pick one or two topics to discuss in this thread (they have to be about evolution) and we can go from there. If not, too bad, your loss.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by chemscience, posted 11-04-2008 4:19 PM chemscience has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024