Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2018 2:42 PM
241 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, ICANT, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, xongsmith (9 members, 232 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,328 Year: 17,151/29,783 Month: 1,139/1,956 Week: 136/506 Day: 72/64 Hour: 13/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 249 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 yet responded
 Message 7 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 2:20 AM Huntard has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 73 (487440)
10-31-2008 1:45 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 249 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 yet responded

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

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2143 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 4 of 73 (487521)
11-01-2008 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard
11-01-2008 4:57 AM


chemscience11. 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.

HuntardNo evolution once more. And the poin you're trying to make is?

Speaking to chemscience

The process is called condensation and happens all the time in aqueous media. ie: the cells of a living being.

Edited by bluescat48, : clarification


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 11-01-2008 4:57 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 905 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 5 of 73 (487530)
11-01-2008 10:21 AM


Huntard, thanks for opening the thread,

Hi chemsci,

chemsci writes:

On the Origin of the Universe there are generally agreed to be only 2 possibilities. 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.

There are only 2 possibilities? No, there is only 1 possibility, God did it.

Currently no cosmologocal model assigns the universe a beginning therefore there is no moment of creation from nothing.

So if your question is 'what created the universe', then there is only one answer, God. In cosmology the universe requires no beginning, no creation point, so the question of 'what create the universe' does not apply and is nonsensical. It is a faith based question that tries to force science to give an answer.

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.

If you understood the cosmological models you would understand that there is no creation point from nothing. There is an expansion, however, since this is not a class to teach cosmology I will ignore the rest of what you said and let you continue to bury yourself...

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.

This is a typical creationist misunderstanding of the 1st LOT. Huntards definition is perfect. Also, since the universe does not come from nothing, the 1st law is not violated.

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

You are not looking to good yet...

Being that galaxies cannot exist until there is a universe for them to exist in, and a cool enough universe at that, your "100 billion galaxies compressed into an atom" is nonsense.

There was no explosion, and here again is another nonsensical statement. The universe expanded from one state(quantum state) into another state(our current universe).

The BBT deals with the expansion of the universe and NOT with what came before.

4. The explosion event is called a Singularity by believers.

This is nonsense, I wont even address the rest.

Right here comes an unanswerable objection which is expressed in Colin Ronan’s book “The Universe Explained”:

You use the word explosion, then you quote a book that uses the word expansion, I don't like where this is going for you my friend...

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.”

“There must be” is a statement of faith, metaphysics.

Digging deep for it aren't you? Why don't you give the evidence that lead to what you refer to as a faith based statement? It wasn't just a blind assertion that lead to his comment, there is evidence for dark matter, one being that the universe is expanding, hence the name of that book "The Universe Expanded".

6 & 7 Dark matter & dark energy are now imagined to supply the necessary mass (weight) required to make the BBT possible.

No, this statement again is just a complete lack of understanding.

Dark matter and dark energy lend nothing to the BBT. DE and DM help understand the current accelarated expansion, the BB is not affected.

Ok looks like the cosmology portion is over.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On authority lists 19 separate steps and dozens of enzymes required for protein synthesis within cells. The critical question is: Source of 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?

Study biology, and chemistry, and perhaps persue a career as an Abiogenesis research scientist.

I think the doctrine this perfection of precision came without a designer is simply ludicrous!

Ok...so? An argument from incredulity is not an argument.

No matter how many athiestic materialists shout the evidence down: it calls for a design & designer, who's name alone is Jehovah.

But you have presented no evidence for design, all you stated were the processes that take place and then "I can't believe this happens without design". Well fine, but it seems like there is a general consensus among scientist that a natural process took place, it is studied in the different fields that are covered by abiogenesis. There is much literature on this if you care to study it. But more specifically you have not said one thing that even remotely concerns evolution. You keep using the word evolutionist, you keep refering to what evolutionist believe but you've only talked about cosmology and abiogenesis. Do you see where I get the nonsense statement from now?

You're 20 issues were supposed to deal a blow to evolution and evolutionist, you have done none of this. You tried to deal with cosmology and showed that you really don't know much about it, then you tried to show how complex we are and how you can't imagine it happening without God, which actually doesn't prove or show evidence against anything.

In my eyes it was nonsense...

SO WHERE'S THE "FLAT OUT NONSENSE", ONIFRE?

Im sorry, it was flat out nonsense.

Edited by onifre, : spelling


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2008 12:28 PM onifre has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 73 (487533)
11-01-2008 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by onifre
11-01-2008 10:21 AM


Creation "science" again
You're 20 issues were supposed to deal a blow to evolution and evolutionist, you have done none of this. You tried to deal with cosmology and showed that you really don't know much about it, then you tried to show how complex we are and how you can't imagine it happening without God, which actually doesn't prove or show evidence against anything.

These "20 issues" are typical of creation "science" as we see it today.

The details don't matter; to creation "scientists" details really don't matter because creation "science" is apologetics, designed to support fundamentalist Christian belief.

The ultimate answers are "known" to its practitioners. The details of how things got the way they are are unimportant. If it was not by one method, it was by another, and they don't much care either way.

This, by the way, is diametrically opposed to the way real science operates.

But that list of 20 "evolution killers" is standard fare for creation "science." Its not supposed to be real science; its enough that it convinces those who already believe. And when the list is picked apart by scientists, who cares? Creation "scientists" already know the answers so the "interpretations" of evilutionists don't matter.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by onifre, posted 11-01-2008 10:21 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 11-03-2008 9:56 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 73 (487563)
11-02-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
10-31-2008 12:57 PM


Hello Huntard, You and I share strong opinions!

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:

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.

I disagree that cosmology has “nothing to do with evolution”. Creation of the universe without God MEANS creation of life w/o God. In my hand is THE ORIGIN OF LIFE by the late M. G. Ruten, Prof/Geology, Univ/Utrercht, Netherlands. The preface is by the illustrious evolutionist A. I. Oparin. which covers some of the same ground I did. 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.

“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!

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. The universe exhibits characteristics cosmologists don’t understand, so they fantasize DM & DE to plug their theories. Sounds like the Houston Enron boys with their nonexistent assets. That may be good enough for you, Huntard, but not me. Your argument fails

“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.”

Paul Davies in: Physics and Our View of the World: “The appearance of the Universe from nothing need not violate the laws of physics.”

You say on the Origin of the Universe: "I can think of at least 20 right now.” I’m sincerely curious, please list some!

A. God created the both the design & substance of the universe. "Perhaps, there is however no evidence cor this." Perhaps you just haven't seen it.

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”.

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.

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

“And since time began with the big bang, there is no "before" the big bang.“

A senseless idea.

“galaxies did not come out the big bang fully formed” Did I say they did?

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. 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.

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.

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.”

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. 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.

If you don’t perceive design, this exchange is hopeless.

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, how do you know this designer is Jehovah?”

If you have an interest, I’ll provide abundant evidence.

"I think I pointed some of it out. Perhaps Onifre would like to add to this?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2008 12:57 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by DrJones*, posted 11-02-2008 3:08 AM chemscience has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Granny Magda, posted 11-02-2008 5:43 AM chemscience has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2008 7:05 AM chemscience has responded
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2008 7:39 AM chemscience has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 11-02-2008 4:18 PM chemscience has responded
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 11-02-2008 7:43 PM chemscience has not yet responded
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2008 8:35 PM chemscience has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1740
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 8 of 73 (487564)
11-02-2008 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by chemscience
11-02-2008 2:20 AM


quote:
disagree that cosmology has “nothing to do with evolution”. Creation of the universe without God MEANS creation of life w/o God.

Creation of life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is what happens after life is created by The Invisible Pink Unicorn.


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 2:20 AM chemscience has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 9 of 73 (487567)
11-02-2008 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by chemscience
11-02-2008 2:20 AM


Hello there chemscience,

You said the 7 points: “have nothing to do with evolution, as you did claim in the naming of your list.“

Huntard is right, they don't.

I disagree that cosmology has “nothing to do with evolution”.

It doesn't. Cosmology and evolution are separate fields of study, one studied by cosmologists, the other by biologists. You are seeking to conflate to separate arguments.

Creation of the universe without God MEANS creation of life w/o God.

Not necessarily. What if God were not the creator of the universe, but merely its most powerful inhabitant? He might have been born (or whatever you would call it) after the existence of the universe, only to create life at a later date.

God created the both the design & substance of the universe.

So what caused the BB?

None of this is relevant to evolution. It's just not. Cosmology and biology are not the same and there is no need to drag your problems with cosmology into a discussion about biology.

Let's take another hypothetical...

Let us assume that God did make the universe. He set off the Big Bang, doing so in such a way that galaxies, stars planets etc, would form.

That still leaves us with the fact of evolution. Species still change over time. Individuals still struggle to survive, with the fittest passing on their genes. Allele frequencies still change within populations over time.

There is no need within evolutionary theory for a godless beginning to the universe. It just doesn't matter. Evolution can work just as well in a God-created universe as it can in a godless one. Indeed, with such overwhelming evidence behind it, one is forced to conclude that if God created life, then evolution is the method he chose to accomplish it.

8. In 1952 H. Urey & Stanley Miller at the Univ/Chicago produced amino acids

The same argument applies here. It doesn't matter whether life formed through an unguided chemical process or whether God magicked life into existence; evolution still holds true.

Once life had come about, by whatever means, it started to evolve. It has continued to do so to this day.

Questions about the first origins of life properly belong in the field of abiogenesis. It is a separate, albeit related, field of study from evolutionary biology. It is a fledgling science and, sadly, it has very few answers to offer us (as yet). There are many hypotheses, but none is close to providing definitive answers.

Is that a problem? Should we be expected to have all the answers? Of course not. All that can be done is to study and seek and enquire in an effort to find those answers. In the mean time we should admit our ignorance of the details of life's origin, rather than rush to insert a supernatural explanation that cannot be researched, tested or evidenced.

Oh, one small point;

In my hand is THE ORIGIN OF LIFE by the late M. G. Ruten, Prof/Geology, Univ/Utrercht, Netherlands. The preface is by the illustrious evolutionist A. I. Oparin. which covers some of the same ground I did. 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.

Well far be it from me to contradict so illustrious a scientist, but this assumption is not absolutely necessary for evolution to be true. You will probably find that most biologists believe in an abiogenetic origin for life, but, as I have shown already, divinely created life would be just as capable of evolving.

To sum up, if you want to talk evolution, stick to the latter points on your list. They may be familiar creationist talking points, but at least points 16 to 19 on your list are remotely linked to evolution (even if they do represent an argument from personal incredulity). If you would like to discuss them further, I would be happy to oblige, but all cosmology and abiogenesis are just distractions. Much better to discuss them in other threads.

having said that...

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 can't resist. I'd be very interested to see your evidence.

By the way,



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;

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=497&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=497&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=497&m=1

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.

Mutate and Survive.

Edited by Granny Magda, : Darn. Typo.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 2:20 AM chemscience has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5357
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 10 of 73 (487569)
11-02-2008 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by chemscience
11-02-2008 2:20 AM


No explanation for the 21% oxygen/ 78% nitrogen atmosphere we enjoy now? Have you ever heard of photosynthesis, Chemscience? And I'd sory of hope that someone choosing "chemscience" as a screen name would know a little about how amide bonds form. Hint: it's not with both hydrogens off the amine nitrogen.

And, incidentally, there's some recent work that shows that carbonyl sulfide, a common volcanic gas, catalyzes amide bond formation in dilute water solutions.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 2:20 AM chemscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 4:04 PM Coragyps has responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2143 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 11 of 73 (487570)
11-02-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by chemscience
11-02-2008 2:20 AM


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.

Except at this time there were no algae or plants or for that matter, animals, fungi or any life. The earliest life is considered to be anaerobic bacteria. Which could exist in a CO2, NH3, CH4/ & HOH atmosphere

Edited by bluescat48, : subs

Edited by bluescat48, : spelling


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by chemscience, posted 11-02-2008 2:20 AM chemscience has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by aftab, posted 11-02-2008 9:19 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
aftab
Junior Member (Idle past 3577 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 11-02-2008


Message 12 of 73 (487577)
11-02-2008 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by bluescat48
11-02-2008 7:39 AM


To whoever posted the first bit...and said whatever about dark matter...well yes majority of dark matter is unknown in nature..but ever heard of this particle called a neutrino...yes it cannot contribute to all the dark matter...but we've observed one particle haven't we...

And i don't see the logic behind attempting to use science to disprove evolution and then replacing it with an unscientific proposition (I said unscientific not untrue...God alone knows whether it's true or not...ah, the irony).

And about the complexity being evidence of God...why can't it be evidence of the Spaghetti monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Or any one of an infinite number of other such beings? When you compute that, the probability that it was God is 1/infinity = 0. Slightly lower than the probability it happened randomly isn't it?

Edited by aftab, : No reason given.

Edited by aftab, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2008 7:39 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2008 11:48 AM aftab has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2143 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 13 of 73 (487594)
11-02-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by aftab
11-02-2008 9:19 AM


And i don't see the logic behind attempting to use science to disprove evolution and then replacing it with an unscientific proposition (I said unscientific not untrue...God alone knows whether it's true or not...ah, the irony).

Creationists do not consider their proposition as unscientific, it is just that they don't seem to understand what science is.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by aftab, posted 11-02-2008 9:19 AM aftab has not yet responded

    
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 73 (487604)
11-02-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
11-02-2008 7:05 AM


My, My, CORAGYPS, AREN'T WE SNIDE!
QUOTHS THOU: "And I'd sort of hope that someone choosing "chemscience" as a screen name would know a little about how amide bonds form. Hint: it's not with both hydrogens off the amine nitrogen."

CHEMSCIENCE was the company I sold when I retired, merged into another firm. I still own the 16,000 sq ft plant I custom built in a good industrial park, spent 40 years in commercial chemistry.

In this dehydrating syntheses a single H separates from the amine group in one amino acid, while the other is in the hydroxyl [OH] from the carboxyl group in the joining amino acid. This dehydration eliminates accumulation of "prebiotic soup" in the seas. The thermodynamic-point-of-equilibrium is such that peptides formed in the sea would rapidly dissolve.

WIKIPEDIA: "As both the amine and carboxylic acid groups of amino acids can react to form amide bonds, one amino acid molecule can react with another and become joined through an amide linkage. This polymerization of amino acids is what creates proteins. This condensation reaction yields the newly formed peptide bond and a molecule of water."

OF COURSE, THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF OCEANIC ACCUMULATION DOESN'T PREVENT THIS LIE FROM BEING TAUGHT AS THE MECHANISM OF BIOSYNTHESIS IN THE HALLS OF BIOCHEMISTRY!

In our cells peptide polymerization transpires in ribosomes.

CHEMSCIENCE! (If you don't mind)

Edited by chemscience, : SPELLING


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2008 7:05 AM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2008 5:38 PM chemscience has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 249 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;

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=497&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=497&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=497&m=1

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence 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 :P ), 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 :D.

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 responded

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

    
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018