|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It is really just chemistry. I think too many people get hung up on 'living' vs. 'non-living.' Ultimately, it is all made of the same atoms and molecules, all following the same rules. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Very little of which you actually need... at least is the form it currently exists. Open the hood of your car. Half of what is in there isn't necessary. That is, an engine can be built without many of those components or with more simple versions of some components. You have to think about such possibilities when you think about cell origins and complexity. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: They are in that particular car for a purpose. You do not have to build a car with all of those components. That is the point. The first cars were much more simple but they worked. And before that the components themselves went from very simple to very complicated.
quote: They are there to make fixing ones car painful, but that is beside the point.
quote: So what? Who said it had to be?
quote: Not so. This is not the only possible way to synthesize a protein.
Much of the appeal of this hypothesis arises from the realization that RNA- enzymes (ribozymes) would have been far easier to duplicate than proteinaceous enzymes. Whereas coded protein replication requires numerous macromolecular components (including messenger RNAs, transfer RNAs, the ribosome, etc.), replication of a ribozyme requires only a single macromolecular activity: an RNA- dependent RNA polymerase that synthesizes first a complement, and then a copy of the ribozyme.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://scienceweek.com/sw021122.htm quote: But with no ribosomes, why need a perch for them?
quote: Prokaryotes have no cytoskeleton. They seem to do alright.
404
quote: Prokaryotes also do not have Golgi Complexes.
quote: Ditto. Prokaryotes don't have lysomes.
quote: Now you've found a good one. Cell membranes must have been a major milestone, but molecular replication does not require them. Somewhere around this point the line between living and non-living blurs. Like I said, it is all just chemistry anyway.
quote: Nope, not the case. I believe what I have posted is correct. If not, someone will correct me. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: quote: There is no clear answer to this right now, but there are answers to how some of the parts may have arose. Chloroplasts, for example, look to have been seperate organisms that developed a symbiotic relationship with another organism and eventually lost its ability to survive and reproduce outside its symbiotic partner. Mitochondria are the same. Look up endosymbiont theory.
quote: Organisms today carry enormous amounts of genetic informations, but todays organisms have had 4 billions years to accumulate such information. The first organism would not have had nearly as much information.
quote: It is just chemistry. I can't tell you how it arose. No one can right now. But all you need is a replicating molecule to get the system started. Given half a billion years in a warm chemical rich environment it isn't hard to imagine. Look up abiogenesis and RNA world.
quote: Right, because cars don't mate and make babies. It is an analogy to make a point.
quote: Leaving the more efficient molecules and cells behind. That is, leaving the cells we are familiar with today, 3.5-4 billion years later. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: coragyps is right. There isn't much on that page that can be called information. Take this for example.
For example, how could the enveloped cells reproduce in close synchronicity? The implication is that enveloped cells can't reproduce in sync with their hosts. The problem is that hundreds of modern parasites and symbionts do just that. The question is vacuous. Or this.
How did lateral gene transfer into the nucleus take place when the nuclear membrane is designed for the passage of mRNA (out), and to contain DNA? Remember the prokaryotes? There is no nuclear membrane with which to contend. Or this.
If DNA were passed between the engulfed cell and the host cell, would not the host respond by degrading the foreign DNA, because it would detect it as a virus? Are not modern symbionts and parasites successful at avoiding the immune systems of the hosts? Again, only a smidgen of common sense shows how vacuous this is. Then there is this dramatic conclusion.
Furthermore, they have the same Designer! I almost missed it as it came from nowhere and there is no attempt to support the claim. This is simply a lie.
The endosymbiont idea was severely dealt with in the 70s and early 80s, and should have died. The idea is quite strong and genetic evidence is making the case stronger as time passes. Try again my friend. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com {Fixed 1 shaded quote box - Adminnemooseus} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yeah, something like that. This site also is pretty much devoid of real information. It sounds harsh but don't read creationist sites. They are nothing but propaganda. The arguments contained essentially assume that the original eukaryotes are just like modern ones. This assumption is absurd. Try reading these:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/145/luckie/margulis.html No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm Also, look up Paramecium bursaria. It is a modern organism in just the sort of symbiotic relationship with another organism that endosymbiosis proposes. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You quote this as if it is something I said. I do not remember making this statement, nor can I find this statement in any of my posts. Please do not misquote me.
quote: It is a sweeping claim, but I did not make it. Take up the issue with whomever did make the claim. I would however agree that pretty much all biologists take the theory seriously, if this is not taken to mean that everyone agrees with it. I am sure some do not agree. It is a very well founded theory and it has a some good evidence in its favor.
quote: This isn't my statement, though I tend to agree. Please be clear about these things.
quote: It doesn't appear to be an attempt to explain how the first organisms evolved. Percy has addressed this the bulk of this so there really is no need for me to do the same.
quote: How do you know? You don't. You can't know because the requisite information does not exist.
quote: There are tons of little errors in DNA. It happens all the time. DNA is nothing but atoms held together by chemical bonds. What do you mean where did it come from?
quote: Yet again, not my statement. Please quote what I say, not what someone else says.
quote: Far-fetched or not, the evidence suports it.
quote: Yes it is, and it directly contradicts a statement made in one of the articles you posted. The statement was that endosymbiosis could not happen because the host cell contains enzymes that would break down the symbiont-- ie. digest it. This is clearly false. We have a living example, which I provided.
quote: Irrelevant. As above, the example was a response to a particular objection.
quote: Which is just what the endosymbiont theory proposes. How is this a problem?
quote: The paramecium does swallow another cell and the whole is more complex. How is this an objection?
quote: Funny, given that a few posts ago you were appeared to have no knowledge of prokaryotes at all. But what is the point? With your list of cell requirements you are making the same mistake you first made, which is to assume that early life worked like modern life. The assumption is not justifiable.
quote: Actually, these are the minimal requirements for modern cellular life, excepting the parts Percy commented upon. It does not follow that these are the minimum requirements for LIFE, much less for precursors to life like replicating molecules. What is and isn't alive is largely definitional anyway. The edges are blurred. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 01-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Its ok. Just be careful with the citation.
quote: hmmmm... I don't think the pairing up is much of a problem. They snap together like lego. You want to concern yourself with the order of the bases, for two reasons. 1) The protein codes are in the order of the bases. 2) The earliest replicating molecules were likely something more like RNA which is not a paired base molecule.
quote: It isn't matching the bases. In all sincerity, you aren't going to be able to make much of an argument until you up your basic knowledge of this sort of thing.
quote: You are making the same mistake again that you in the beginning-- assuming a starting point much too far along the line. You wouldn't start with cells, just bare molecules that happen to replicate themselves. It may sound strange but some molecules do replicate themselves.
quote: You didn't say this, no. But...
Yes it is, and it directly contradicts a statement made in one of the articles you posted. The statement was that endosymbiosis could not happen because the host cell contains enzymes that would break down the symbiont-- ie. digest it. This is clearly false. We have a living example, which I provided. I don't remember which article it was which made the statement.
quote: The example adequately addresses several objections to the endosymbiont theory-- primarily that cells cannot live inside other cells and that organisms cannot develop synchronized reproductive cycles.
quote: I don't know that we can right now. We may never be able to prove it. But to insist that things 4 billion years ago are exactly what they are today is still unjustifiable. You are basically claiming that cells are the bottom line when in fact we don't know what the bottom line is.
quote: Don't know. A lot of people are working on it, though, that is the best we can do. Just curious, do you insist that everything be answered scientifically before you believe it? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, I do think this, PB. Do you think differently?
quote: Which brings us to the following...
quote: Yes indeed.
quote: Thought you'd be at the top 'o that list.
quote: Outside of your mind, this simply isn't true. You shouldn't make assertions so easily refuted. Now, if you meant to say that not everyone accepts the hypothesis, then you'd have a leg to stand on. That NO ONE holds this view is silly.
quote: Sugar and spice and everything nice?
quote: I don't think RNA will form spontaneously. That is why I did not say RNA but said 'something more like RNA.' Any familiarity with the hypothesis which you criticise-- the RNA World Hypothesis-- should have provided you with enough data to avoid these shallow objections.
quote: Why must I follow rules which you do not?
quote: Respectfully, yes you do and every opportunity.
quote: Fair, because you approve? You cannot be serious. Kinda funny though.... The author states:
We find ourselves, however, distinctly in the minority of biologists. .... thereby contradicting your earlier statement that NO ONE believes the RNA World Hypothesis. The author also attacks a straw man. The RNA World Hypothesis postulates that RNA came prior to DNA. It does not postulate that there are no RNA precursors, yet the author behaves as if this were the case.
quote: Must it be said? Seems kinda childish to me. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That is just about the funniest thing I have heard in weeks. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The rules of base pairing (or nucleotide pairing) are: A with T: the purine adenine (A) always pairs with the pyrimidine thymine (T)C with G: the pyrimidine cytosine (C) always pairs with the purine guanine (G) This is consistent with there not being enough space for two purines to fit within the helix and too much space for two pyrimidines to get close enough to each other to form hydrogen bonds between them.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/B/BasePairing.html It is due to the bonding properties of the chemicals involved. Yeah, it kinda is that simple.
quote: The wrong bases can't snap together due to the bonding properties of the chemicals involved. Maybe you are talking about REPLICATION? Copying errors can and do occur during replication. This is not a base pairing problem. It involves much more complicated sequences of reactions.
quote: Yes, but is less complicated.
quote: Quite a few researchers think otherwise. RNA is quite capable of performing the requisite functions. You may also note that RNA is the molecule that does the work. DNA is something of a storage medium.
quote: Exploding stars for the most part. Fusion reactions synthesize the heavier elements from lighter elements.
quote: The whole planet is made of molecules, but you mean organic molecules, yes? The snippy answer is "obviously those molecules were not destroyed as we are here talking about it." The more detailed answer is that we don't know what the conditions were nor do we know what the first molecules were, so making a pronouncement of what they could or could not endure is impossible.
quote: Maybe, life sucks like that sometimes.
quote: Stick around. There are more holes in that theory than you can imagine.
quote: As I suspected. Don't you feel a sinking feeling in your gut when you demand other people provide evidence but accept your own ideas uncritically?
quote: Don't know, but we've been through this. How did a lump of dirt manage to grow internal organs?
quote: The jury is still out. Answer this and you'll be famous.
quote: Well.... how may be a tricky question, but it has been observed to actually happen.
In some astonishing experiments , the American researcher K. W. Jeon and his colleagues in Buffalo, USA, witnessed an endosymbiotic integration actually occurring and maturing to full-scale interdependence of host and symbiont in the laboratory. For many years Jeon had been maintaining the giant amoeba A. Proteus with no problems. One year it was noticed that the organisms became sick, growing more slowly and dividing less often. Nevertheless they continued to grow and were carefully nurtured by Jeon’s team. Right from the start it was realised that the apparent cause of their sickness was the appearance in their cytoplasms of numerous bacteria. Clearly the amoebae had found the initial invasion disagreeable, but after a few months, their growth improved, albeit not quite to the same level as before. By this time the bacteria had become extremely numerous in the cytoplasm, to the extent of around 40,000 per amoeba. They still looked recognisably like bacteria. The astonishing thing was that now the amoebae were totally dependent on the little invaders; exposure to antibiotics of the kind that normally only affect bacteria resulted in the death of the amoebae themselves.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/MillHillEssays/2001/endosymbionts.htm quote: Viruses manage this all the time. You, in fact, carry viral and bacterial genes that have been passed along parent to child for who knows how long.
quote: But such transfers of DNA happen quite frequently. This has been documented. Viruses manage it. Bacteria trade genes all the time even between species and genera. You may object, but it happens nontheless. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Like I said, it is the order of the bases not the pairing.
quote: From energy. e=mc² Where did the energy come from? I don't really know.
quote: Which myth? There are thousands.
quote: What is wrong with a 6000 year old Earth? 1) There are tree ring sequences reaching back 9000 years2) Radiometric dating gives 4.5 or so billion years 3) There is a varve sequence in Japan dating back 40,000 years. 4) Bits and pieces of the continents show signs of having been in contact. Given the rates of movement we can estimate when they were connected. This points to millions of years of movement, not thousands of years. 5) 6000 years ago there were millions of humans, not two. 6) There is ample evicence of human habitation globally well before 6000 years ago. 7) 5000 years ago we see the rise of civilization in Sumer. They didn't notice the flood. 8) Mitochondrial DNA mutation rates point to greater than 6000 years. Really, there is too much to list.
quote: You should have known. It is a dead obvious observation.
quote: Such as? I have yet to see anything remotely convincing.
quote: You mean better than observed speciation many times over?
quote: There is a reason most biologists accept evolution. That reason is that there is overwhelming evidence for the theory.
quote: Interesting. Did anyone see God write the Bible? Did anyone see creation?
quote: Genesis 2:7 writes: Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. You need to read your Bible.
quote: So you accept that it can happen now, but do not accept that it could happen in the past? This makes no sense.
quote: Bacteria swap genes cross species. And what is this about DNA being destroyed? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I only brought this up to save you from future humiliation. You sound like you might be getting it but you also sound like a smart-assed kid with chip on your shoulder. Write your name. >> THOUSANDSAssociate each letter with the another one like so: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and combine THOUSANDSGUBHFNAQF Now think about it. Is the information in the sequence or in the pairing?
quote: Superstring theory is an attempt to rectify the incompatibilities between quantum theory and relativity.
quote: So the Vedas do not contain myths? Or the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Wow.....
quote: Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory. quote: Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory. quote: And it left no evidence at all. You can't be serious.
quote: Why do you think I care about AIGs statement of faith? It tells me they are apologists not scientists. Why does this help your case? I am sure that AIG has some article somewhere criticising dendrochronology but I don't feel like sloshing through the garbage in search of it. Maybe you could bother to learn how the method works and construct your own argument?
quote: Yes, in a lot of ways, and those problems are documented and are compensated for when tests are done.
quote: You must mean that you are guessing about how the process works. Yes, that could easily be wrong. Here, learn something.
Radiometric Dating quote: Yes, of course it gave a weird date. This also is touched upon in the article I gave you.
quote: Do you know what a varve is? It is a predictable layering of sediment. You count the layers and you get years. What dating throws off the dates?
quote: BS. 1) There is no known mechanism that could generate this much power2) The enormous energy released to do this would bake the planet many times over. quote: Egypt. Sumer. China. The Olmec. The evidence that there were millions of us is that there are massive civilizations and near civilizations all over the globe around 6000 years ago. It isn't hard to figure out.
quote: Meaning what? The Sumerians were around 5000 years ago. What was out by a thousand years?
quote: And it is all non-sense. Do you think I am unaware of AIG?
quote: So one species can 'speciate' into several but this isn't evolution? LOL.....
quote: That's nice, but you avoided the issue.
quote: Right. Or so the great and holy men said.... I seem to recall that when people do that today they are labeled quacks.
quote: Yes, it could be disproven but it hasn't been in over 150 years. Why do you think that is?
quote: No it can't or we wouldn't have this problem. We'd all be young earthers.
quote: So magic is an OK explaination? What happened to:
Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory. quote: And you know what these prokaryotes had? Maybe you could share with us? Basically, you've just made this up. Fess up.
quote: Whatdayaknow? A transitional form.
quote: Your source? It would be a lot easier if you would cite some sources.
[quote]The diversity of mitochondrial genes among the eukaryotes, would imply that endosymbiosis occured more then once, making it even more improbable.[/b][/quote] Numerous organelles were aquired this way.
quote: You've been shown that this is not always true. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I appreciate the thought, but you haven't done anything to create ill-will. I can be blunt and may come across as angry but real live animosity is pretty hard to evoke in me these days.
quote: Not a problem. We all screw up.
quote: I couldn't ask more of anyone.
quote: String or brane theory might explain the BB if anyone could get a consistent model-- which no on has-- and find a way to test it -- which seems practically impossible right now.
quote: aha...
quote: How is it that you define myth, then? The definition must include that myths are supported by mountains of evidence.
quote: Then you know how I feel about your Bible.
quote: hmmm... speciation has been observed to happen and parts of the ToE it can be tested and manipulated in the lab. Whereas with creation, there is not even that much. There is nothing. How do you think the two are on an even playing field?
quote: Sincerely, I don't care what you believe, but if you have evidence as you claim then please present it.
quote: Why Biblical? There are countless other creation myths. Why does a young earth point to the Bible? My guess is that you don't know why. You just want to believe what mommie told you.
quote: Then you should give up the farce of demanding scientific evidence before you believe something. That, or give up creationism.
quote: What things? And why? What MUST BE accepted on faith?
quote: That is because it is.
quote: Good for you, but when that evidence contradicts your religious assumptions you ignore it. It is an impressive posture in church I suppose, but it doesn't fly in the real world.
quote: Yes, of course.
quote: Not by a lot.
quote: Many landforms were formed by water. The issue is not the water but the time-frame.
quote: No. Acceptance of the Flood basically requires that you abandon most of science. I know you don't believe this. Geology goes out the window first off. Think about it. Two hundred years ago virtually all geologists were creationists. Geologist slowly abandonned the idea because it didn't jibe with the data.
quote: Yes, it does help.
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’. This isn't science. The article flat out states that when data contradicts the Bible the data gets tossed out. Moving along, we find this:
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. 1) There is no citation for this claim. This automatically makes the claim suspicious, and it is typical of creationist 'science' -- yet another reason such science is not taken seriously. 2) There are some conditions that can produce false rings. This is no secret. Five rings per year is doubtful though. To throw a date of significantly such false rings would have to be very frequent and if that were the case no one would be using the method to date anything. The fact is that it is tolerable reliable. I dare you to core a tree of known age-- something your parents planted maybe-- and count the rings. And then this....
Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era. This is an example of simply making something up. It sounds good but there is no supporting evidence for any of this. Here is another example of the same:
Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. There is no evidence for this. None. They don't even bother to try to provide evidence. Why? It isn't science. It is is meant for people who don't know anything about the subject and who won't bother to learn anything.
quote: An apologists starts with a conclusion or world view and constructs an argument to support it. A scientist starts with observation and constructs a description of it. Apology is like advertising. It is propaganda.
quote: Look. When you apply a test with a million year margin of error to a rock that solidified yesterday you are going to get a bad date. This is what these articles are about. They misapply the technology and then complain that it doesn't work. Sorry, I am not convinced and frankly the technique is dishonest.
quote: Think this through. Have you ever seen a flood deposit neat layers of sediment? You get a big layer of mud, not thousands of orderly layers. It is common sense.
quote: The Flood cannot be its own mechanism. What powered the flood?
quote: Want to tell me how exactly? And this really doesn't address the problem of baking the planet.
quote: Why don't you give evidence for this, as you insist on repeating it? Me thinks you've just made this up. Dates for recent ciilizations are pretty solid. In mesopotamia, china and mesoamerica the occupation was continous.
[quote]The 5000 years. Maybe the dates were out by more then thousands of years.[quote]
Maybe? Where is your evidence?
quote: Well, just think about the radio-dating discussion above, for example. The science is distorted, but you'll eventually figure that out if you stay here long enough.
quote: Then brush up on your evolutionary theory. It does qualify.
quote: We have such evidence. We have a lot of it. We have series of fossils for whales, horses, humans, birds, etc. All you have to do is look.
quote: By whom? With what evidence? Why are there thousands of unconvinced scientists?
quote: LOL... but the same is not allowed of the evolutionists!!! I'd bet that you have already used just this argument against me in replying to my comments about fossil sequences. Of course, you now have the chance to edit your post accordingly so we may never know. I've shown my hand.
quote: What evidence implies a young earth?
quote: ummmm.... no it does not make sense. Why would such tags not exist? We have billions of years between the first cells and the first eukaryotes. Viruses adapt very rapidly. HIV adapts, it seems, on a daily basis. Why, in billions of years, would one cell not evolve to survive inside another? After all it is about survival, about not being eaten/digested? Seems reasonable that they would have such mechanisms and have them for the same reason modern critters have them.
quote: Would this be "Dr. Jay Wile Of Apologia Educational Ministries" by any chance? Author, Speaker, Fisherman, Renaissance Man?
337p粉嫩日本欧洲亚洲大胆,337p日本大胆欧洲亚洲色噜噜,337p日本欧洲亚洲大胆精品,337p日本欧洲亚洲大胆精筑 quote: Hard to accept or not, it happened. The DNA evidence is pretty solid for at least a couple of organelles-- mitochondria and chloroplasts. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: As, for example, most everything in the Bible.
quote: For many things the evidence isn't there, but ignoring or denying evidence that is there does not make that evidence go away.
quote: The number of followers has to do with what?
quote: The Vedas are older than the Bible and are still held sacred by millions of people. The Upanishads date from 600BC -- older than the NT-- and so do many Buddhist works. Your objection is empty and vain.
quote: I wouldn't call it a 'rise' more of a development.
quote: There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool, nor of this speciation at lightning speed.
quote: Tell me, if you had a pack of wolves and a pack of chihuahuas, how likely do you think they are to interbreed and produce viable offspring? I'd give it virtually no chance. This fits the definition for speciation.
quote: I live on right on top of a segment of land that was uplifted from a few hundred feet above sea level to about 800' during the Miocene. Not far from here the land reaches 1900' and I believe parts get to 3000'. Volcanoes can make mountains in a matter of days or weeks. Mount Everest is still rising by 2.4 inches a year. This can be measured. If erosion overtook uplifting as you say then it would be impossible for Everest to RISE.
quote: You seem to be forgetting or ignoring the obvious. Helium does not stay in the atmosphere indefinitely. It escapes into space.
quote: Yes, they were buried quickly which is why they became fossils and not lunch. Common sense will tell you that the dead thing must be protected or it will be eaten. Burial is a good way of achieving this end. Thus, the fossil record will be heavily weighted towards such fortunate (for us) deaths.
quote: Look out your window. Pick a tree. If that tree were to fossilize where it stands it would be 'polystratic' -- a creationist term, by the way. Tree roots penetrate the soil and what is soil but the upper layers of strata. Get a shovel and did. You ought to be able to see several easily demarcated layers of sediment. Of course, this is impossible.
quote: Oh? Can you pick out which version of the story is correct so that we can discuss it more?
Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal. Or when hearing of real precious opal formed in months,8 or coal from simple heating of wood in 28 days. Argonne National Laboratories in the US combined wood, water and acidic clay, and heated in a sealed container (with no added pressure) at 150 C for 28 days, and obtained high-grade black coal. These researchers at Argonne National Laboratories in the US combined wood, water and acidic clay, and heated in a sealed container (without oxygen, and no added pressure) at 150 oC for 2—8 months. [Ed. Note: Or to be more precise than was necessary in a family magazine, the reaction included the major wood stiffener, lignin; other reactions contained the other major wood component, cellulose. So the principle is the same. They are hydrothermal reactions, hence the explanation in the magazine that water was an ingredient although obviously no scientific abstract would bother stating it and an essential one. See E. Pennisi, ‘Water, water, everywhere’, Science News 143:121—5, 20 Feb. 1993] See [url]No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy_II.htm2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote]Account Suspended2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote][/quote]Account Suspended2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote][/quote]Account Suspended2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote][/quote]Account Suspended2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote] Got a reference? From what I can find those stalactites were LAVA. This is not nearly the same thing.
quote: Synthetic opal has been around since 1963(?). Big deal, we can make diamonds too but this doesn't prove they were made in the earth in a matter of hours. Cram's opals are experiments and I can't find much info but it looks like Cram isn't happy with the results. The opals aren't 'natural' enough.
quote: Actually a whole lot of it returns to land as evidenced by the massive salt deposits we have in various parts of the world.
quote: Fine, but that wasn't the question.
Why Biblical? There are countless other creation myths. Why does a young earth point to the Bible? My guess is that you don't know why. You just want to believe what mommie told you. quote: A faith that works???? Every faith works. That is what is so good about faith. It requires nothing-- no evidence, no thought, nothing.
quote: It has been tested and retested for 150 years and it has not been disproven thus far.
quote: Apply this logic across the board. Do you believe in atoms? No one has ever seen them. Do you believe that dogs exist which you have never seen? I bet you do. Why? Inference. You can infer a great deal about the world, but here you argue against this very process. Basically, you deny that we can infer things veyond what we can actually see. Yet you only apply this objection selectively. This makes you inconsistent.
quote: What then are all the scientists doing in there labs? You just ruled out astronomy as a science too, btw.
quote: We have the fossil record. We have genetics. We can infer a great deal.
quote: You are inconsistent. You say evolutionists are very good at describing yet claim there is no evidence. How can one describe nothing? Evolution describes all of the observations we have concerning the origens of species.
quote: Thousands of scientists are experimenting with the various mechanisms of evolution.
quote: Yes, it could but thus far that one gram has not been found.
quote: LOL......
quote: What?
quote: Mt. St. Helens produced nothing like the grand canyon despite what your creationist heroes claim.
quote: There is no evidence to toss out.
quote: Again you have no evidence. You've just made something up. And what makes you think ice age weather would less pronounced?
[quote][b] From the article: "Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere." No, actually not. Ice cores give us a pretty good idea of what the atmosphere actually was like.
quote: If it was buried where is it? We ought to have a thick layer somewhere with lots of dead things. We don't have such a layer.
quote: Doesn't make sense. The critical factor is atmospheric carbon not the organic matter that a flood would bury. The atmospheric carbon should remain basically the same in proportion to the atmospheric nitrogen.
quote: You are mistaken. Scientist use the best descriptions they have but those desciptions are not sacrosanct. Theory can change as the data changes.
quote: Yes there are. People screw up. Samples get contaminated. Some people intentionally do the tests poorly. Dates are cross checked via several method and lots of individual samples. They all line up pretty well.
quote: It is based on the half-life of the isotopes involved. The world could have been created yesterday and those values would still be the same.
quote: Yes. Try your own experiment. You will get ordering by density and grain size. You will not get alternating layers of two different materials. You will not get dense material on top of light material. Yet such things are found all the time in the geological column.
quote: Just like in the Bible. The rest of the evidence is just made up.
quote: Which what? Don't keep me in suspense!
quote: ummmm..... yes. So why didn't they notice the flood? Start at creation at around 6000 years ago or 4000BC. Add about 1400 years-- the time between creation and the flood-- and were are you? About 2600BC. So why did they not notice the flood.
quote: A change in the frequency of traits in a population constitutes evolution. That's it really.
quote: Why not study real science?
quote: That horses evolved? You can't be serious.
quote: You can go to any number of real live educational institutes to find out just how wrong you are, but you won't do so because fact is not the issue, religion is. When you started posting, you insisted that you were here to learn. Now I am beginning to believe otherwise. You appear to not even bother to look up what you assert but rather just vomit back up whatever the creationists tell you. Basically, your claim is absurd.
Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry Before you start tossing around that idea of 'kinds' why don't you define it for us. No one has yet to do so.
quote: Simply wrong. You are so far off base now that I don't care to help. You are old enough to find this information but you chose not to do so.
quote: AIG is not the source for reliable information. Check out the universities. You know, real science.
quote: You willingness to quote out of context is very disturbing. The debate is not about whether birds evolved but about whether they evolved from dinosaurs or not.
quote: So?
quote: Cite your source.
quote: What?
quote: quote: You do know that just 50 or so years ago HIV was not HIV?
quote: So that is why you are so fired up. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 01-20-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024