Spirituality
15 Sep 05
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by StarrmanYou evolutionists are all the same. You guys always sidestep the issue when put into a corner.
Yes thank you, I am quite capable of reading at the site you posted the link to, I don't require you to cut and paste as rebuttal. So are you going to admit you know nothing about quantum mechanics and your knowledge of chemistry is woefully inadequate? Or are you just going to answer by using somebody else's words? Words which you cannot validate as being true or false because of your ignorance in the realm of science.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by SiversmithI cannot believe you just wrote that, have you even bothered to read what was written in the thread? Firstly, I am not an evolutionarist. Secondly they are not all the same. Thridly I was not sidestepping the issue, dj2becker has sidestepped so far, he's left the debate. Fourthly are you going to contribute to the debate, or just cast alegations around?
You evolutionists are all the same. You guys always sidestep the issue when put into a corner.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThe only 2 major problems I have with the Miller-Urey experiment is: that they require an absence of oxygen as you noted above...
A very interesting post.
The Earth probably formed about 4.5 billions years ago. It was a hot, inorganic ball of rock with oceans and an atmosphere containing nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen atoms in some gaseous form or another, but no oxygen gas (O2). I don't really know what molecules these atoms were organized into, but it doesn't really matt ...[text shortened]... did the mitochondia come from? Or the ATP motors which would provide the gas to run this engine?
Why is that a problem? The source for oxygen gas is life itself, is it not? It comes when photosynthetic organisms take in carbon from CO2 and release free oxygen gas.
... the other is that in their experiment they created mounds of destructive tar that would eliminite early life.
I am unfamiliar with this idea. Can you give me a link or two that explains it in more detail?
Okay. Although as you said, this is only random chains of nucleotides, not life itself yet. Just like putting a frog (my apologies to FS) in a super-blender, which breaks it down on a microbiological level, would have all the necissary organic material, would this microcosm left to itself, create life? Hense my assertion in calculating the odds.
The blended frog idea does not accurately describe how the frog came to be under the abiogenesis model I described. It's a much different scenario. There is free oxygen now, and plentiful life that would ingest the molecules, etc. In addition one blended frog is not comparable to an entire planet that has been cooking for a billion years under the Sun.
When I last checked (end 2004) no one had yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach" ). This is within highly controlled lab environments, compared to the randomness of prebiotic earth. So I'd contend that the protocell theory is just that and hasn't yet been verified scientifically.
Agreed, though you're misusing the word 'theory' as many creationists do. I don't know if you're doing it intentionally or not; I doubt you are. To clarify, the word theory implies that there has been verification, not that there has not been any verification. For example, the Theory of Relativity, germ theory and gravitational theory have all been heavily verified.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by SiversmithYou're what, fifteen or sixteen years old? What the hell do you know? If you don't want to participate meaningfully in this discussion and, god forbid, learn something, why don't you head up to the General Forum? It's probably more your speed.
You evolutionists are all the same. You guys always sidestep the issue when put into a corner.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by rwingettHuh? Of course Evolutionists try to figure out if life can come from
Are you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated. It is concerned solely with how life evolved after it had originated. There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.
basic chemical compounds, a little water, a little comet juice, a bit
of sunlight, ipso presto one each life form🙂 Forgive the poor
slob humans to try to figure out in a couple hundred years what
the sun and earth and comets took a billion years or so to kick off.
21 Sep 05
1 edit
This is a perfect response to every stupid post. Just fill each [ ]'s with estimated age:
"You're what, [ ] or [ ] years old? What the hell do you know? If you don't want to participate meaningfully in this discussion and, god forbid, learn something, why don't you head up to the General Forum? It's probably more your speed."
I want to preempt any intentions to respond to this post with the above statement by publically announcing such an action to be devoid of any humor.
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by telerionHa! Ha! Good edit!
This is a perfect response to every stupid post. Just fill each [ ]'s with estimated age:
"You're what, [ ] or [ ] years old? What the hell do you know? If you don't want to participate meaningfully in this discussion and, god forbid, learn something, why don't you head up to the General Forum? It's probably more your speed."
I want to ...[text shortened]... post with the above statement by publically announcing such an action to be devoid of any humor.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Sep 05
Originally posted by StarrmanIn actual fact it has everything to do with abiogenesis. Quantum mechanics provide the building blocks of chemistry and therefore the relative forces which allow non-living matter to make up living matter.
So in fact you obviously know nothing about quantum mechanics. I am not surprised.
In actual fact it has everything to do with abiogenesis. Quantum mechanics provide the building blocks of chemistry and therefore the relative forces which allow non-living matter to make up living matter. The fact that you do not understand even rudimentary quantum mec ...[text shortened]... thing other than ignorance.
Who now sounds like they don't know what they are talking about?
Please feel free to explain how quantum mechanics proves that life evolved from non-life.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanThridly I was not sidestepping the issue,
I cannot believe you just wrote that, have you even bothered to read what was written in the thread? Firstly, I am not an evolutionarist. Secondly they are not all the same. Thridly I was not sidestepping the issue, dj2becker has sidestepped so far, he's left the debate. Fourthly are you going to contribute to the debate, or just cast alegations around?
I am still waiting for your response on the Miller experiment.
dj2becker has sidestepped so far, he's left the debate.
I am currently writing exams.(Incidently, I wrote a Chemistry paper on quantum numbers.) I was not aware that I had left the debate...
