13 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes. Experiment has shown that the nucleoside triphosphates can be formed out of simple gasses and energy that probably existed long ago. Such molecules tend to polymerize if present in enough concentration, and such concentration could be explained through evaporation in tidal pools. The RNA thus formed would naturally serve as a template for reproduction; as the NTPs could polymerize, and as they could base pair with the RNA, new RNA that formed would tend to be like that which already existed. This is enough for an evolutionary process to begin.
[b]Dj, humans creating life does not prove life always is created by intelligence - it just shows that it is possible.
Do you have any reason to suggest that life can be created without the use of intelligence?
[/b]
We already know RNAs can act as enzymes. We know lipid bilayers form spontaneously under simple conditions. These things which happen naturally without direction give the components of the cell.
We don't know the details. However there is plenty of reason to suggest life can be created without the use of intelligence.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think what I am describing is exactly what is going on; I think Darfius is covering one flank (but giving himself wiggle room i.e. 1,000,000 times worse than the Tower of babel) and dj2 becker is covering the other flank. See my first post on the other page concerning what the fundies will argue when scientists, by recreating natural conditions, succeed in "creating" life from non-life building blocks.
I don't think he is actually. Darfius is arguing one position and dj is arguing the other. Unless I missed something?
Dj, humans creating life does not prove life always is created by intelligence - it just shows that it is possible.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEvolution does not require faith; it exists independent of humanity.
So you agree that Christianity and Evolution both require faith?
Your question is worded awkwardly. Evolution does not require faith; it exists independent of humanity. To confidently believe that the TOE is an accurate mode ...[text shortened]... about me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith[/b]
Are you suggesting that Evolution is a proven fact?
My belief that the TOE is an accurate model rests on material evidence. Therefore, this kind of faith is not required to believe the TOE's explanations.
Would you like to share some of this material evidence? And I'd be grateful if you could add how this material evidence was obtained.
I tend to trust the scientific community when it comes to questions about how the universe works, but I haven't looked into the issue of the origin of the universe myself. You assume too much about me.
So what you are actually saying is that by your first definition you do actually have faith in the scientific community (which is giving you the material evidence for evolution), but then you only have faith in evolution by your second definition? This does not seem to realate logically. Do you believe the entire theory of evolution or only parts of it?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy do you start a thread about the universe and then argue about the theory of evolution? I hope you realize that the scientific theories around the origin of the universe have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
[b] Evolution does not require faith; it exists independent of humanity.
Are you suggesting that Evolution is a proven fact?
My belief that the TOE is an accurate model rests on material evidence. Therefore, this kind of faith is not required to believe the TOE's explanations.
Would you like to share some of this material evidence? An ...[text shortened]... seem to realate logically. Do you believe the entire theory of evolution or only parts of it?
[/b]
You are perfectly aware of the enormous body of evidence supporting the TOE; you refuse to believe it because for some strange reason you believe it is incompatible with the belief in a "Christian" God. Of course it is not and the majority of Christians believe in the TOE. You make yourself sound like a country bumpkin arguing against science; most denominations of Christianity have no problem accepting the TOE as they accept that the world isn't flat and the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa. Join at least the 19th century, dj2becker.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes. Experiment has shown that the nucleoside triphosphates can be formed out of simple gasses and energy that probably existed long ago. Such molecules tend to polymerize if present in enough concentration, and such concentration could be explained through evaporation in tidal pools.
Yes. Experiment has shown that the nucleoside triphosphates can be formed out of simple gasses and energy that probably existed long ago. Such molecules tend to polymerize if present in enough concentration, and such concentration could be explained through evaporation in tidal pools. The RNA thus formed would naturally serve as a template for repr ...[text shortened]... owever there is plenty of reason to suggest life can be created without the use of intelligence.
Are you not assuming that these gasses existed long ago. Are you not using the type of faith you defined in your first definition? (i.e. "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." ) Do you not have "faith" in the idea of certain simple gasses and energy that probably existed long ago? Do you not think that intelligence is needed to place the exact concentration of gasses at the right place at the right time?
The RNA thus formed would naturally serve as a template for reproduction; as the NTPs could polymerize, and as they could base pair with the RNA, new RNA that formed would tend to be like that which already existed. This is enough for an evolutionary process to begin.
Is this premise not also based on faith? Or has this been demonstrated in the lab?
However there is plenty of reason to suggest life can be created without the use of intelligence.
Is this reason not based on faith as I have shown above? Why has life never been observed to have been created without intelligence if your above assertion were to be true?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy do you start a thread about the universe and then argue about the theory of evolution? I hope you realize that the scientific theories around the origin of the universe have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Why do you start a thread about the universe and then argue about the theory of evolution? I hope you realize that the scientific theories around the origin of the universe have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
You are perfectly aware of the enormous body of evidence supporting the TOE; you refuse to believe it because for ...[text shortened]... the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa. Join at least the 19th century, dj2becker.
What scientific theories are you refering to?
You are perfectly aware of the enormous body of evidence supporting the TOE
Whould you mind pointing out a single piece of coherent evidence that proves without a doubt that evolution is a fact?
You refuse to believe it because for some strange reason you believe it is incompatible with the belief in a "Christian" God. Of course it is not and the majority of Christians believe in the TOE. You make yourself sound like a country bumpkin arguing against science; most denominations of Christianity have no problem accepting the TOE as they accept that the world isn't flat and the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa. Join at least the 19th century, dj2becker.
There are many Christians that have no idea what moral degredation is brought about by the theory of evolution. There many Christian that do not understand that the TOE is aimed at destroying belief in God and the Bible. Then of course there are many Christians that do not believe the Bible in the first place...
13 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerA) The theory regarding the origin of the universe that is most widely accepted is the "Big Bang" which comports with all available data. Plaease explain to me why you think the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with the origin of the universe;
[b/]Why do you start a thread about the universe and then argue about the theory of evolution? I hope you realize that the scientific theories around the origin of the universe have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
What ...[text shortened]... any Christians that do not believe the Bible in the first place...[/b]
B) There is no scientific theory that is proven without a doubt; this is not the nature of science. If you cannot grasp this simple fact you are a fool. Science, as you have been told over and over again, gives the best explanation for observed data. The evolution of species is a "fact", it and no "fact" can proven "without a doubt".
C) 🙄🙄😴
13 Apr 05
1 edit
If we are going to be perfectly honest about this,
we should say "scientists tell us" - or more
accurately , "many or most scientists agree".
Science is not an entity that can tell us
anything. And yes, I have said "science tells us"
but that can be misleading. It connotes that
the claim is made by an impersonal entity without
human bias, political or philosophical motives,
and is immutable. But scientists do not all
agree, they do not get the same results, they are
influenced by politics, religion, philosophies,
money, fame, and power. In other words - they are
human.
Now I know some here will object, and say that
peer reviews and the scientific method corrects
for these error. But "history" tells us that that
is pie-in-the sky thinking. There are plenty of
examples of the process and people being corrupted
or influenced by politics or power. Professor are
pushed hard to publish and attract money and
government support. Pier reviews don't always work
- where there are peers there is peer pressure.
And the process is only as good as it's weakest
link - the scientist. So "science tell us" does
not make it true any more than saying my Uncle
Fred tells us. To say otherwise is to place blind
faith in science, and turn it into other false
religion.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiScience tells you that you can turn your computer (made by science) and type in things to be put on the internet (made by science) saying that science is meaningless and it's all blind "faith". You can also shut your eyes when you're driving your car (made by science) and it's possible you won't get killed. Care to tell me why we should treat things that have been verified over and over again by the scientific method in the same way we treat the assertions that there are magical things that we can't see?
If we are going to be perfectly honest about this,
we should say "scientists tell us" - or more
accurately , "many or most scientists agree".
Science is not an entity that can tell us
anything. And yes, I have said "science tells us"
but that can be misleading. It connotes that
the claim is made by an impersonal entity without
human bias, poli ...[text shortened]... s. To say otherwise is to place blind
faith in science, and turn it into other false
religion.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderA) The theory regarding the origin of the universe that is most widely accepted is the "Big Bang" which comports with all available data.
A) The theory regarding the origin of the universe that is most widely accepted is the "Big Bang" which comports with all available data. Plaease explain to me why you think the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with the origin o ...[text shortened]... ", it and no "fact" can proven "without a doubt".
C) 🙄🙄😴
A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:
Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
From: Meta Research Bulletin, v. 6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
Plaease explain to me why you think the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with the origin of the universe;
Would you mind explaining to me how the TOE is possible if the big bang did not take place? If you read above you will find out why it could not have taken place...
The evolution of species is a "fact", it and no "fact" can proven "without a doubt".
No the evolution of species is a "theory". I'm afraid you are mistaken. A fact is something that can be proven without a doubt. e.g. 'It is a scientific fact that it is impossible for you to have children if your parents didn't have any 🙂"
14 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerSome aspects of evolution - microevolution - are as proven as anything can be. Macroevolution has a lot of evidence in favor of it; whether it's 'proven' or not is an individual's judgement. I can respect that there is room for challenge for macroevolution, though not that much. However the most common alternate hypothesis, God, is not even in the running in my mind in the competition for which is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Evolution does not require faith; it exists independent of humanity.
Are you suggesting that Evolution is a proven fact?
My belief that the TOE is an accurate model rests on material evidence. Therefore, this kind of fai you believe the entire theory of evolution or only parts of it?
Would you like to share some of this material evidence?
We're going to go through this again? I'll be brief. I don't want to put too much time into this because I know it's going to go nowhere with you.
Fossil evidence supports the TOE. For example, Darfius claimed that Archaeopteryx must have had bird lungs based on his belief in Genesis based creationism, and analysis of the fossil shows it did not.
Geology, cosmology, and other sciences support the TOE's claims about how old the Earth is.
Despite ID proponents' claims that DNA 'information' never increases, the observed mutation mechanisms in organisms supports the TOE. I've been thinking about devoting a thread to this topic actually.
Radiometric dating supports the TOE. The positions in which fossils are found in the ground supports the TOE.
That's a quick intro to some of the evidence that supports the TOE.
I have some faith in the scientific community by the first definition, yes. I also have some faith in the TOE by the first definition. I have no faith in either by the second definition.
Are you not assuming that these gasses existed long ago.
Evidence suggests that these gasses existed long ago.
In early 1950's, Harold Urey suggested that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere, since all of the outer planets in our solar system- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune- have this kind of atmosphere. A reducing atmosphere contains methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water.
In addition, the exact composition of gasses is not important. There are a wide variety of simple gas compositions that would work.
Fortunately, Urey was so adamant at the time about methane that I didn't explore alternate gas mixtures. Now we know that any old reducing gases will do. CO2/hydrogen and nitrogen will do the trick, although not as well.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
Because of this last point, your question
Do you not think that intelligence is needed to place the exact concentration of gasses at the right place at the right time?
is clearly irrelevant.
Are you not using the type of faith you defined in your first definition?
Yes. Don't use the deceitful trick of saying that just because I and others have faith by one definition our faith is the same as the faith that religious people generally have. These are two entirely different meanings of the word and to try to blur that distinction means you're relying on deceit and word games to convince people of your points. This sort of approach, if you were to try it, would show a huge weakness in your position.
Is this premise not also based on faith? Or has this been demonstrated in the lab?
As far as I know, it has not been demonstrated in a lab. The premise is based on the first definition of faith supported by the basic laws of chemistry and physics.
Why has life never been observed to have been created without intelligence if your above assertion were to be true?
How would we know if it was? You believe everything is caused by intelligence. If it's not humans, it's God or the devil. So how would we know if something were created without intelligence given your unsupported assumption that everything is created by intelligence? You seem to think that if you can't scientifically detect the intelligence responsible for something, then an invisible, undetectable intelligence was responseable. Given this assumption, of course nothing can be observed to happen without intelligence.
Would you mind explaining to me how the TOE is possible if the big bang did not take place? If you read above you will find out why it could not have taken place...
The TOE which includes an abiotic origin of life requires only that the Earth have existed ~4 billion years ago and have water and a reducing atmosphere. It could have gotten into that state via any number of methods which were not the Big Bang.
The evolution of species is a "fact", it and no "fact" can proven "without a doubt".
No the evolution of species is a "theory". I'm afraid you are mistaken. A fact is something that can be proven without a doubt. e.g. 'It is a scientific fact that it is impossible for you to have children if your parents didn't have any"
The word 'fact' is used by different people to mean different things. You may disagree with how others use the word, but that doesn't make them wrong. Whether the TOE is a fact or not depends on how you define the word. If someone else defines the word differently but in a reasonable way, then they are not wrong to call the TOE a fact.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSome aspects of evolution - microevolution - are as proven as anything can be.
Some aspects of evolution - microevolution - are as proven as anything can be. Macroevolution has a lot of evidence in favor of it; whether it's 'proven' or not is an individual's judgement. I can respect that there is room for challenge for macroevolution, though not that much. However the most common alternate hypothesis, God, is not even in th ...[text shortened]... es the word differently but in a reasonable way, then they are not wrong to call the TOE a fact.
If you define "evolution" as microevolution, I agree. If you define "evolution" as macroevolution, I disagree. I think it is important for you to realise that when I talk about "evolution" I am talking about macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution have nothing to do with each other.
Macroevolution has a lot of evidence in favor of it; whether it's 'proven' or not is an individual's judgement. I can respect that there is room for challenge for macroevolution, though not that much. However the most common alternate hypothesis, God, is not even in the running in my mind in the competition for which is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Many times people talk about the evidence for "evolution" and then they are actually refering to microevolution, which actually has nothing to do with macroevolution. The only "evidence" that can be found for macroevolution can be found in paleontology. As Thomas Huxley said: "The primary and direct evidence in favor of evolution can be furnished only in paleontology... If evolution has taken place, its marks will be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation,." The great evolutionist says that it is only in paleontology - only in the fossil record - that evolution will be proved.
"Geological research... does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present scecies required." The author of the statement was Charles Darwin.
Fossil evidence supports the TOE. For example, Darfius claimed that Archaeopteryx must have had bird lungs based on his belief in Genesis based creationism, and analysis of the fossil shows it did not.
Geology, cosmology, and other sciences support the TOE's claims about how old the Earth is.
Despite ID proponents' claims that DNA 'information' never increases, the observed mutation mechanisms in organisms supports the TOE. I've been thinking about devoting a thread to this topic actually.
Radiometric dating supports the TOE. The positions in which fossils are found in the ground supports the TOE.
That's a quick intro to some of the evidence that supports the TOE.
George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard, the high priest pf evolution today, stated, "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continous transitional sequences." In the Cambrain strata of rock, all the invertebrate animals in the world suddenly appear complex creatures with no ancestors before them, which is totally inexplicable to the evolutionists.
A scientist by the name Richard Goldschmidt points out that it is impossible by micromutations to form any new species. He said this in his book "Theoretical Genetics".
Professor Enoch, zoologist at the University of Madras, said: "The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major group of invertebrates apper 'suddenly' in the first fossiliferous strata (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specialisations indicating they were all created at the same time."
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe word 'fact' is used by different people to mean different things. You may disagree with how others use the word, but that doesn't make them wrong. Whether the TOE is a fact or not depends on how you define the word. If someone else defines the word differently but in a reasonable way, then they are not wrong to call the TOE a fact.
Some aspects of evolution - microevolution - are as proven as anything can be. Macroevolution has a lot of evidence in favor of it; whether it's 'proven' or not is an individual's judgement. I can respect that there is room for challenge for macroevolution, though not that much. However the most common alternate hypothesis, God, is not even in th ...[text shortened]... es the word differently but in a reasonable way, then they are not wrong to call the TOE a fact.
So each time your definition is proven to be faulty you can change your definition to suit yourself so that it remains "fact" to you?
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI won't waste my time arguing the big bang v. static universe; every single one of your points is either complete BS or explainable under the Big Bang. No serious scientist has supported the "static universe" theory for the last 50 years. Stay in your ignorance if you must; there is no theory that explains the origin of the universe we see as accurately as the Big Bang.
[b]A) The theory regarding the origin of the universe that is most widely accepted is the "Big Bang" which comports with all available data.
A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:
Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
The microwave "backgro ...[text shortened]... c fact that it is impossible for you to have children if your parents didn't have any 🙂"
[/b]
Make up your mind; I say the "evolution of species is a fact" and you deny it, but you concede that microevolution is a fact. The two terms mean exactly the same thing so you are contradicting yourself. Facts are not things that can be proven without a doubt, because morons can pretend to have doubts where no rational person would. We can prove facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but since you refuse to be reasonable towards science, we'll never be able to prove things to you. Who cares? Keep your superstition, I'll keep typing on the computer that science, not God, provided to me.
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderScience is forming some pre-bigbang models.
I won't waste my time arguing the big bang v. static universe; every single one of your points is either complete BS or explainable under the Big Bang. No serious scientist has supported the "static universe" theory for the last 50 years. Stay in your ignorance if you must; there is no theory that explains the origin of the universe we see ...[text shortened]... Keep your superstition, I'll keep typing on the computer that science, not God, provided to me.
However most of the math involved require a case of asprin to even entertain the thought of solving just one of the myriad of formulas. Takes awhile to learn the meaning of some of the words used and by then they already have new meanings.
But whatever the bigbang did happen and steady state is long gone , it died when Einstein grudgingly accepted the big bang.