Evolution vs. Creationism...

[steen]

There is also a lot of evidence against the Big Bang Theory...

Such as...?

What started the Big Bang(where did this energy come from)?

Well, an inversion of a quantum particle certainly could do that. But so what? You were talking about actual evidence against the Big bang. merely asking a question is not evidence. And you weren't lying, were you? No? Good, so present the actual evidence.

Huh? Oh, I am sorry. Are you saying that in addition to incredible ignorance about what evolution is, you are also incredibly ignorant about what 'evidence" is? Hmm....

 

[conserv.pat15]

Whoa.... I think I confused a few people by putting abiogenesis and evolution together. They are two different things, but I put them together because most evolutionists believe both of them and one comes before the other. I believe it was Darwin(correct me if I'm wrong) who believes in abiogenesis, and then evolution occuring right after.

My question to evolutionists is how do you think life started?

 

[Engimo]

Whoa.... I think I confused a few people by putting abiogenesis and evolution together. They are two different things, but I put them together because most evolutionists believe both of them and one comes before the other. I believe it was Darwin(correct me if I'm wrong) who believes in abiogenesis, and then evolution occuring right after.

Yes, you're entirely wrong. Darwin did not speculate about the origin of life, or even the then-unknown method by which traits were passed down (DNA).

My question to evolutionists is how do you think life started?

This is not relevant to the discussion, but there are several things that we do know definitively about the universe and the Earth:

1. The universe is ~14 billion years old.
2. The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
3. Organic molecules can be created from inorganic materials.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Yes, you're entirely wrong. Darwin did not speculate about the origin of life, or even the then-unknown method by which traits were passed down (DNA).



This is not relevant to the discussion, but there are several things that we do know definitively about the universe and the Earth:

1. The universe is ~14 billion years old.
2. The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
3. Organic molecules can be created from inorganic materials.

Actually, Darwin did speculate on the orgin of life.

I know we might be branching off from the original question on this thread, but the facts of abiogenesis and evolution are relevant to the debate.

Also, creating life out of non-living material has never been observed... even under labroratory conditions. However, back when life was created(according to evolutionsts) they did not get to put the material together the way they wanted it. It would have had to happen on its own.

 

[robin]

Intelligent design should not be taught in school. I believe the constitution says religion & science should be kept separate.
Besides Proponents of ID base their argument on among other things, the apparent irreducible complexity in the rotary means of propulsion in flagellum. They say it's impossible for the thirty or so components to have come together for that purpose, becuase those components don't occur in organisms without that type of propulsion.
However scientists have shown they do occur in organisms without the rotary means of propulsion. Therefore all that was required for rotary propulsion to have evolved was for those components to have become organised into the rotary propulsion mechanism. Therefore there is no evidence of intelligent design in these micro organisms.

 

[Engimo]

Actually, Darwin did speculate on the orgin of life.

A source?

I know we might be branching off from the original question on this thread, but the facts of abiogenesis and evolution are relevant to the debate.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two independent theories, and in a discussion of Evolution vs. Creationism, Abiogenesis has no relevance.

Also, creating life out of non-living material has never been observed... even under labroratory conditions. However, back when life was created(according to evolutionsts) they did not get to put the material together the way they wanted it. It would have had to happen on its own.

Sigh. This was done 50 years ago. Inorganic molecules can be used to form organic molecules very easily, and recent discoveries about the atmosphere and conditions of the early Earth place the Miller-Urey experiment (and many others like them) as a valid representation of abiogenesis.

 

[conserv.pat15]

A source?



Abiogenesis and Evolution are two independent theories, and in a discussion of Evolution vs. Creationism, Abiogenesis has no relevance.


Sigh. This was done 50 years ago. Inorganic molecules can be used to form organic molecules very easily, and recent discoveries about the atmosphere and conditions of the early Earth place the Miller-Urey experiment (and many others like them) as a valid representation of abiogenesis.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm

 

[Engimo]

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm

Did you even read that? It says absolutely nothing about Darwin himself and what he thought about the origin of life. You probably should actually read the site, though, it'll debunk a lot of the criticisms of Evolution that you've been spouting off.

 

[LeftyHenry]

But I would have no problem with schools (even public schools) offering some optional classes on various religious beliefs. Creationism could be taught as part of those classes.

Me neither but what tends to happen when there are these classes is that they only teach intelligent design or creationism. They don't look at other persectives.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Did you even read that? It says absolutely nothing about Darwin himself and what he thought about the origin of life. You probably should actually read the site, though, it'll debunk a lot of the criticisms of Evolution that you've been spouting off.

Did you ever hear about Darwin's "premordial soup"(I believe that's what it's called) theory?

Also, the Miller Urey expirement has holes in it too.

 

[Engimo]

Did you ever hear about Darwin's "premordial soup"(I believe that's what it's called) theory?

The idea of the primordial soup is certainly not Darwin's. He did not even know about the existence of DNA, much less anything about complex organic chemistry.

Also, the Miller Urey expirement has holes in it too.

Oh, broad unsubstantiated statements! How useful to a debate!

Yes, the Miller-Urey experiment potentially has problems, but it shows definitively that inorganic processes can create organic material, and in the light of more and more scientific evidence it seems that a process akin to the one in the Miller-Urey experiment could have been the cause for organic molecules appearing on an early Earth.

You're aware of the fact that we find amino acids in meteorites and things like that, right? We've found sugar in the depths of space.

 

[DeeJayH]

An inability of a theory to describe something that it does not attempt to describe is not a fault. Is Relativity wrong because it does not describe the motions of the stock market? No, as it doesn't claim to do so. In the same way, the Big Bang Theory does not attempt to describe how the Big Bang singularity got there - and we don't know at this time. What we do know is that the Big Bang happened, and that the universe is ~14 billion years old.

wow
i thought the world was universe was 6 billion years old
i mean 10 billion years old
i mean 14 billion years old
how long until it is 20 billion years old?
that is some real solid science you got there
i would hang my hat on that anyday:roll:

 

[DeeJayH]

You claimed that there were big gaps, and when challenged on it, you are unable to provide examples of these big gaps you were talking about.

Obviously, you were lying. You just further confirmed our impression of a creationist as somebody who always lies. How lame and pathetic.

unlike most DORKS online i actually have a career and a life
i have better things to do than scour the internet to disprove somebody obviously full of $hit
if you are so confident and have all that time on your hands, why dont you post a link showing the entire evolution from the primordial slime to modern man
otherwise take it deep in your blackhole with your pseudo science that is based on conjecture and assumptions

 

[Engimo]

wow
i thought the world was universe was 6 billion years old
i mean 10 billion years old
i mean 14 billion years old
how long until it is 20 billion years old?
that is some real solid science you got there
i would hang my hat on that anyday:roll:

Uh, about 6 billion years from now?

What's your point, that you're entirely ignorant about methods used to date the universe?

 

[DeeJayH]

Uh, about 6 billion years from now?

What's your point, that you're entirely ignorant about methods used to date the universe?

no, that science keeps changing its mind
reminding me of the days of 'the earth is flat, the earth is round'

i tried to keep it simple for the ignorant, hope it helped:2wave:

 

[Engimo]

no, that science keeps changing its mind
reminding me of the days of 'the earth is flat, the earth is round'

i tried to keep it simple for the ignorant, hope it helped:2wave:

So, because at one point in time science had an incomplete picture of the age of the universe, it is entirely wrong now? That's a nonsensical notion of how to conduct yourself in light of scientific discovery.

The fact that science has been wrong in the past (although not really, science does not claim to be absolute truth) has no bearing on its current validity. In light of the massive amount of evidence that we have that supports a ~14 billion year old universe, it would be ignorant to claim that the universe has an age drastically different from that one.

Oh, and no scientist has ever made the claim that the Earth is flat. The roundness of the Earth was widely accepted by the 1st Century.

 

[Kandahar]

no, that science keeps changing its mind
reminding me of the days of 'the earth is flat, the earth is round'

i tried to keep it simple for the ignorant, hope it helped:2wave:

Yes, God forbid scientists try to reach the correct conclusion. I guess it's better to just accept the first erroneous conclusion that anyone renders, than conceding a mistake and using experimentation to determine the CORRECT age. :roll:

It's 13.7 billion years, +- 50 million years, according to the latest research. Is that answer set in stone? Not at all. There are a lot of questions we don't have the answers to that could substantially alter that number. It's not a sign of weakness in the scientific method to concede that you don't yet know the answer to all questions, you know...

 

[Kandahar]

In light of the massive amount of evidence that we have that supports a ~14 billion year old universe, it would be ignorant to claim that the universe has an age drastically different from that one.

I disagree with you there. That's the most likely age according to current science, but I don't think the issue has been definitively settled yet. I think there are too many things we aren't sure of - the variable speed of light, the relationship between dark energy and gravity, various inflation theories, and the correctness of string theory - to say that we know for sure this time.

 

[DeeJayH]

Yes, God forbid scientists try to reach the correct conclusion. I guess it's better to just accept the first erroneous conclusion that anyone renders, than conceding a mistake and using experimentation to determine the CORRECT age. :roll:

It's 13.7 billion years, +- 50 million years, according to the latest research. Is that answer set in stone? Not at all. There are a lot of questions we don't have the answers to that could substantially alter that number. It's not a sign of weakness in the scientific method to concede that you don't yet know the answer to all questions, you know...

than dont post it as fact, instead post it as 'sciences' latest best guess
+/- 50 mm ?
i wish i could get a spread like that in gambling :lol:

 

[steen]

Whoa.... I think I confused a few people by putting abiogenesis and evolution together. They are two different things,

I am pleased that you are not adhering to the flagrantly tactic of creationists in general, of claiming they are the same. I am glad that you admit causing confusion by the invalid comparison of the two.

but I put them together because most evolutionists believe both of them and one comes before the other.

It seems like you are still showing a serious ignorance of science, if you are talking about "believe" in relation to scientific evidence.

I believe it was Darwin(correct me if I'm wrong) who believes in abiogenesis, and then evolution occuring right after.

you are wrong. I don't know who you are talking about, but it is not Darwin.

Anyway, why would that matter. The actual science that is based on Darwin's hypothesis is quite different and more advanced than the original hypothesis. Talking about Darwin is like talking about the Wright brothers when discussing the space shuttle. Sure they were the pioneers in the field, but the modern stuff where most of the knowledge is, that has been added since through research.

My question to evolutionists is how do you think life started?

I don't know. The steps described by those who study Abiogenesis seems to fit, but they are still at the Scientific Model stage, so we will have to wait and see for the specifics.

 

[Engimo]

I disagree with you there. That's the most likely age according to current science, but I don't think the issue has been definitively settled yet. I think there are too many things we aren't sure of - the variable speed of light, the relationship between dark energy and gravity, various inflation theories, and the correctness of string theory - to say that we know for sure this time.

No, no. I mean drastically, ridiculously different. Orders of magnitude different. Like, for example, saying that the universe is 4,000 years old.

 

[DeeJayH]

I disagree with you there. That's the most likely age according to current science, but I don't think the issue has been definitively settled yet. I think there are too many things we aren't sure of - the variable speed of light, the relationship between dark energy and gravity, various inflation theories, and the correctness of string theory - to say that we know for sure this time.

well, maybe you are not a text-book thumping loon equivalent to the bible thumping televangelists
I think both sides are idiots for claiming any of it is fact or written in stone
for as soon as you say that, something else comes along to show how idiotic the original statement was
It is all Best Guess

 

[Kandahar]

than dont post it as fact, instead post it as 'sciences' latest best guess

Nothing can ever be definitively proven as fact in science. There are, however, varying degrees of certainty. It's certainly not a "guess."

+/- 50 mm ?
i wish i could get a spread like that in gambling :lol:

That's accurate to the nearest 0.3%. If you only want a 0.3% spread in gambling, I'll be more than happy to bet on the Super Bowl with you. :lol:

 

[Kandahar]

No, no. I mean drastically, ridiculously different. Orders of magnitude different. Like, for example, saying that the universe is 4,000 years old.

Oh, I would completely agree then. If, say, the speed of light was indeed variable, it wouldn't change the age of the universe by even one order of magnitude. The universe is absolutely, positively at least 10 billion years old, and I'd be very surprised if any new evidence suggested it was more than 20 billion years old.

But for now, 13.7 +- 0.05 billion years has the preponderance of evidence behind it.

 

[steen]

Did you ever hear about Darwin's "premordial soup"(I believe that's what it's called) theory?

there is no such thing. You seem to forget that Darwin did his writing about 150 years ago, when most of this was NOT known.

Also, the Miller Urey expirement has holes in it too.

Well, it did what it tried to prove, namely that inorganic molecules can form organic molecules on their own.

Where is the hole in that? organic molecules were present at the end of the experiment. It has, of course, been replicated since with varying atmospheric and aquatic scenarios with consistent results.