The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[CaliNORML]

Creationism was a theory started at a wanted result, "God did it" and tried to work it into science.

I.D. started at science and in some ways has worked itself towards that theory. Many have seized upon the unknown and quickly tossed "God" into the gap. I myself am not convinced as yet.

If one was to extract the physical place were all of the true principles of religion lie, not the violent episodes of the past which this evidence proves is from a different area of the brain all together. Every part would be held behind a humans forehead, the frontal brain.

KMS

 

[tecoyah]

Ah, so explain to me how life can be formed from non-life? just wondering.

The use of electric current in the laboratory, when applied to a mix of chemicals believed to mimmick the atmosphere of the early earth, caused a chemical reaction which formed the building blocks of RNA....a self replicating molecule. When the time frames are brought into the picture it is likely these simple molecular chains mutated into what we now know as DNA....and RNA.
These bonded molecules are refered to as Tholins.

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

Much as occurs on Titan...one of Saturns Moons

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/wa/MainStoryDetails?ArticleID=9201

 

[oracle25]

The use of electric current in the laboratory, when applied to a mix of chemicals believed to mimmick the atmosphere of the early earth, caused a chemical reaction which formed the building blocks of RNA....a self replicating molecule. When the time frames are brought into the picture it is likely these simple molecular chains mutated into what we now know as DNA....and RNA.
These bonded molecules are refered to as Tholins.

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

Much as occurs on Titan...one of Saturns Moons

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/wa/MainStoryDetails?ArticleID=9201

Please read the following article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ah, so explain to me how life can be formed from non-life? just wondering.



Maybe, you have made far to much of this statement. All I was trying to convey is that ID isn't just some upstart idea, but rather an idea has been around for a long time. Much longer than evolution.

Since the bible is a flawed book stuffed to the bindings with factual errors, especially the many in Genesis that would be relevant to this discussion, no credible researcher would consider using the Bible as a source of biological guidance.

So where are you getting your ideas?

 

[CaliNORML]

Life for humans, despite the RNA, DNA, and elements composing our physical beings is not what I consider this debate about, that life arose is not the question. How life started is being studied by Harvard and the exact replication of events causing it may require the experiment to recreate such a huge event as the formation of the moon or any other massive cosmic event we may hopefully never again see on this planet.

The self awareness of humans, the emotional abilities, reasoning and developing an understanding of abstract, a world past the physical, is what defines humans.

An intelligence for what is not seen.

Some lower creatures such as chimps, apes and dolphins show a fair amount of these traits as well. Why do Humans alone show far more of these traits than others? Along with an afinity for reason and at the same time for "God." Perplexing set of circumstances to say little.

Somehow we developed with higher thought processes than the other animals, and the ability to find out why, possibly how as well.

From our ancestors these hard questions were filled in by "gods" because of the lack of intelligence and equipment to see why; as time goes on we find the answers.

It is not the angry Thor in the clouds, only x-rays bombaring the earth creating the jump between the positive and negative charges in a cloud which make lightning strike.

First it was, ""God' made us so," now it's, "We are this way because 'He' made us." Creationists fit in their answer to an open ended legitimate scientific question:

We are this way _________. why?

I want and need an answer, or at least research done on that, for the sake of my child.

Being made this way deals with the question of religion, they are the center of it physicaly, thus naturaly we must discuss the physical attributes of this area because they affect us mentaly.

Maybe the answer is, "God" in us all by what we can prove in anthropology, biology, neurology, sociology, pharmacologicaly, and by physcriatry.

KMS

 

[Engimo]

Please read the following article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp

Sigh. You are aware of the fact that we've discovered over 90 amino acids on asteroids. These things form all the time in space. It's been shown rather conclusively that you can produce organic molecules from inorganic molecules.

Even if you disregard abiogenesis, which is rooted in experimental evidence, EVEN IF WE DID NOT KNOW THIS - THIS DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING FOR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. The inability (or lack of, in this case) of science to explain our origins does not mean that you can legitimately say that our origins are supernatural - it just means that we don't understand it as of now.

 

[tecoyah]

Please read the following article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp

Read it....though I am well aware of the arguments against the experiments (mostly from religious circles).....these arguments fail to understand (or accept) the process of time and evolution. It is believed these chemical reactions occured billions of years ago, and progressed as the earth changed. The likelyhood of these reactions forming some type of delf replicating compound over this timeframe is pretty good. Many scientists consider these reactions as possible on other worlds as well....and thus the study of Titan/Europa/ Mars....etc....

It is amusing to see a Christian site attempt to debunk the science....in favor of an explanation with no Data whatsoever to back it up. They are free to believe as they wish, as are you. But please do not try to debate something you refuse to study in the first place.....you do yourself a disservice.

 

[oracle25]

Biological life forms on other planets? Please, creationists predicted this long ago. All these dead organisms are from earth.

Oh, and by the way Engimo: I seriously doubt it can be proved to anywhere near certainty (in fact I believe it to be the opposite) that life can arise from non-life. If it could many mainstream evolutionists would be talking about it like it's the second coming. Instead all I hear of it are wild rumors on the internet. I do not hear ANYTHING from those who truly research this about such a discovery. I believe you to be wrong..... again.

And IDers and creationists have already refuted the idea that life could have come from space.... many, many, times.

 

[Axismaster]

Biological life forms on other planets? Please, creationists predicted this long ago. All these dead organisms are from earth.

Oh, and by the way Engimo: I seriously doubt it can be proved to anywhere near certainty (in fact I believe it to be the opposite) that life can arise from non-life. If it could many mainstream evolutionists would be talking about it like it's the second coming. Instead all I hear of it are wild rumors on the internet. I do not hear ANYTHING from those who truly research this about such a discovery. I believe you to be wrong..... again.

And IDers and creationists have already refuted the idea that life could have come from space.... many, many, times.

I myself doubt life came from space, but I think that life is in space.

 

[oracle25]

I'll get to that later.

 

[Engimo]

Biological life forms on other planets? Please, creationists predicted this long ago. All these dead organisms are from earth.

Oh, and by the way Engimo: I seriously doubt it can be proved to anywhere near certainty (in fact I believe it to be the opposite) that life can arise from non-life. If it could many mainstream evolutionists would be talking about it like it's the second coming. Instead all I hear of it are wild rumors on the internet. I do not hear ANYTHING from those who truly research this about such a discovery. I believe you to be wrong..... again.

And IDers and creationists have already refuted the idea that life could have come from space.... many, many, times.

Your ignorance is astounding. Your belief of my wrongness is based on a dogmatic adherence to an opposition of Evolutionary Theory, regardless of the facts. Doubtlessly, you won't understand any of this (you're not a biologist or chemist), but rest assure that there have been a lot of publications about this sort of thing. The creation of organic molecules from inorganic molecules has been shown for the past 50 years.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/73501648/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0


http://www.springerlink.com/(io3nw1...al,37,43;linkingpublicationresults,1:102974,1

Abstract The origin and evolution of photosynthesis is considered to be the key to the origin of life. This eliminates the need for a soup as the synthesis of the bioorganics are to come from the fixation of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. No soup then no RNA world or Protein world. Cyanobacteria have been formed by the horizontal transfer of green sulfur bacterial photoreaction center genes by means of a plasmid into a purple photosynthetic bacterium. The fixation of carbon dioxide is considered to have evolved from a reductive dicarboxylic acid cycle (Chloroflexus) which was then followed by a reductive tricarboxylic acid cycle (Chlorobium) and finally by the reductive pentose phosphate cycle (Calvin cycle). The origin of life is considered to have occurred in a hot spring on the outgassing early earth. The first organisms were self-replicating iron-rich clays which fixed carbon dioxide into oxalic and other dicarboxylic acids. This system of replicating clays and their metabolic phenotype then evolved into the sulfide rich region of the hotspring acquiring the ability to fix nitrogen. Finally phosphate was incorporated into the evolving system which allowed the synthesis of nucleotides and phospholipids. If biosynthesis recapitulates biopoesis, then the synthesis of amino acids preceded the synthesis of the purine and pyrimidine bases. Furthermore the polymerization of the amino acid thioesters into polypeptides preceded the directed polymerization of amino acid esters by polynucleotides. Thus the origin and evolution of the genetic code is a late development and records the takeover of the clay by RNA.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=b479dc1b44ba7db55790640aaf059006

Biopoesis, the creation of life, implies molecular evolution from simple components, randomly distributed and in a dilute state, to form highly organized, concentrated systems capable of metabolism, replication and mutation. This chain of events must involve environmental processes that can locally lower entropy in several steps; by specific selection from an indiscriminate mixture, by concentration from dilute solution, and in the case of the mineral-induced processes, by particular effectiveness in ordering and selective reaction, directed toward formation of functional biomolecules.

http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/pages/res3b.html

What qualifications do you have to reject 50 years of confirmed biological and chemical data? You're in way over your head, and your only objection to this comes from your dogma - not a commitment to truth.

 

[Engimo]

I myself doubt life came from space, but I think that life is in space.

Like I said, organic molecules are commonplace in space. We've known this for years.

On September 28th 1969 fragments of a meteorite fell in and around the small town of Murchison, Victoria (about 100 km N of Melbourne). This meteorite has transformed our ideas about organic material in the Universe. The meteorite was found to contain a wide variety of organic compounds, including many of biological relevance such as amino acids. Together with the subsequent discovery of organic material in molecular clouds in space, this showed that many organic molecules can be formed in space, and raised the possibility that such extraterrestrial material might have a role in the Origin of Life.

 

[oracle25]

Your ignorance is astounding. Your belief of my wrongness is based on a dogmatic adherence to an opposition of Evolutionary Theory, regardless of the facts. Doubtlessly, you won't understand any of this (you're not a biologist or chemist), but rest assure that there have been a lot of publications about this sort of thing. The creation of organic molecules from inorganic molecules has been shown for the past 50 years.

True I am not a biologist or chemist (though had I not told you you would have had no way to know this). I suppose this type of comment shows exactly how much evolutionists/liberals think of peoples intelligence. I do know however that your fifty year old evidence has been debunked, sorry.

BTW, you have neglected to give your credentials or your field of research.

 

[Engimo]

True I am not a biologist or chemist (though had I not told you you would have had no way to know this). I suppose this type of comment shows exactly how much evolutionists/liberals think of peoples intelligence. I do know however that your fifty year old evidence has been debunked, sorry.

BTW, you have neglected to give your credentials or your field of research.

I'm a physicist and a mathematician. My credentials are irrelevant - I'm not the one challenging established science. I am simply relaying the mainstream, accepted science that you seem to have a problem accepting.

Why do you believe that this research has been debunked, other than the fact that you want it to be debunked?

 

[tecoyah]

True I am not a biologist or chemist (though had I not told you you would have had no way to know this).

Actually....it is relatively obvious.

 

[steen]

Ah, so explain to me how life can be formed from non-life? just wondering.

this is utterly off-topic. Evolution has nothing to do with the initial formation of life. You merely show your extreme ignorance of the subject by such silly claims.

Maybe, you have made far to much of this statement. All I was trying to convey is that ID isn't just some upstart idea, but rather an idea has been around for a long time. Much longer than evolution.

Actually a false claim. Creationism has been around longer. But what is known now as "Intelligent Design" has only been around for a few decades.

 

[steen]

Creationism was a theory started at a wanted result, "God did it" and tried to work it into science.

And as such certainly is NOT a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

I.D. started at science

False. It is based on "I just can't believe it happened through evolution" claims and nothing else. That is not science, it has no evidence, no scientifically attainable hypothesis and is NOT science. To claim it as science is evidence of utter lack of knowledge of the Scientific Method.

and in some ways has worked itself towards that theory

But again, not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

 

[steen]

How life started is being studied by Harvard and the exact replication of events causing it may require the experiment to recreate such a huge event as the formation of the moon or any other massive cosmic event we may hopefully never again see on this planet.

Again, utterly irrelevant, as origin of life is not part of the Scientific theory of Evolution.

Some lower creatures such as chimps, apes and dolphins show a fair amount of these traits as well. Why do Humans alone show far more of these traits than others?

because it was evolutionarily advantageous for us to do so.

 

[steen]

I seriously doubt it can be proved to anywhere near certainty (in fact I believe it to be the opposite) that life can arise from non-life. If it could many mainstream evolutionists would be talking about it like it's the second coming.

More falsehood. origin of life again is abiogenesis, not Evolution.

And IDers and creationists have already refuted the idea that life could have come from space.... many, many, times.

Talk is cheap. Show the evidence for your claim.

 

[Axismaster]

I'm a physicist and a mathematician. My credentials are irrelevant - I'm not the one challenging established science. I am simply relaying the mainstream, accepted science that you seem to have a problem accepting.

Why do you believe that this research has been debunked, other than the fact that you want it to be debunked?

Well Oracle and I are experts on the Bible and we are prophets.

 

[steen]

True I am not a biologist or chemist (though had I not told you you would have had no way to know this).

Rather, we are absolutely sure that you aren't, because a chemist or biologist would know about science.

I suppose this type of comment shows exactly how much evolutionists/liberals think of peoples intelligence.

More nonsense. YOU personally have shown yourself utterly ignorant of science per your own words. That has nothing to do with anybody being 'evolutionists," and ceratinly nothing to do with being "liberal," further evidencing how extremely ignorant you are about nearly everything in this debate.

I do know however that your fifty year old evidence has been debunked, sorry.

Ah, look. A "just because I say so" flat-out lie.

 

[oracle25]

Please, for the sake of what I believe in, keep running your mouth.

 

[Engimo]

Please, for the sake of what I believe in, keep running your mouth.

If you're not actually going to respond to anything and instead make useless comments like this, I'm going to take this as a concession.

 

[oracle25]

Does Steen really want me too take him seriously?

Furthermore, I have no reason to concede so I shall keep this discussion going. What was your last attack again?

 

[Engimo]

Does Steen really want me too take him seriously?

Furthermore, I have no reason to concede so I shall keep this discussion going. What was your last attack again?

I am not going to restate anything - read my last post.