An atheists world (3)

[createdtoworship]

Thanks for confirming my post.

When you are obviously wrong why do you persist?

?

 

[lasthero]

well the government should not be educating the masses at all on our dime, it's unconstitutional.

Education is not unconstitutional. That couldn't have even made sense in your head.

And yet it happens... I mean there is nothing in the constitution that states that tax dollars should be spent educating the masses and having the government control education. But it happens...

So what?

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll, what you seem to be missing is that the chemicals of "life" are just chemicals. I cannot speak directly to Miller and Urey's ultimate goal but in science sometimes it is SUFFICIENT to run a synthesis without going all the way to creating life.

Look at the evolution debate that rages on this board. Creationists can't deal with the evidence for evolution so they demand that evolutionists explain the ORIGINS OF LIFE.

That's a reasonable request. How did life start? But the scientists look at it differently from you. They aren't Dr. Frankenstein. They usually approach these things methodically and stepwise.

First step: how did the amino acids that, themselves, form the basis of life generate?

You see, they were doing what the Creationists want everyone to do: take it back to as close to the start as possible.




THEN GO TO THE SOURCE! From Stanley Miller himself in 1953 after the initial experiments were run:



Now when I read this, what I see is someone attempting to make AMINO ACIDS...NOT life per se. It is an attempt to confirm earlier hypotheses around the development of the BUILDING BLOCKS necessary for life.

Miller and Urey's 1959 paper in Science carries the title: "Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth". That ALSO does not sound like they were trying to make "Life"...but rather ORGANIC COMPOUNDS. Yes, organic compounds likely related to life, but not life any more than a mole of thymine is "Life" or a microgram of adenine is "life".

we can't deal with evolutions evidence so we demand an explanation for abiogenesis?

well there is no evidence actually, but when I see some maybe I will change my mind.

as should you.

hopefully in studying the beginning we can see more clearly some of the flaws with your view. which needs more research apparently:

the first one needs more research:

"Although biologists concerned with the origin of life often quote and early atmosphere consisting of reduced gases, this stems as much from ignorance of recent advances as from active opposition to them. This important conclusion is reached by Ann Henderson-Sellers, of Liverpool University, and A. Benlow and Jack Meadows of Leicester University, after a study of how the composition of the atmosphere of the Earth and other planets may have influenced surface temperatures since the planets formed."

"...The more we have learnt about Venus and Mars the harder it is to explain how all three planets --two of them apparently lifeless--could have converted primeval reducing atmospheres into the oxidized atmospheres seen today."

"The time has come, it seem , to accept as the new orthodoxy the idea of early oxidized atmospheres on all three terrestrial planets, and the biological primers which still tell of life on Earth starting out from a methane/ammonia atmosphere energized by electric storms and solar ultraviolet need to be rewritten."

from:"Smaller Planets Began with Oxidized Atmosphere," New Scientist (July 1980), p.112

 

[bhsmte]

well the government should not be educating the masses at all on our dime, it's unconstitutional. And yet it happens... I mean there is nothing in the constitution that states that tax dollars should be spent educating the masses and having the government control education. But it happens...

Sure it happens, to protect the public from religious influence in public schools, but you already know this, don't you?

 

[StormanNorman]

well the government should not be educating the masses at all on our dime, it's unconstitutional. And yet it happens... I mean there is nothing in the constitution that states that tax dollars should be spent educating the masses and having the government control education. But it happens...

What is your legal logic for stating that public education is unconstitutional?

 

[CarlosTomy]

we can't deal with evolutions evidence so we demand an explanation for abiogenesis?

Yup.

well there is no evidence actually, but when I see some maybe I will change my mind.

How about a whole planet's worth of fossils showing change over time? How about the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution?

Indeed what I've seen in my years of following this debate is the gradual acceptance of certain aspects of evolution by creationists (they now acquiesce to "microevolution"...something that was controversial among creationists a while back).

as should you.

Done and done!

hopefully in studying the beginning we can see more clearly some of the flaws with your view. which needs more research apparently:

ORLY?

"...The more we have learnt about Venus and Mars the harder it is to explain how all three planets --two of them apparently lifeless--could have converted primeval reducing atmospheres into the oxidized atmospheres seen today."

Hmmm, interesting. Because as I understood it the switch over to oxidizing atmosphere was, in no small part, due to the rise of photosynthetic algal/bacterial colonies. This is called the "Oxygen Holocaust".

These early life forms survived quite well in a reducing atmosphere and were utilizing photosynthetic pathways for energy production with a byproduct being OXYGEN.

Here's an article from 2006 that is a review of what we know about the development of an oxidizing atmosphere of the earth (HERE)

Here's a few quotes:

During the second half of the twentieth century
evidence from several lines of investigation confirmed
that the oxygen level in the atmosphere and oceans was
very low during the Archaean and Early Palaeoproterozoic (see for instance Holland 1994).

The data is confirmed by sulfur isotope fraction.

The actual CAUSE of a rise in atmospheric oxygen is not fully settled but about the end of the Archaen we see a change over from banded iron formations (which require a more reducing environment) and the rise in atmospheric oxygen.

Even then it wasn't a "set" thing as Banded Iron Formations later resumed but then finally end about 2.45billion years ago.

"The time has come, it seem , to accept as the new orthodoxy the idea of early oxidized atmospheres on all three terrestrial planets,

With the possible exception of earth, perhaps. From what I'm reading the data is reasonably clear of an early reducing atmosphere.

from:"Smaller Planets Began with Oxidized Atmosphere," New Scientist (July 1980), p.112

I will have to go read this in more detail. I'm going on more recent review articles, the one I quoted is a full 26 years AFTER this New Scientist article.

 

[CarlosTomy]

well the government should not be educating the masses at all on our dime, it's unconstitutional.

You do realize the first public school in the US PREDATES the Constitution by a good 150+ years, right?

And yet it happens... I mean there is nothing in the constitution that states that tax dollars should be spent educating the masses and having the government control education. But it happens...

And our country is better off for it. But there are still those who don't understand the value of an educated populace.

(I love to see people fight against public schools. It's refreshing to see people who want to destroy one of the greatest things modern society has ever developed. It truly is!)

 

[lasthero]

I will have to go read this in more detail. I'm going on more recent review articles, the one I quoted is a full 26 years AFTER this New Scientist article.

A running theme with grad's quotes is that they're mostly ridiculously old - most from the early 80s - and that he never links back to the full document from which they're pulled from. Google searches mostly turn up creeationist websites that do the same thing.

It's almost like they either don't care what the full context is or don't want you to know. I can't decide which is worse.

 

[CarlosTomy]

A running theme with grad's quotes is that they're mostly ridiculously old - most from the early 80s - and that he never links back to the full document from which they're pulled from. Google searches mostly turn up creeationist websites that do the same thing.

It's almost like they either don't care what the full context is or don't want you to know. I can't decide which is worse.

I was a bit curious about that as well. Since I couldn't find a copy of the article online but I could see it mentioned mostly in discussion forums instead I wondered where they got the info.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yup.



How about a whole planet's worth of fossils showing change over time? How about the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution?

Indeed what I've seen in my years of following this debate is the gradual acceptance of certain aspects of evolution by creationists (they now acquiesce to "microevolution"...something that was controversial among creationists a while back).



Done and done!



ORLY?



Hmmm, interesting. Because as I understood it the switch over to oxidizing atmosphere was, in no small part, due to the rise of photosynthetic algal/bacterial colonies. This is called the "Oxygen Holocaust".

These early life forms survived quite well in a reducing atmosphere and were utilizing photosynthetic pathways for energy production with a byproduct being OXYGEN.

Here's an article from 2006 that is a review of what we know about the development of an oxidizing atmosphere of the earth (HERE)

Here's a few quotes:



The data is confirmed by sulfur isotope fraction.

The actual CAUSE of a rise in atmospheric oxygen is not fully settled but about the end of the Archaen we see a change over from banded iron formations (which require a more reducing environment) and the rise in atmospheric oxygen.

Even then it wasn't a "set" thing as Banded Iron Formations later resumed but then finally end about 2.45billion years ago.



With the possible exception of earth, perhaps. From what I'm reading the data is reasonably clear of an early reducing atmosphere.



I will have to go read this in more detail. I'm going on more recent review articles, the one I quoted is a full 26 years AFTER this New Scientist article.

ok you seem like you truly believe evolution,

figure this out then,
at no point does a species in one genus cross into another genus. Once they do they are sterile. 99% of time. There is always one in a million, but we are talking in general. You have to supply a species that breaks the genus barrier. Cat evolve into dog for example. They are different genus. Hence they do not macroevolve. So with your link behind your back please provide this evidence of macro evolution...

note: Species by and large evolve into other species, thats fine because mainly they are all ready able to mate because they are different species but of the same kind(Genus). I believe Kind in bible to be at genus level not species. So please find a few examples that are not sterile. Thank you.

 

[createdtoworship]

I was a bit curious about that as well. Since I couldn't find a copy of the article online but I could see it mentioned mostly in discussion forums instead I wondered where they got the info.

it's a conspiracy, the creationists are paying millions of dollars covering their trails, be afraid be very afraid.....of.....the creationist!

 

[createdtoworship]

A running theme with grad's quotes is that they're mostly ridiculously old - most from the early 80s - and that he never links back to the full document from which they're pulled from. Google searches mostly turn up creeationist websites that do the same thing.

It's almost like they either don't care what the full context is or don't want you to know. I can't decide which is worse.

ok so when you provide a 20 year old peer review, that cost thousands to create......I will say ......nah I want a 2013 model! btw got any peer review for abiogenesis? Remember it's got to be a peer review from an authorized society that I personally aprove, and it's got to be a phd in equivalent area of study. oh and now it has to be a 2013 model. So go ahead and find some......good luck the clock is ticking.

 

[lasthero]

ok so when you provide a 20 year old peer review, that cost thousands to create......I will say ......nah I want a 2013 model!

If I ever do so, I'll actually link you to the peer review in question, so you don't have to guess about the context.

I'm not saying that old things can't be right - though, generally, it's a good idea to stick to more up-to-date things in a scientific debate - just that it's underhanded to stick with quotes that are near-impossible to be checked for accuracy, and which you yourself are likely unaware of the full context.

from an authorized society that I personally aprove

Just out of curiosity, what authorized 'society' would you personally 'aprove' of?

 

[createdtoworship]

You do realize the first public school in the US PREDATES the Constitution by a good 150+ years, right?



And our country is better off for it. But there are still those who don't understand the value of an educated populace.

(I love to see people fight against public schools. It's refreshing to see people who want to destroy one of the greatest things modern society has ever developed. It truly is!)

so then the government didn't run the school system, my point exactly. It's the way it should be.

 

[lasthero]

so then the government didn't run the school system, my point exactly. It's the way it should be.

Just because you haven't benefited much from an education doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't have a shot.

 

[CarlosTomy]

ok you seem like you truly believe evolution,

Yeah, it must be pure "belief"...I mean I couldn't possibly appreciate the SCIENCE.

figure this out then,
at no point does a species in one genus cross into another genus.

Huh?

You have to supply a species that breaks the genus barrier. Cat evolve into dog for example.

Don't forget CROCKODUCK!

Sorry but I believe evolutionary biology is a BIT more nuanced and detailed than that.

They are different genus. Hence they do not macroevolve. So with your link behind your back please provide this evidence of macro evolution...

We do have a pretty solid Dinosaur-->Bird transition that occurs with the appropriate "transitions" and in a chronological order.

We have a nice selection of Synapsid reptiles -->Mammal transitions as well.

We have whale evolutionary steps from the ambulocetus to modern day cetaceans.

So please find a few examples that are not sterile. Thank you.

You're welcome.

But can I ask one major big honkin' question here?

How did we go from the development of the earth's atmosphere to the quest for transitional fossils?.

Was it because I cited a paper which you could easily read online and that post dated your reference by more than a quarter century?

Was the chemistry getting boring so we had to go playing "Creationist Whack-a-Mole"?

Because I'd really like to talk more CHEMISTRY (I'm not so much a biologist).

 

[CabVet]

ok you seem like you truly believe evolution,

No, he doesn't, he looks at the evidence and accepts the theory that explains it.

figure this out then,
at no point does a species in one genus cross into another genus. Once they do they are sterile. 99% of time. There is always one in a million, but we are talking in general. You have to supply a species that breaks the genus barrier. Cat evolve into dog for example. They are different genus. Hence they do not macroevolve. So with your link behind your back please provide this evidence of macro evolution...

note: Species by and large evolve into other species, thats fine because mainly they are all ready able to mate because they are different species but of the same kind(Genus). I believe Kind in bible to be at genus level not species. So please find a few examples that are not sterile. Thank you.

That is not how evolution works. A cat giving birth to a dog would be the best evidence against evolution.

P.S.: I don't know how many times I already said this in this forum, sometimes I ask myself if creationists only read their own posts here.

 

[OllieFranz]

ok you seem like you truly believe evolution,

figure this out then,
at no point does a species in one genus cross into another genus. Once they do they are sterile. 99% of time. There is always one in a million, but we are talking in general. You have to supply a species that breaks the genus barrier. Cat evolve into dog for example. They are different genus. Hence they do not macroevolve. So with your link behind your back please provide this evidence of macro evolution...

note: Species by and large evolve into other species, thats fine because mainly they are all ready able to mate because they are different species but of the same kind(Genus). I believe Kind in bible to be at genus level not species. So please find a few examples that are not sterile. Thank you.

I have no idea what you think evolution is, but it is the changes within a species, and the occasional splitting of a species into two populations which have difficulty or can no longer breed with one another, thus creating new species (speciation). That's it. Nothing else.

As each new species continues to change and to split, they become more and more distantly related. We organize how closly or how distantly they are related, just as we differentiate between your sister, your first cousin, a distant cousin, and someone whose connection is so distant they might as well be completely unrelated.

All taxons above species, including genus, are man-made, for this kind of organizational purpose, only. Linnean taxonomy predates Darwin by 100years, and only indirectly relates to evolutionary history.

 

[CarlosTomy]

ok so when you provide a 20 year old peer review, that cost thousands to create......I will say ......nah I want a 2013 model!

Pro-Tip: SCIENCE ADVANCES.

Presumably a later REVIEW article will surely support an earlier hypothesis that stood the test of time.

That's kind of how REVIEW articles work. Check 'em out some time.

 

[CarlosTomy]

so then the government didn't run the school system, my point exactly. It's the way it should be.

What part of "Public" doesn't make sense here?