Did it reform into solid rock? No. Would it turn to rock if given the right circumstances or time? Yes.
Here’s one of the parts I’m interested in. I thought the whole point of you bringing up that experiment was that the geologic column wouldn’t/didn’t take millions of years. But the mere sorting can’t show that, because you’d still need the right circumstances or TIME to get it back to solid rock.
And while I can TOTALLY understand your wife not wanting random jars of water and dirt that could turn into a muddy mess around the house (those are the things that ALWAYS get knocked around), but the geologic column does contain bones, so for a more accurate experiment, such things would be needed.
So, if one takes something that has been ordered and disorders it, one cannot reorder it without skill and determinate maneuvers. Is that a correct statement?
Generally, yes.
How many explosions do you know of that brought order to anything? All the explosions I have ever seen have taken order and made chaos out of it.
How do you want to define order? I can take 3 equivalent amounts of chemical, explode them together, and get only 2 equivalent amounts out. Would that not be increasing order?
And I also did say only possibly. Such things depend on when in the reaction they are added, how they are added, etc.
Again, if something that has been ordered is brought to disorder, then only skill, determinate manuevers, and patience will reorder it. Correct?
Generally, yes. But only generally.
Yet the blind mixing of chaotic amounts of chemicals could eventually bring about the most complex computer (the human brain)? Do you honestly believe that? Honestly?
1) Where is the ‘watch’ that got smashed? The parallel fails on another level here, for talking about the beginning of life. The parallel depends on starting with complexity, breaking it down, and regaining it spontaneously. Before life started, there was no life. Obviously, since it was before life. So there was nothing to smash and then expect to reorder.
2) It is not ‘blind mixing of chaotic amounts’. Chemistry is not random. Mixing together certain amounts of certain chemicals under the right conditions will ALWAYS yield the same product(s) in the same ratios. Furthermore, forces such as natural selection are also not random forces. So, no. I don’t expect you to believe that. I don’t believe that. But that also isn’t what is stated.
But that is what I want to know, what brought about life? How did life come, literally, into being? That is my question to evolutionists.
Then stop asking the ‘evolutionists’ and start asking the biochemists.
It also isn’t completely known yet. But not completely known is not the same as “it never will be known and we should stop looking” nor is it the same as “God did it”.
And no, that wasn't Stein. It is from a completely secular book. That is just my paraphrase from an evolutionary based book of an encyclopedia of dinosaurs. In the front of the book it explains the time spans and when and how life "arose" on Earth leading up to the time of the dinosaurs. If you want to come over to see the book, it's on my book shelf.
The phrase is directly out of Ben Stein’s Expelled. While I can’t come over, could you put the title in the next post?
They NEED to find amino acids in space, but it is not certain that what they have found IS amino acids. And also note that in 1994, the first time they tried to make that claim it fell through. Now they are trying to make that same claim again. Also take into consideration that the type of amino acid they think they have is the "simplest type" of amino.
Then how about this article from 2003 confirming it and explaining just what they found?
Amino acid detected in space - physicsworld.com
Or this one from NASA in 2009 detailing it in a comet?
Found: first amino acid on a comet - space - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist
And who is ‘they’? What is the ‘need’? And the claim fell through in 1994 because of a lack of evidence. In 1994, they had 2 spectral lines. In the 2002 article, they had 10, and in the 2003 one they’d gotten to over 25. Why is it suspect that they tried again once they had more evidence?
In my three above scenarios, I have given way more of the needed building blocks to make the tiara, the window, or the house than the supposed amino acid in deep space. Yet in none of those above scenarios would the existence of those materials mean that any of those structures would arise without being guided by an intelligent designer. I guess what I am saying is this, Even if it IS in fact an amino acid, that in no way proves that life can come up out of nothing or that life exists anywhere else than right here on Earth.
Carbon does not spontaneously react to form diamonds without intense heat and pressure, unlike that found at the surface.
Timber does not spontaneously react with other timber to form log cabins.
Sand does not spontaneously react with itself to form sculptures.
Organic molecules DO tend to spontaneously react with other molecules (varying by which organic molecule we are speaking of) to make other molecules.
Also, I don’t remember the claim being made that life has arisen anywhere but earth.
These boldened words sound alot like a mud puddle and an energy source. Hmm, interesting.
*facepalm* Energy source, yes. Huge lake/oceanfront/bottom of the sea? Not so much like a mud puddle.
I think you know how much of a Wiki fan I am but I did look at the page. It describes amino acids as the building blocks of protiens that form the cells. The problem is that the protiens are guided by the nucleic acid. But the nucleic acid is catylised by the protiens. So the protiens need the nucleic acid to know what to do but the nucleic acid needs the protiens to do it. Sounds like you got a chicken but no egg.
Yep, that’s the current conundrum. But because they currently ARE catalyzed by each other doesn’t mean they always had to be. Case in point, form elsewhere in the article:
The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
1. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
2. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
3. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.
...
Early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids, protein-like molecules that are produced when amino acid solutions are heated–when present at the correct concentration in aqueous solution, these form microspheres which are observed to behave similarly to membrane-enclosed compartments
...
Relatively short RNA molecules which can duplicate others have been artificially produced in the lab
...
A slightly different version of the RNA-world hypothesis is that a different type of nucleic acid, such as PNA, TNA or GNA, was the first one to emerge as a self-reproducing molecule, to be replaced by RNA only later.
And et cetera.
So, yeah, it is currently unknown, but that doesn’t mean that is impossible.
I would spend much more time on testable and applicable points such as anatomy or physiology or zoology.
Do you know how evolution is useful when related to those fields?
That is exactly what is taught. They absolutely teach that dinosaurs evolved into birds. I have seen the textbooks. Shoot, I just got rid of a half a shelf of textbooks that teach that.
Yes, some dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs like archaeopteryx, and the ones I linked a while back. Some dinosaurs evolving into birds over many generations and a very long time is a far cry from T-rex just growing feathers and turning into tweety bird.
Care to tell what evolution DOES state?
Sure, I can summarize it fairly easily.
Life does not replicate itself perfectly. So when the very first organisms replicated themselves, there were random mutations and other types of gene transfer. These resulted in nonrandom changes to the DNA code. These resulted in nonrandom changes to the genotype and in some cases the phenotype of the organism. These resulted in nonrandom changes in the ability of the organism to acquire sufficient food/reproduce/survive/etc. Those nonrandom changes resulted in nonrandom changes of the makeup of the gene pool for that particular organism, as changes that decreased the ability to survive and reproduce would contribute less, while changes that increased the ability to survive contributed more. Over time, the accumulation of changes along with factors such as (but not limited to) geographical isolation would lead to populations being unable to interbreed with their ancestors or other groups that formerly were their same species, which is generally recognized as speciation. The more speciation, the more changes, and their accumulation, combined with the time life has been around, leads to the diversity we see today.
That’s a good starting point, without going into the details of any of the steps.
Yes, I think they would ask questions. That is why the point is so true. I mean, why tell them what some people believe to be the origins but not tell what others think? Do you want to censor different viewpoints from their little minds? Why is it only a bad thing if evolution is not taught, but no one minds at all that opposing viewpoints are left out? It does not make for an atmosphere of learning, that makes for an atmosphere of indoctrination when all but one viewpoint is taught.
This is science class. Science operates under evidence. Evidence is like a tyrant with no favorites. If you go against it, you can’t be right. If you go without it, you may be right, but until it is on your side, you can’t be accepted as right. If your worst enemy does the exact same things as you do, as long as he is honest about the results, he must be able to get the exact same evidence from the exact same experiments within experimental error. Do the opposing viewpoints have evidence? Are there movements in atheist countries where scientists WITHOUT a religious agenda are going “Wait, wait, wait, that can’t be right, my data is showing only 10,000 years to the age of the earth, my data is solid, go test it and see if you get the same results.” or “Wait, my DNA analysis shows no DNA similarities that would be considered relationship-indicating between humans and other animals. Come, look at my data.” Nope. It’s all religious types, with an agenda, that often have already declared their belief in one outcome regardless of evidence, that have already a priori dismissed all other evidence as wrong, no matter what. Like AIG.
So, no, I don’t want children exposed to every idea under the sun. I want children exposed to what those who actually have come up with and studied the evidence have figured out. Heck, go ahead and slap the sticker “This book describes only the current scientific consensus, and may change depending on future discoveries” on it... but slap it on EVERYTHING, from atomic theory to germ theory to evolution to chemistry to... you get the idea. Heck, teach that about science the very first day of classes every year in every science class. Do we teach flat earthism? Some people still believe in that. Do we teach geocentrism? Some people still believe in that. And so on.

And sure, I have no problem censoring them from other viewpoints until they understand the evidence presented and the current reasons from the scientific consensus enough to decide “Hey, this field is interesting, and I’ve heard all this controversy about it, I’m going to go expand my understanding of it because I have a solid base of knowledge about what is currently taught.” I don’t want holocaust denialism taught in my future children’s history classes. I don’t want astrology in their astronomy textbooks. I don’t want alchemy in their chemistry books. And I don’t want creationism in their biology books, or their astronomy books, or their geology books, or any other the other topics it touches on. When my kids learn about science, I want them to learn about the evidence, what the evidence means, what the current consensus on it by the scientific community is.
Also, how does promoting such confusion help foster learning? Hey kids, scientists have found this, but these people believe X, and these people believe Y, and these people believe Z, and these people believe W, and ... and these people believe AAXWE, and even though they are almost all contradictory with each other, and the scientific evidence, any one of them could be valid.
Wait, WHAT?
Metherion
