Evolution or Creationism?

[Smidlee]

Miller and Urey used the best models of their time. Interestingly, when you run the same experiments that are adjusted to the much better and modern models of Earth's early atmosphere, you still get amino acids.

Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Figure 1; Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth's early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment
​

If I ran a computer simulation on how the universe got started and that simulation produces 50% matter and 50% anti-matter that would be evidence how it didn't happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I ran a computer simulation on how the universe got started and that simulation produces 50% matter and 50% anti-matter that would be evidence how it didn't happen.

The usual trail of red herrings leading off into the jungle . . .

 

[Smidlee]

"I mentioned the recent lukewarm New York Times story about origin of life research and Pohorille agreed not only with the Times assessment but with comments made earlier to me by biochemist Pier Luigi Luisi that we need all new "mindstorms," because nothing much has happened since Miller-Urey yet scientists keep pursuing the same lines of investigation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/lifes-elusive-xfactorcoct_b_7410806.html
When it comes to life the Miller-Urey experiment is a dead end.

 

[Loudmouth]

When it comes to life the Miller-Urey experiment is a dead end.

Why is the abiotic production of the building blocks of life a dead end?

 

[Smidlee]

Why is the abiotic production of the building blocks of life a dead end?

If someone continually beats a dead horse for over 50 years and the horse never comes alive it's very good evidence that's not the way to bring something to life.

 

[Loudmouth]

If someone continually beats a dead horse for over 50 years and the horse never comes alive it's very good evidence that's not the way to bring something to life.

No one every thought it was a way to bring something to life. It was a simple demonstration that the building blocks of life could easily emerge from simple chemicals in an environment consistent with the early Earth. The experiment was a smashing success for what it set out to do.

Finding abiotic pathways to produce the building blocks of life continues to be an active and productive field of research.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The highway and cars will kill you yet they were created for man. Electricity will kill you and even burn down you house but the power companies create electricity for man. Even a drink machine created for man can kill you.

The engineer who designs a car with square wheels that gets two miles to a gallon and explodes seven out of ten times you use the ignition is either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

The engineer who designs a power plant that fails 18 hours a day and causes powers surges that set fire to whole city blocks is either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

The god who designs a supposedly anthropocentric planet, covers nearly three-fourths of it in salt water, leaves more than half of its landmass completely uninhabitable and tortures it with constant natural disasters is either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

Even if I thought there was the slightest ghost of a hint of a good reason to believe the Earth was 'designed' for humanity by a 'god', that is the conclusion I would be forced to draw - that the nicest thing I could possibly say about him is that he sucks at his job.

Maybe you should think a little before trying to suggest someone is stupid, lazy or incompetent.

Maybe you should think your extremely crappy analogies through more carefully before sharing them.

 

[AV1611VET]

The god who designs a supposedly anthropocentric planet, covers nearly three-fourths of it in salt water, leaves more than half of its landmass completely uninhabitable and tortures it with constant natural disasters is either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

And yet the angels, including Lucifer, shouted for joy when they saw it.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I wonder what they saw that science can't see?

(Actually I don't, but it makes a good question for reflection.)

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

And yet the angels, including Lucifer, shouted for joy when they saw it.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I wonder what they saw that science can't see?

(Actually I don't, but it makes a good question for reflection.)

'They' didn't see anything, as they are mythological characters in a story.

But what did the anonymous author or authors of Job see, that science can't see? Apparently they saw a fixed - probably flat - Earth set upon a foundation, an incorrect apprehension of the world that is very typical of primitive cultures, and certainly not seen by science.

 

[AV1611VET]

'They' didn't see anything, as they are mythological characters in a story.

But what did the anonymous author or authors of Job see, that science can't see? Apparently they saw a fixed - probably flat - Earth set upon a foundation, an incorrect apprehension of the world that is very typical of primitive cultures, and certainly not seen by science.

Assuming this was true, they still saw infinitely more than science can see.

Whether Job wrote it, or Humpty Dumpty wrote it ...

Whether they were mythological or real ...

Whether they saw it as fixed, flat, and on a foundation ...

They still saw enough to rejoice.

Something myopic scientists can't do.

 

[Smidlee]

The engineer who designs a car with square wheels that gets two miles to a gallon and explodes seven out of ten times you use the ignition is either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

The engineer who designs a power plant that fails 18 hours a day and causes powers surges that set fire to whole city blocks is either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

The god who designs a supposedly anthropocentric planet, covers nearly three-fourths of it in salt water, leaves more than half of its landmass completely uninhabitable and tortures it with constant natural disasters is either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

Even if I thought there was the slightest ghost of a hint of a good reason to believe the Earth was 'designed' for humanity by a 'god', that is the conclusion I would be forced to draw - that the nicest thing I could possibly say about him is that he sucks at his job.



Maybe you should think your extremely crappy analogies through more carefully before sharing them.

There is over 7 billions people on this planet to prove you wrong. Man is the one who destroy nature , pollutes the earth,etc.
Second the Earth is under judgement because of man , In Revelation there a day where there is no more sea.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Assuming this was true, they still saw infinitely more than science can see.

Whether Job wrote it, or Humpty Dumpty wrote it ...

Whether they were mythological or real ...

Whether they saw it as fixed, flat, and on a foundation ...

They still saw enough to rejoice.

Something myopic scientists can't do.

Science provides a deeper, more profound, more robust, more wondrous appreciation of nature than any religion can ever even pretend to have.

However, again, that the point under contention is not whether the Earth is wondrous/beautiful/etc., but whether it was designed for humans.

Actually, the original point under contention was whether the universe was designed for humans, but I'll happily follow this blatant goalpost move because I know there is no argument to be made in either case.

 

[Smidlee]

No one every thought it was a way to bring something to life. It was a simple demonstration that the building blocks of life could easily emerge from simple chemicals in an environment consistent with the early Earth. The experiment was a smashing success for what it set out to do.

Finding abiotic pathways to produce the building blocks of life continues to be an active and productive field of research.

I disagree since the experiment produce 50% left-handed and 50% right. Again it's like a simulation produce 50% matter and 50% anti-matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, the original point under contention was whether the universe was designed for humans, but I'll happily follow this blatant goalpost move because I know there is no argument to be made in either case.

Man was created to live forever; and until the Fall, man was under a state where he would live forever.

This means that, until the Fall, when you said this:

Most of the Earth will kill you. 71% of it is salt water. Less than half of its land is arable.

... it didn't apply.

The earth -- on the day it was created -- was perfect.

But when the Fall occurred, it was cursed.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There is over 7 billions people on this planet to prove you wrong.

Are any of those people capable of breathing or drinking salt water? Farming crops on dead land? Thwarting hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, floods and droughts?

No, they aren't. My point stands.

Man is the one who destroy nature

Right. Just look at all these examples of 'man destroying nature'...

https://rs21testblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/hurricane-katrina.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02162/20110311-tsunami-w_2162733k.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...imary/090512-01-china-earthquake-town_big.jpg

Nature was around a long time before we showed up. It's not going anywhere. We are.

 

[Smidlee]

Are any of those people capable of breathing or drinking salt water? Farming crops on dead land? Thwarting hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, floods and droughts?

No, they aren't. My point stands.

Can a car fly? Man does fish in the ocean in case you didn't know. That's a very narrow view.

 

[Smidlee]

dp

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Man was created to live forever; and until the Fall, man was under a state where he would live forever.

This means that, until the Fall, when you said this:

... it didn't apply.

The earth -- on the day it was created -- was perfect.

But when the Fall occurred, it was cursed.

Which your purportedly omniscient and omnipotent god would both have known would occur in the events he himself set out, and could have easily stopped from happening, but didn't.

Again, I'm not obligated to imagine these post-hoc fantasies along with you, but even if I do, your god doesn't come out smelling any better.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which your purportedly omniscient and omnipotent god would both have known would occur in the events he himself set out, and could have easily stopped from happening, but didn't.

That's a different point altogether, and has nothing to do with God creating the universe incapable of taking life.

Again, I'm not obligated to imagine these post-hoc fantasies along with you,

That is correct.

No one said you had to.

... but even if I do, your god doesn't come out smelling any better.

This sounds more like an emotional comment than an intellectual one.

I don't expect you to understand the deep things of God, but why you're insulting things you can't understand sounds like a personal problem to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree since the experiment produce 50% left-handed and 50% right. Again it's like a simulation produce 50% matter and 50% anti-matter.

That was not the goal of the experiment. The chirality issue is another problem altogether. Creationists always expect too much too soon.

You can read about that here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/pdf/cshperspect-ORI-a002147.pdf