This is where this forum falls down.
- Thread starter consol
- Start date
- Status
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
The human body is both remarkable and artistic -- a fact which is evidence of absolutely nothing.
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
However, 'remarkable' as you've implicitly defined it, is a totally subjective human category. Perhaps most or all humans can agree that the human body is remarkably complex, but would they also agree about the remarkability of a flatworm? Trichoplax? An amoeba? A bacterium? A virus? A ribozyme? Does this 'remarkability' have some objectively definable boundary?
As I read what I wrote again, I get a very eery feeling. I could just substitute 'life' for remarkability and leave out the more obviously living examples... But 'life' at least does have definitions, and even if all people can't agree on them, they can tell whether something fits a definition of life or not. I guess. Thinking is a dangerous process. I guess. </musing>
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
Where is that evidence? And why aren't the millions of theist scientists publishing peer reviewed articles on it?
What does this sentence mean?
You need not be a scientist to understand a good deal of evolution and the evidence for it. You only nead to make a bit of effort and read.
AFAIK Loudmouth is a biologist.
Too true.
Upvote
0
I see no conflict between elijah115 and myself.
I believe that God formed man of the dust of the ground and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
You believe we came from rocks... How?
Surely the difference isn't so subtle that you couldn't help but miss it.
FoeHammer.
Upvote
0
MrGoodBytes
Seeker for life, probably
"Dust of the ground" forms when rocks erode, so Loudmouth was absolutely correct. The only ones claiming that humans come from rocks - via a short magical intermezzo - are YECs.
Upvote
0
How so?
Don't let the details get in the way will you? We're not talking about "evidence" we are talking about interpretations of "evidence".
Then don't use "that kind of logic".FoeHammer.
Upvote
0
So what is the alternative to "a short magical intermezzo'' as you put it? In order that you deride/dismiss my belief in the Genesis account the origin of man you must know of a better explanation... so let's have it? The chemicals that gave rise to the first ?-forms came from where?
FoeHammer.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MrGoodBytes
Seeker for life, probably
I don't know of a better explanation, and I don't have to in order to dismiss yours. You have just the same amount of evidence for how the first organism formed as me - none. Only difference is that I admit my ignorance and don't jump to unsupported assumptions.
(The origin of the chemicals themselves aren't that mysterious - just two weeks ago, methanimine and hydrogen cyanide were detected in another galaxy (Arp 2200) - add water and you have glycene, one of the essential amino acids. Article)
Upvote
0
An averment is only persuasive to someone who is ignorant of the facts. Surely you know this?
Upvote
0
MrGoodBytes
Seeker for life, probably
Surely you are going to share the facts that we are supposedly ignorant of?
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
(1) We do know of a better explanation to the origin of man. Apes, sex, mutation, selection, y'know the song.
(2) The chemicals came from simple molecules readily available in an ancient atmosphere (or, for that matter, in about any random interstellar gas cloud). Ice might have helped* a bit.
In any case, science is at least looking for an explanation other than "I have no idea, so I'll say it's magic". And consequently it has at least some idea, if not the full picture yet.
Don't demand that science knows all the answers when in reality you don't know any.
*although the abstract says "In this review we focus on a missing link of the RNA world hypothesis-primitive miniribozymes...", miniribozymes are not actually missing, some are already known, and specifically mentioned later in the review. Just thought I'd point that out before you come back screaming "missinglink! youdunnonothing!"
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No! You don't know, you might believe that you know but that isn't quite the same thing is it? What do you know of these things that you have observed, repeated, tested and demonstrated? How much do you know based upon your own investigation of actual physical evidence? How many scientific papers have you written on the origin of man? On apes, sex or mutation?
They did, did they? So what exactly was this "ancient atmosphere" like and how do they know?
Who says it's magic?
"Some idea"? Based on what?
Upvote
0
No they aren't. Scientists derive theories from the evidence. "Laws" are an outdated 19th century idea.
Then let's see this evidence that scientists are ignoring. Remember, this evidence must be empiric objective evidence. If it is subjective then scientists have every reason to ignore it.
My guess is that you will have some excuse for not having this evidence. When the science rubber meets the road creationists flee. This is why you will not find them in scientific journals, scientific meetings, or actively doing research in creationism. There is nothing that scientists are ignoring on the science front. None. And I think you know it.
Many of us here are scientists, including myself. Perhaps you should remove your foot from your mouth, then we can talk of the log in your eye.
Very true. What matters is evidence, of which you have zero.
Upvote
0
Rock erodes to dust. Magical poofing and Abracadabra. Man from rock. This is what you believe in, and yet you have the audacity to accuse us of believing in fairytales. How ironic.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
Does Mongolia exist?
I'm quite tired of your demands that I, personally, do all the work to pile up the evidence others have already acquired multiple times. This is an exceedingly stupid demand. It's like asking you if you've been to London before I believe you that London exists.
I prefer to examine others' evidence so that I have some time left to train in my chosen profession so that I can start accumulating my own evidence in less than a million years. What's the problem with that?
Schoolkid level - university lecture notes and a search results (thousands of them) in Science magazine for the keywords earth early atmosphere composition. Go explore. Oh wait, you don't accept interpretations of evidence!
Then visit the Solfatara crater near Naples and smell it (though I grant you that the part you are able to smell there isn't the most major player in the game
).
Ok, then it's "supernatural". The only difference between the two words is the connotation.
Ehm... chemistry? You know, the stuff people in white coats do with test tubes and Bunsen burners and stuff. But, to stay with everyone's favourite RNA world, just a few pieces off the top of my head:
(1) RNA is both informational molecule and catalyst, so a good theoretical candidate for a precursor of life. It has the potential of solving the chicken and egg problem of DNA and protein.
(2) The information-related and catalytic roles RNA plays in modern organisms (eg. translation and transcription) are common to all life and close to the core of what makes us living.
(2a) Our DNA replication requires RNA primers (the DNA polymerase that does the lion's share of the job can't start a new DNA thread, only add nucleotides to an existing one)
(2b) Proteins aren't made directly from DNA but an mRNA intermediate
(2c) The translation process is catalysed by ribozymes and not protein enzymes; AFAIK ribosome proteins play a mostly supportive role
(3) Artificial ribozymes have been developed for a variety of functions, some directly relevant to replication.
(3a) Relatively short - and therefore more easily synthesiseable - RNAs can act as ribozymes, albeit far less efficient than the more conventional larger ones.
(5) Organic synthesis was probably commonplace on the early earth (since Miller and Urey, there's been some development, but basically we know that many amino acids and nucleotides are readily synthesised under likely early earth conditions - or, indeed, Europa or Titan or Mars conditions, with ice promoting RNA stability and all.)
But if you cared to open a biology textbook, it'd probably tell you all this. It'd likely also give you at least some references. Google Scholar is also a great thing.
And then handwave away the answers by saying they're "biased interpretations". Without even looking at them.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
