Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

mzungu said:

Who says it isn't?

You keep coming to conclusions based on your personal feelings. I suggest you read up on the subjects that are pertinent to your questions.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that, why from the last couple of posts. I have linked many references to info that is based on experts and other findings that are not mine. I have said before that i research and investigate before i answer something so dont think that i am making it up as i go along.

I am only inquiring into a related subject that interests me. Besides i can only give my own personal view about life in the universe because it hasn't been proven so no one can answer that without a personal opinion. You just replied to me with your own personal opinion when you said who says there no life.

stevevw said:

But i would have thought that a form of life such as microbes would be fairly common throughout the universe. As a form of life can even survive in inhospitable places like the volcanic vents of the sea floor, hot acid springs and some of the coldest places on earth then wouldn't it be around in quite a few places.

Click to expand...

Most likely, yes. There is almost certainly life throughout the universe, and most of that will probably be simple and small, with only a fraction being able to ponder the stars.

As you said, life is tenacious. The Miller-Urey experiment famously recreated early Earth conditions (water + methane + ammonia + hydrogen + electricity) and got a surprising array of complex biological molecules forming spontaneously - even amino acids and nucleotide bases were formed, all by themselves.

It turns out that they got the experiment slightly wrong, that Earth's initial conditions are different than what they presumed. But this makes it even better, as biological molecules will form in an even greater variety of conditions, not just Earth's.

What makes you think that,

Click to expand...

Your posts are littered with the words 'that doesn't make sense to me' or some variation thereof.

Black Akuma said:

Your posts are littered with the words 'that doesn't make sense to me' or some variation thereof.

Click to expand...

Yes but thats after listing and referencing all the info from the experts. Of course i am going give my oponion. After all as you can see from the evidence its all up for interpretation. If evolutionists can give their interpretation so can I.

Wiccan_Child said:

Most likely, yes. There is almost certainly life throughout the universe, and most of that will probably be simple and small, with only a fraction being able to ponder the stars.

As you said, life is tenacious. The Miller-Urey experiment famously recreated early Earth conditions (water + methane + ammonia + hydrogen + electricity) and got a surprising array of complex biological molecules forming spontaneously - even amino acids and nucleotide bases were formed, all by themselves.

It turns out that they got the experiment slightly wrong, that Earth's initial conditions are different than what they presumed. But this makes it even better, as biological molecules will form in an even greater variety of conditions, not just Earth's.

Click to expand...

Yes but they had all the right ingredients in the first place. Where did they come from. If they do get it right then will they show that all this came together on its own and formed life.

stevevw said:

Yes but they had all the right ingredients in the first place. Where did they come from. If they do get it right then will they show that all this came together on its own and formed life.

Click to expand...

“The amino acids in Miller’s vials all come in an equal mix of two forms, each the mirror image of the other. You only see that in laboratory reactions – in nature, amino acids come almost entirely in one version.”-par.10
Within this matter of fact statement of the characteristics of laboratory reactions can be found a fundamental problem with the conclusions often drawn from the Miller experiments. It is as impossible to produce amino acids of all one type with random electrical charges as it would be to take a deck of well-shuffled cards and deal a hand of all one color off the top.
Even before tackling the problem of self-replicating DNA, an experiment successfully demonstrating the origins of life would have to identify the environment and conditions necessary to allow random chance to produce the unilateral array of amino acids.
This is not merely a technicality involving the nature of laboratory research, but one of the most important factors in an accurate analysis of the data procured through these experiments.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html

stevevw said:

“The amino acids in Miller’s vials all come in an equal mix of two forms, each the mirror image of the other. You only see that in laboratory reactions – in nature, amino acids come almost entirely in one version.”-par.10
Within this matter of fact statement of the characteristics of laboratory reactions can be found a fundamental problem with the conclusions often drawn from the Miller experiments. It is as impossible to produce amino acids of all one type with random electrical charges as it would be to take a deck of well-shuffled cards and deal a hand of all one color off the top.
Even before tackling the problem of self-replicating DNA, an experiment successfully demonstrating the origins of life would have to identify the environment and conditions necessary to allow random chance to produce the unilateral array of amino acids.
This is not merely a technicality involving the nature of laboratory research, but one of the most important factors in an accurate analysis of the data procured through these experiments.

Click to expand...

You need to get into the habit of citing the source of your cut and pasting.

After all as you can see from the evidence its all up for interpretation. If evolutionists can give their interpretation so can I.

Click to expand...

Not all opinions are created equal.

stevevw said:

Out of interest I'm wondering for those who dont believe in God do you believe in anything else. Do you believe in poltergeists or ghosts. Do you believe in anything within the spiritual realm that doesn't have to be associated with God. Do you believe in UFO,s or life from another planet. Do you believe in demons or any of the mystic beliefs that some have. Do you believe in any of the miracles that have been claimed by people.

Click to expand...

Just a follow up I seen a repeat of a show I'd seen about 12 months ago on TV today. It was about an Australian women who claimed to have a miracle. To me something has happened to this lady that is very out of the norm. Even if you dont believe nothing miraculous happened it certainly shows things happen outside the normal parameters of science. If common belief and prayer is in the head then at least you can say it can achieve some great results.

Australian Story :: Mary And Me

46AND2 said:

You need to get into the habit of citing the source of your cut and pasting.

Click to expand...

I am in the habit of referencing information. I just for on this occasion. Thats a rather big statement to make. Makes me feel like your keeping tabs on me. If you look at all my previous posts they always have links and references. Whats wrong with coping information anyway.

Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life : Not Exactly Rocket Science

stevevw said:

Just a follow up I seen a repeat of a show I'd seen about 12 months ago on TV today. It was about an Australian women who claimed to have a miracle. To me something has happened to this lady that is very out of the norm. Even if you dont believe nothing miraculous happened it certainly shows things happen outside the normal parameters of science.

Click to expand...

Indeed -- unusual things happen; sometimes people beat some pretty incredible odds.

If common belief and prayer is in the head then at least you can say it can achieve some great results.

Click to expand...

Only if the prayer made this happen -- but people who don't pray occasionally beat some pretty incredible odds as well.

Australian Story :: Mary And Me

Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that Ms. Evans is recovering. Good for her.

stevevw said:

Out of interest I'm wondering for those who dont believe in God do you believe in anything else. Do you believe in poltergeists or ghosts.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Do you believe in anything within the spiritual realm that doesn't have to be associated with God.

Click to expand...

You mean like psychics? ESP? Astral projection; that sort of thing? Nope.

Do you believe in UFO,s or life from another planet.

Click to expand...

Not personally, but I'm open to the possibility.

Do you believe in demons or any of the mystic beliefs that some have.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Do you believe in any of the miracles that have been claimed by people.

Click to expand...

I believe that people sometimes beat some pretty incredible odds.

stevevw said:

Yes but they had all the right ingredients in the first place.

Click to expand...

Who did? Miller and Urey? Exo-planets?

stevevw said:

Where did they come from.

Click to expand...

The ingredients? In a nutshell: a star burns by fusing light elements (hydrogen, helium) into heavier elements (carbon, oxygen, etc). As it runs out, it gets denser and hotter, and for a time can burn these products into even heavier elements (gold, uranium, etc). This rapidly releases heat, and the star explodes (typically as a supernova).

The result is a cloud of dust strewn with all sorts of interesting elements. This cloud will coalesce into a new star and a new system of planets and moons, but this time the whole lot will be replete with these elements.

As the Earth cooled and oceans formed, then, it was awash with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, gold, iron, etc, all forged in the heart of the dying star that preceded us.

stevevw said:

If they do get it right then will they show that all this came together on its own and formed life.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. If life is indeed a product of chemistry and physics (as I believe it is), there's no rule that says scientists must be able to recreate it. It may turn out that it's so improbable that it takes billions of years and an entire universe of planets to actually do - it's possible, and give such numbers it becomes inevitable, but it wouldn't be feasible to recreate in its entirety.

Or, maybe it is re-creatable.

Whatever the case may be, the Miller-Urey experiment still stands as a famous one. It still undeniably demonstrated that simple chemicals (abundant on early Earth) will spontaneously form complex biological chemicals, including amino acids and nucleotide bases.

Sometimes yes. But there are environments where the predators are in the water, not on the land. And when the first tetrapods evolved the land was very safe. No predators at all were there to attack them.

They say the first tetrapods seem to live in shallow water where there would not be any real threat. Plus there were many other creatures who would have been subjected to the same threats or environmental pressures as the first tetrapods who didn't go onto the land but still survived in the environment that the tetrapod was supposedly trying to adapt from.

Click to expand...

All creatures are always in the process of evolving. But there is no definite "goal' to evolution except for survival. Anything that helps survival will be saved. And of course all features are "fully functioning". That is a rather foolish complaint. New traits evolve from old abilities. What happens is that a creature can always perform a range of functions. Some new ones arise at it evolves. If those functions are positive for survival they can become fixed in the genome of the population as a whole. For example it is not much of a change for a walking species to develop the ability to run. There would always be a range of walking speeds that different offspring had and if it was advantageous to be able to move more quickly the offspring that were faster would be more likely to succeed (pass on their genes). There offspring would have a range in speeds too, but since they were descended from the faster moving critters their offspring would also be faster than the old norm. In a few hundred generations all of them would be running.


Sure there are. Just because you cannot spot significant differences does not mean that the experts cannot.

Thats what I'm worried about they interpretation of those differences. They turn them into a new species being formed where it could have been variation with a species.

Why do you think there was no food on land? Even back then there were mosses and lichens and other such near plant life. Just think of it, a place safe from predators with a food source that no one else is eating. For an animal that is as close to heaven as you can get. Once fish started to make an incursion onto land the benefits for the ones that evolved was unlimited.

Well the way they show the first tetrapods they had large teeth that were made for eating other creatures not moss. They even describe it as teeth ideal for tearing at other creatures.

Click to expand...

Why are you concentrating so much on a family that there is little evidence of?

Because it stemmed fro when talking about snakes and when they lost their legs and someone was using that as an example of a creature growing legs. Thats exactly right there is little evidence but evolutionist like to build stories out of that little evidence and interpret it in a certain way when there is lack of evidence.

Click to expand...

You need to remember the animals that we do have evidence of evolving strongly implies that all animals evolve.

To me that is jumping to a conclusion. Which animals do they have strong evidence. The snake and the fish with legs was given to me as strong evidence. You just said to me that there was little evidence for the tetrapod and i see little evidence which is also contradictory and confusing for the snake. So which animals have strong evidence.

Click to expand...

Also the creationist side has no explanation besides "magic". They cannot explain the fossil record. They cannot explain nested hierarchies. and ERV's make their heads spin.

Why believe in something that not only has no scientific evidence supporting it, and has almost endless evidence opposing it?[/quote]

Thats what you say. But if believing in God and his word is based on faith then the assurance and evidence is from God and revealed to you through your faith. How then can you say to a believer that he has no evidence. His evidence comes to him through his faith. When i look at the moon and stars and universe i see God and his creation and thats as real to me as what evolution is to you. When evolutionist say that life came from chemicals and bacteria and evolved into more complex life I see gods creation. When you say you have evidence for transitions between species i see great variation in species. When you say you have evidence that to me is your interpretation of the evidence. Because it is so patchy and inconclusive as with the snake then there is no strong evidence. It can be argued either way for variation as well.

I dont see transitions of a creature that had no legs and the developed legs because all i see is a creature with fully developed legs or completely no legs and nothing in between. Evolutionist interpret similarities with fossils they have found to be evidence of transformation but the evidence is patchy. There is no way of telling whether it is the same species that has that difference through variation , a stage of development within the species when growing or whether it is a unrelated species. Such as the skulls at Georgia. Once they though there were many species of ape man now there maybe only one.

So they interpreted variation into new species and promoted and taught that for years. Some of the skulls they said were transitions of humans were apes. That is the same for many fossils they have found they are now either finding new ones or looking closer at existing ones and finding that they dont match the nice neat links they tried to say they were.

Click to expand...

Steve, what about quoting is confusing to you?

stevevw said:

I am in the habit of referencing information. I just for on this occasion. Thats a rather big statement to make. Makes me feel like your keeping tabs on me. If you look at all my previous posts they always have links and references. Whats wrong with coping information anyway.

Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life : Not Exactly Rocket Science

Click to expand...

Not keeping tabs on you. Just know that other people have spoken to you about it before. It's fine to copy and paste, occasionally, as long as you cite your source. If you don't, its plagiarism.

stevevw said:

I am in the habit of referencing information. I just for on this occasion. Thats a rather big statement to make. Makes me feel like your keeping tabs on me. If you look at all my previous posts they always have links and references. Whats wrong with coping information anyway.

Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life : Not Exactly Rocket Science

Click to expand...

If you simply copy information without giving a proper link it is difficult for others to verify the veracity of your work. I am not saying that you are lying, but creationists have a terrible habit of going to lying creationists sources. They very often seem to be ashamed of that fact and do not include the link to their source, especially for quotes. According to the rules here we cannot call you a liar, but if you use a source like "Answers in Genesis" or even more laughably Kent Hovind, it is easy to show how those people have lied. And probably in the very post that you quote. One of their favorite methods of lying is to quote mine evolutionists. This is a very foul way to lie. For example I could claim, and quote, the Bible saying that there is no God. I would have to quote out of context, but it says that nonetheless.

That is a nice article and I do thank you for it. It shows that Miller was even more successful in his experiment than we thought.

Black Akuma said:

Steve, what about quoting is confusing to you?

Click to expand...

What do you mean

stevevw said:

Just a follow up I seen a repeat of a show I'd seen about 12 months ago on TV today. It was about an Australian women who claimed to have a miracle. To me something has happened to this lady that is very out of the norm. Even if you dont believe nothing miraculous happened it certainly shows things happen outside the normal parameters of science. If common belief and prayer is in the head then at least you can say it can achieve some great results.

Australian Story :: Mary And Me

Click to expand...

What is the evidence that it was the belief and prayer that caused the remission?

Subduction Zone said:

If you simply copy information without giving a proper link it is difficult for others to verify the veracity of your work. I am not saying that you are lying, but creationists have a terrible habit of going to lying creationists sources. They very often seem to be ashamed of that fact and do not include the link to their source, especially for quotes. According to the rules here we cannot call you a liar, but if you use a source like "Answers in Genesis" or even more laughably Kent Hovind, it is easy to show how those people have lied. And probably in the very post that you quote. One of their favorite methods of lying is to quote mine evolutionists. This is a very foul way to lie. For example I could claim, and quote, the Bible saying that there is no God. I would have to quote out of context, but it says that nonetheless.

That is a nice article and I do thank you for it. It shows that Miller was even more successful in his experiment than we thought.

Click to expand...

I realize this, I had forgotten to link one of my posts and it was made out that i do it all the time. I don,t think creationists are ashamed necessarily of the source. I think that if and when they do use them they are jumped on and rejected so they dont get much chance to use them anyway. Or at least thats my experience. I have read some of them and i dont see any problems. If you read them in conjunction with the science sites then you get different perspectives.

Some of the sites are quite good in my books. They have a very scientific approach using scientific methods of analyzing things but will looked at it from another angle. Some go into the analysis of a certain thing and to me make sense compared to what the science sites say. They are more or less talking about the same thing and break it down to show that some of the conclusions evolutionist come to are not necessarily so. This is not because they are trying ti inject God into the equation but they are doing the science themselves.

They will show the possibility that it is possible that there are other reasons involved. They will also pull apart what some evolutionist say and show that they have assumed some things and that the evidence they pro-port is not necessarily the case. Something that most science sites will never do. Like i said and have shown the evidence is not always as black and white as made out and you can make a case for both sides. If you always engross yourself in the same agreed opinion you can sometimes overlook things or be influenced to accept it when it may not be the case.

As i have said before I mostly use science sites for reference but would like to sometimes use religious based ones that have a scientific approach but never get past ist base on that one. Nor do i see others have the same opportunity on this site. When you mention Kent Hovind I haven't really seen his stuff to know what he is about. Some sites are more religious then others. But they are not all the same yet are all tarred with the same brush so they dont get a chance to be aired. Its a pity as i think they make some sense. Its funny as i believe that evolutionist can use fringe science sites that may make certain claims and they are never scrutinized as much as religious ones.

Oh merry Christmas by the way to one and all.