Evidence for Design

[createdtoworship]

Not my thing. They do nothing for me, at least not beyond beyond a general appreciation of the things of nature. I'm not the one with a dirty mind.

Sorry it was a low shot, I apologize.

 

[createdtoworship]

what about ollie (I am changing subjects from art for awhile)

does ollie believe in primordial soup?

as the theory of abiogenesis?

 

[StormanNorman]

so I take it scantily clad women are your thing?

I'm actually a big fan of it; I admit it.

 

[StormanNorman]

what about ollie (I am changing subjects from art for awhile)

does ollie believe in primordial soup?

as the theory of abiogenesis?

If I can chime in, we don't know enough about the origins of life on earth. At this stage, we mainly have just hypotheses. Based on the geology and fossil record, the best estimate is that it began approximately 3.5 billion years ago. But, as to the how .... that's a good question ... perhaps the most important scientific question of all.

 

[createdtoworship]

If I can chime in, we don't know enough about the origins of life on earth. At this stage, we mainly have just hypotheses. Based on the geology and fossil record, the best estimate is that it began approximately 3.5 billion years ago. But, as to the how .... that's a good question ... perhaps the most important scientific question of all.

well like I said in post 315, the textbooks are selling this idea of a primordial soup. Which is outdated and wrong.

 

[StormanNorman]

well like I said in post 315, the textbooks are selling this idea of a primordial soup. Which is outdated and wrong.

If there are those in the scientific community ... and I don't know if there are .... that believe that it is a viable hypothesis, then it's fine for them to say as much.

 

[createdtoworship]

If there are those in the scientific community ... and I don't know if there are .... that believe that it is a viable hypothesis, then it's fine for them to say as much.

Well the textbooks say so, and thats all that I was questioning. Why teach kids stuff that science doesn't teach?

 

[StormanNorman]

Well the textbooks say so, and thats all that I was questioning. Why teach kids stuff that science doesn't teach?

I agree ....

 

[createdtoworship]

I agree ....

plus when you do a search on google scholar all kinds of articles come up under "primordial soup" which shows that it's still active.

primordial soup - Google Scholar

new science magazines:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404122234.htm

1 year old science magazines:

http://www.livescience.com/18565-life-building-blocks-chemical-evolution.html

 

[StormanNorman]

plus when you do a search on google scholar all kinds of articles come up under "primordial soup" which shows that it's still active.

primordial soup - Google Scholar

new science magazines:

Origin of life: Power behind primordial soup discovered

1 year old science magazines:

How Earth's Primordial Soup Came to Life | Chemical Evolution & Natural Selection | Primordial Soup & The Origin of Life | LiveScience

So, is it still considered a viable hypothesis or not??

 

[createdtoworship]

So, is it still considered a viable hypothesis or not??

it's a theory but it's not a viable one. As I have shown there are a bunch of problems with it.

 

[StormanNorman]

it's a theory but it's not a viable one. As I have shown there are a bunch of problems with it.

You have shown? What's your scientific background, if I may ask?

 

[createdtoworship]

You have shown? What's your scientific background, if I may ask?

obvious flaws in a theory doesn't take a genius to figure out.

 

[StormanNorman]

obvious flaws in a theory doesn't take a genius to figure out.

Well, it does if there are still real, legitimate scientists that conclude it is a viable hypothesis.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, it does if there are still real, legitimate scientists that conclude it is a viable hypothesis.

well for one the fluids would primarily be water, which is the most abundant liquid in earth, water tends to break down DNA and protein into nucleotides and amino acids respectively, due to a law called mass action.

but there are more reasons why DNA could not evolve in a watery soup

• http://www.christianforums.com/t7773422-2/#post64185438
• http://www.christianforums.com/t7773422-2/#post64185564
• http://www.christianforums.com/t7773422-2/#post64185640

even if you were not thinking of DNA in a primordial soup, there are other problems such as the breakdown of the essential gases needed due to radiation from the sun. But thats another story.

for more info you can download A.E. Wilder smith audios or books- He goes into this a little bit.
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=104

 

[StormanNorman]

well for one the fluids would primarily be water, which is the most abundant liquid in earth, water tends to break down DNA and protein into nucleotides and amino acids respectively, due to a law called mass action.

but there are more reasons why DNA could not evolve in a watery soup

• http://www.christianforums.com/t7773422-2/#post64185438
• http://www.christianforums.com/t7773422-2/#post64185564
• http://www.christianforums.com/t7773422-2/#post64185640

even if you were not thinking of DNA in a primordial soup, there are other problems such as the breakdown of the essential gases needed due to radiation from the sun. But thats another story.

for more info you can download A.E. Wilder smith audios or books- He goes into this a little bit.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith Audio Sermons - Sermon Index

Grady, I fully admit that this is not my area of expertise (I'm a mathematician). But, since you didn't answer my question above, I assume that this is not yours either.

Again, Grady, if there are real, professional scientists with the requisite expertise in relevant fields that conclude that it is still a viable theory, then I'm going to go with what they say over you, no offense. Now, that doesn't mean that there is no chance that tomorrow's discover will eliminate it as a viable theory ... it most certainly could. But, until that time ...

 

[createdtoworship]

Grady, I fully admit that this is not my area of expertise (I'm a mathematician). But, since you didn't answer my question above, I assume that this is not yours either.

Again, Grady, if there are real, professional scientists with the requisite expertise in relevant fields that conclude that it is still a viable theory, then I'm going to go with what they say over you, no offense. Now, that doesn't mean that there is no chance that tomorrow's discover will eliminate it as a viable theory ... it most certainly could. But, until that time ...

but still a simple law like mass action, should show these guys that it can't happen.

But when you want to believe something so badly, it don't matter where the evidence points right?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

but still a simple law like mass action, should show these guys that it can't happen.

I don't think you quite grasp what the law of mass action actually states. Besides, alongside biological molecules like amino acids and nucleotides, basic molecules will also form lipid micelles - bubbles of hydrophobic fat that are semipermeable to monomers. Monomers go in, polymerise, and then get stuck inside the bubble. Since they're inside a protective membrane, the mechanical action of the water doesn't matter except on larger scales (and even then it only serves to shear the large bubbles into two, smaller bubbles - the first instance of mitosis).

Citing the law of mass action as a disproof of abiogenesis, is like citing the second law of thermodynamics as a disproof of evolution - it doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[RealityCheck]

lol, whats up w/your avatar

lol

Really, that's what you decided to deal with?

 

[StormanNorman]

but still a simple law like mass action, should show these guys that it can't happen.

But when you want to believe something so badly, it don't matter where the evidence points right?

I think you are confusing real scientists with people ... , well, .... like yourself. The "wanting to believe something so badly" is trait of those who have their answer long before they do any actual research ... don't you think?

Again, Grady, you don't do this stuff for a living. And, I strongly suspect that you are simply regurgitating prose from your favorite websites who happen to share the same beliefs that you do. Until you actually spend countless hours in a lab, get behind a microscope, conduct an experiment, produce open, peer-reviewed research, etc., I'm not going to take your challenges to the scientific community very seriously ... and nor will they. You have the right to your opinion; but, it is an amatuer opinion ... and one that is extremely biased towards a very particular answer.