this is a nice link. Science and Creationism
- Thread starter kaotic
- Start date
HAHA, I am never going to make another topic ever again I suck that making topics I will just post. /me kicks myself. 
Upvote
0
Originally posted by ashibaka
To think that I once wondered how you got 2,000 posts...
LOL I sure you it wasn't from making topics. I am to lazy to think up topics.
Upvote
0
Hank
has the Right to be wrong
OK, I can't resist. This is borderline flame bait.
The site writes the following ingenious material at this link.
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/origin.html
As the universe expanded, according to current scientific understanding, matter collected into clouds that began to condense and rotate, forming the forerunners of galaxies. Within galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy, changes in pressure caused gas and dust to form distinct clouds. In some of these clouds, where there was sufficient mass and the right forces, gravitational attraction caused the cloud to collapse. If the mass of material in the cloud was sufficiently compressed, nuclear reactions began and a star was born.
Here is the pinnacle of our logical thinking scientists.
The universe expands, matter collect into clouds, the clouds mysteriously condense and rotate. Condensing I could accept but why would a cloud of matter want to rotate? How does the cloud overcome the intrinsic acceleration forces, or gravity, when said matter starts to condense? Now the best part is, "there was sufficient mass and the right forces" yes Sir, obviously there must have been such, but it does not explain squad. The next IF, "If the mass of material was sufficiently compressed" by what force did what get sufficiently compressed? Let me guess it rotated inwardly like an implosion force?
===========
A little further down it reads
Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA
This is written so vague it boggles the mind, and made me laugh out loud. (Thanks for the link I needed a good laugh today.)
We all know that one can trace DNA and RNA into basic molecular compounds and their basic elements. We can reproduce amino acids in the lab with very elemental equipment. Thus if one considers amino acids as another basic complex compound one is still left with an impossible gap for any RNA or let alone DNA to emerge.
Now they continue writing:
Some scientists favor the hypothesis that there was an early "RNA world," and they are testing models that lead from RNA to the synthesis of simple DNA and protein molecules.
Yet they forgot to mention that RNA does not just happen, thus whatever hypoidiotism they claim it lacks fundamental prove or a rational sequence of events.
The site writes the following ingenious material at this link.
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/origin.html
As the universe expanded, according to current scientific understanding, matter collected into clouds that began to condense and rotate, forming the forerunners of galaxies. Within galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy, changes in pressure caused gas and dust to form distinct clouds. In some of these clouds, where there was sufficient mass and the right forces, gravitational attraction caused the cloud to collapse. If the mass of material in the cloud was sufficiently compressed, nuclear reactions began and a star was born.
Here is the pinnacle of our logical thinking scientists.
The universe expands, matter collect into clouds, the clouds mysteriously condense and rotate. Condensing I could accept but why would a cloud of matter want to rotate? How does the cloud overcome the intrinsic acceleration forces, or gravity, when said matter starts to condense? Now the best part is, "there was sufficient mass and the right forces" yes Sir, obviously there must have been such, but it does not explain squad. The next IF, "If the mass of material was sufficiently compressed" by what force did what get sufficiently compressed? Let me guess it rotated inwardly like an implosion force?
===========
A little further down it reads
Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA
This is written so vague it boggles the mind, and made me laugh out loud. (Thanks for the link I needed a good laugh today.)
We all know that one can trace DNA and RNA into basic molecular compounds and their basic elements. We can reproduce amino acids in the lab with very elemental equipment. Thus if one considers amino acids as another basic complex compound one is still left with an impossible gap for any RNA or let alone DNA to emerge.
Now they continue writing:
Some scientists favor the hypothesis that there was an early "RNA world," and they are testing models that lead from RNA to the synthesis of simple DNA and protein molecules.
Yet they forgot to mention that RNA does not just happen, thus whatever hypoidiotism they claim it lacks fundamental prove or a rational sequence of events.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Hank OK, I can't resist. This is borderline flame bait.
No, it's just the old tactic of hyperskepticism to find some flaw. Standard courtroom lawyer tactics: try to make some doubt.
"As the universe expanded, according to current scientific understanding, matter collected into clouds that began to condense and rotate, forming the forerunners of galaxies. Within galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy, changes in pressure caused gas and dust to form distinct clouds. In some of these clouds, where there was sufficient mass and the right forces, gravitational attraction caused the cloud to collapse. If the mass of material in the cloud was sufficiently compressed, nuclear reactions began and a star was born."
Here is the pinnacle of our logical thinking scientists.
The universe expands, matter collect into clouds, the clouds mysteriously condense and rotate. Condensing I could accept but why would a cloud of matter want to rotate?
Here's the tactic at work. Ignore that this is a summary of several hundred or thousand scientific papers and is off the main topic if the pamphet -- which is biological evolution -- and demand details that the pamphlet doesn't have time for.
As it turns out, the current issue of Discover magazine has the details. The processes described arise from the physics that we know. It's the cover story in the December issue. Read it and get back to us.
"If the mass of material was sufficiently compressed" by what force did what get sufficiently compressed?
Gravity.
A little further down it reads
Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA
This is written so vague it boggles the mind, and made me laugh out loud.
Go to the thread "Life from non-life: protocells" and read the details. Again, you have a small pamphlet and you laugh because it only gives you the basic summary?
Now they continue writing:
Some scientists favor the hypothesis that there was an early "RNA world," and they are testing models that lead from RNA to the synthesis of simple DNA and protein molecules.
Yet they forgot to mention that RNA does not just happen, thus whatever hypoidiotism they claim it lacks fundamental prove or a rational sequence of events.
RNA is made, on clay catalysts, from ribonucleic acids, which in turn are made from ribose, phosphate, and bases by simple chemical reactions. The bases and ribose, in turn, are made by even simpler chemical reactions when methane, ammonia, nitrogen, and oxygen are present.
Another tactic is selective quotes. For instance, the pamphlet does give a rational sequence of events: the building blocks were made by chemical reactions on earth or in space (and the chemicals landed by meteorite or comet), RNA forms from chemical reactions (perhaps catalyzed by clay), the RNAs are also enzymes (Henry "forgot" to mention that) and can make copies of themselves, the ribozymes undergo spontaneous changes and thus provide the basis of selection for autocatalytic activity, the RNA makes proteins and, later, DNA, the assemblages of RNA become packaged into protocells.
Now, below the place Henry stopped copying is the sentence: "For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways migh have been followed to produce the first cells."
So true. I favor Fox's thermal proteins and protocells, but the RNA world holds promise and there is no reason it couldn't have been a combination of both.
Thanks, Henry, I had a good laugh reading your post and watching the humorous tactics of creationists (and slippery lawyers) once again. Norman Macbeth and Phillip Johnson would have been so proud.
No, it's just the old tactic of hyperskepticism to find some flaw. Standard courtroom lawyer tactics: try to make some doubt.
"As the universe expanded, according to current scientific understanding, matter collected into clouds that began to condense and rotate, forming the forerunners of galaxies. Within galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy, changes in pressure caused gas and dust to form distinct clouds. In some of these clouds, where there was sufficient mass and the right forces, gravitational attraction caused the cloud to collapse. If the mass of material in the cloud was sufficiently compressed, nuclear reactions began and a star was born."
Here is the pinnacle of our logical thinking scientists.
The universe expands, matter collect into clouds, the clouds mysteriously condense and rotate. Condensing I could accept but why would a cloud of matter want to rotate?
Here's the tactic at work. Ignore that this is a summary of several hundred or thousand scientific papers and is off the main topic if the pamphet -- which is biological evolution -- and demand details that the pamphlet doesn't have time for.
As it turns out, the current issue of Discover magazine has the details. The processes described arise from the physics that we know. It's the cover story in the December issue. Read it and get back to us.
"If the mass of material was sufficiently compressed" by what force did what get sufficiently compressed?
Gravity.A little further down it reads
Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA
This is written so vague it boggles the mind, and made me laugh out loud.
Go to the thread "Life from non-life: protocells" and read the details. Again, you have a small pamphlet and you laugh because it only gives you the basic summary?
Now they continue writing:
Some scientists favor the hypothesis that there was an early "RNA world," and they are testing models that lead from RNA to the synthesis of simple DNA and protein molecules.
Yet they forgot to mention that RNA does not just happen, thus whatever hypoidiotism they claim it lacks fundamental prove or a rational sequence of events.
RNA is made, on clay catalysts, from ribonucleic acids, which in turn are made from ribose, phosphate, and bases by simple chemical reactions. The bases and ribose, in turn, are made by even simpler chemical reactions when methane, ammonia, nitrogen, and oxygen are present.
Another tactic is selective quotes. For instance, the pamphlet does give a rational sequence of events: the building blocks were made by chemical reactions on earth or in space (and the chemicals landed by meteorite or comet), RNA forms from chemical reactions (perhaps catalyzed by clay), the RNAs are also enzymes (Henry "forgot" to mention that) and can make copies of themselves, the ribozymes undergo spontaneous changes and thus provide the basis of selection for autocatalytic activity, the RNA makes proteins and, later, DNA, the assemblages of RNA become packaged into protocells.
Now, below the place Henry stopped copying is the sentence: "For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways migh have been followed to produce the first cells."
So true. I favor Fox's thermal proteins and protocells, but the RNA world holds promise and there is no reason it couldn't have been a combination of both.
Thanks, Henry, I had a good laugh reading your post and watching the humorous tactics of creationists (and slippery lawyers) once again. Norman Macbeth and Phillip Johnson would have been so proud.
Upvote
0
Hank
has the Right to be wrong
... thinks we are in court. Good start, I thought this is a forum.
Speaking of tactic, one could say one used the first strawman arguments.
The issue was the info given by one web site, not hundreds of useless papers floating around somewhere collecting dust.
The issue here was the evolution of solar systems, not biological evolution.
Send it too me and I may read it.
Originally posted by lucaspa
"If the mass of material was sufficiently compressed" by what force did what get sufficiently compressed?
Key word missed, "what" and "sufficiently compressed". Try again.
You are missing the English here. The site wrote "... SOME of the chemicals ..." In other words those experiments only produced some of what comprises a RNA, and not ALL. Now assuming those who produced the website read the literature you suggested me to read, would they alter the sentence so as to read and to be understood that those experiment actually produced complete RNA?
I re-quote you in full.
Are you telling me here that RNA will happen when methane, ammonia, nitrogen and oxygen and phosphate are present or when a comet hits a planet and deposits those chemicals/elements?
BTW, why would I mention a trait of RNA? I do not refute it exists or its functions. But since we agree they do reproduce can you enlighten me of its relevance?
Oops I am caught. What have we here? Not only one possible way for abiogenesis but multiple versions? Now what? What would a good layer do to counter massive stupidity and wishful thinking? - Thanking the one highlighting fallacy at its best. They can't prove one version but think they can a multitude.
Originally posted by lucaspa
Thanks, Henry, I had a good laugh reading your post and watching the humorous tactics of creationists (and slippery lawyers) once again. Norman Macbeth and Phillip Johnson would have been so proud.
I hope you mean that. I post here for fun. Btw who are Norman and Phillip?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
