When did you decide to become a creationist?

[MoonLancer]

I can't take seriously anyone who actually believes that the Miller experiments are "proof" that Abiogenesis could have happened in the distant past.

the same could be said for people who think the world is flat or that the universe revolves around the earth. If the earth is stationary, the gravity that that the earth would have to be the strongest known gravitational pull to rotate the universe around itself, so how is it that other planets have stronger gravity then ours?on the universe. Why is earths gravity different then any other celestial body?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All Miller did was produce some amino acids in an atmosphere that probably never existed.

The importance of Miller's and Urey's experiments was to show that amino acids could spontaneously form, and moreover to show that the abiogenetic theory of the origin of life is tenable. They did that.

Indeed, the fact that the 'atmosphere' they used has been shown to be moderately unlike what we think the atmosphere was like, merely shows how versatile the spontaneous of amino acids is.

That is, speaking in hindsight, they showed that life could spontaneously form in a variety of conditions.

And suppose that even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get the simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the obvious necessary chemical changes that's needed to convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed.

What chemical changes would these be? RNA and all the variations thereof are simply combinations of amino acids. Given the vast, vast quantities of amino acids that would have been floating around in the primordial oceans (or vents, or pools), the improbable becomes nigh-on inevitable: self-replicating molecules.

Miller himself had his doubts.. "It's a problem," he said. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."
(quoted: Peter Radetsky, Earth, February 1998, "Life's Crucible" page 36 (Ev)

Wow, so a scientist says there's an unknown in scientific inquiry. This is a list of unsolved problems in physics. Does this mean modern physics is false?

Creationists like myself like to talk about the difference that evolutionists falsely claim that their creation myth is a "scientific fact", even when it is widely known that there is no experimental proof for those beliefs.

No evolutionst (except, perhaps, consol and gamespotter) would claim that their theory on the origin of life is true. Highly probable, sure, but not proven.

The fact that you are using terms like 'experimental proof' kinda reveals your lack of scientific understanding.

My understanding is that experiments have shown that life does not originate under carefully controlled, ideal conditions.

Indeed. There are a myriad of conditions under which life could have spontaneously form. 'Miller-Urey' experiments that account for our updated idea of what Earth's early atmosphere was like still produce amino acids.

So the logical conclusion is that it would or could not originate under less-than-ideal conditions that may occur naturally. Is that so wrong?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can't take seriously anyone who actually believes that the Miller experiments are "proof" that Abiogenesis could have happened in the distant past.

A pity, because it does. The spontaneous formation of amino acids in conditions that could occur on any number of planets is a demonstrated fact.
That the Earth's early atmosphere likey differed from that predicted by Miller and Urey is, with regards to your statement, of no consequence. Indeed, repeat experiments that correct for this still produce amino acids.

 

[gamespotter10]

A pity, because it does. The spontaneous formation of amino acids in conditions that could occur on any number of planets is a demonstrated fact.
That the Earth's early atmosphere likey differed from that predicted by Miller and Urey is, with regards to your statement, of no consequence. Indeed, repeat experiments that correct for this still produce amino acids.

another thing richardT

abiogenesis is a FACT. its a FACT that there was at one time in earth's history that there was no life. it is a FACT that there was life after that

 

[Wiccan_Child]

another thing richardT

abiogenesis is a FACT. its a FACT that there was at one time in earth's history that there was no life. it is a FACT that there was life after that

1. We do not know that there was a time with no life. Theoretically speaking, it is possible that the universe formed as is three days ago.
2. Abiogenesis is the theory that life ultimately formed from non-life (i.e., life has a biochemical origin). As yet, no experiment has yeilded life from chemicals. The hypothesised precursor of life, the amino acid, has been shown to spontaneously form in conditions akin to those thought to be prevalent in early Earth. Given sufficient quantities of amino acids and given sufficent time, it is highly probable that life would form.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Congrats on getting out btw. Now hopefully you'll force yourself out of religion, like you almost managed to before.

It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html#part2

You must have developed a incredibly low opinion of Christianity(!) if comments like that of Raydon rub you the wrong way.

tick, tick, tick ...

I knew you'd disagree.

 

[JamesDaJust]

NailsII;

Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.
Evolution by natural selection is an observable phenomena, and Darwin's theory is testable and makes predictions - virtually everything known about biological systems can be explained in terms of evolution.

Is not the theory of evolution, believed to be the differences in offspring from a common ancestor will increase over time, until the two lines of descent are so different that they become separate species? Genetics on the other hand seems to debunk. That’s why the traditional ideas about species pose a problem for the theory of evolution. The general public like myself seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious "species problem" in the biological community. Are you stating otherwise? Isn't the origin of species still a big mystery? Aren't evolution scientists still today looking for an answer?.
Don't evolutionists and creationists generally agree that once an individual (species) is born, it remains that same species for the rest of its life? That’s what most people like myself mean when we say that individuals (species) don’t evolve. They may change form dramatically as they mature, as is the case with caterpillars, but they don’t evolve.
But since one definition of evolution is simply "change", I guess one could argue that individuals do actually evolve. For instance tadpoles evolve into frogs, and caterpillars evolve into butterflies. But don't most creationists and evolutionists agree that these changes are really better referred to as "maturity" rather than "evolution"? Being that tadpoles and frogs are the same species at different stages of thier development, then no evolution (in the usual sense) occurs when a tadpole changes into a frog.
The news of late is that evolutionists have observed that populations of bacteria have evolved to become resistant to antibiotics. But what has happened is that a population of bacteria, containing some that are resistant to antibiotics, have been exposed to antibiotics, leaving only the individuals who have the resistance. These individuals reproduce, so that nearly the entire population is resistant to antibiotics. Interestingly if these same antibiotic resistant bacteria are introduced into the parent unatibiotic treated population they can't compete.
Creationists are so often labeled as "anti-science" by evolutionists. But creationists aren’t against science. Science is in complete harmony with what we believe. Creation science doesn’t have a problem with any of the recent discoveries in molecular biology. It keeps confirming what creation scientists have believed for years. You know what I mean, right?

Even Prof Behe has admitted that so called micro-evolution is real, and he was essentially the founding father of ID.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that a simple combination of a few micro- events leads to what some call macro-evolution.

I don't have any problem with Micro. I think most creationists will admit that there are micro changes in species. Yes, microevolution is the process that is responsible for many variations of some species of living things, such as finches & dogs. But macroevolution is a mythical process by which one kind of creature (species), such as a reptile, turns into another kind (species), such as a bird. Mostly argued by evolutionists such as yourself that over enough time, the very small changes occured by microevolution can add up to significant enough changes to create entirely new species. You and others might seem this is reasonable but I beg to difer.
It is easy to see how one who doesn't understand the process might think that the cumulative effects of small changes from eons of microevolution could result in macroevolution. But microevolution removes genes from the gene pool. Your imaginary macroevolution requires adding new genes with special capability. You can't get more of anything by removing some of it. Lower forms of life can't evolve into higher forms.
Studies have shown that species can lose genetic information either through loss of genes from selective breeding, or from mutation. Since mutations are caused by random changes in genes. And as a result, the new species has only a subset of previously existing characteristics. The loss of such characteristics might make the so called "new" species so much more inferior to the previous "old" species that it may not be able to survive, and possible may become extinct. There is abundant evidence that extinction has happened to most of the species that have ever lived.

No, it cannot explain how life originated.

OK, well don't read that part then. Oops.

Only how it reached it current state of development, and give us cope to to speculate on what could potentially happen in the future.

Yea, and there is another question. Why does the Darwin tree appear to be Closing instead of growing? It appears most of the species that ever lived are extinct, yet all the textbook diagrams I ever saw have them growing. Where are all the darn transitional species? Why have they all stopped evolving? Why aren't we witnessing serious species changes today?
Most evolutionists say that all life happened by chance, but not often enough to observe it happen in mine or your short lifetimes. And then they claim it could happen given enough time. And then claim since it could happen, it did happen.

Yes. My children have to attend RE lessons; the base of all the study can be considered fraudulant.

I should have stated it differently. Fossils are frequently found that are much older than previously believed. Like in China they have found sponge spores under the Cambrian explosion layer, however ther are no, absolutely none, transitional species to the Cambrian to support evolution. The excuse was always that the spores and such couldn't be fossilized, but they found them in the earlier layers? The evolutionary history has to be constantly revised to try to fit in with the new discoveries. And by and large students are largely kept in the dark about these discoveries because there are certain groups that don’t want the general public to know that true science is growing against evolution. The National Center for Science Education, are those whose goal is to censor scientific information so as not to confuse the poor students with the facts.

Would you employ a physics professor who publically considered atomic theory or gravity to be acasemically unsupported by evidence, and preferred to believe in the teachings of the ancient egyptians?

No. That wasn't what I was meaning to say.

Have a look at www.richarddawkins.net sometime, the good Professor has made quite a name for himself from books, lectures and debates on evolution. some clips are available online....

I've read a lot on Dick Dawkins. Also poor Dick is in true need of a good pastor, as evidenced by his book "The Dick Dawkins Delusion".

This comment does not deserve an answer.

Whatever.

Irriducable complexity is a myth, totally void of evidence or logic. If you would like to discuss this, please start or supply a link to an existing thread on the subject. I will gladly participate and supply plenty of evidence.

It's the future.

Science thrives on being questioned and analysed, but in the end you need to supply a viable alternative to the theory you are trying to debunk. also, you seamed to have accidently inserted the word 'religious' into this sentance. Natural selection has no icons and no deity, so I believe your post was not only incorrect but incoherant.

I inserted Religous because that's how i see it.
No accident.

Do snowflakes reproduce?

No, they evolve.

Nothing whatsoever. If however truthful depends upon your personal definition, I am relieved that you are not a researcher in a pharmacutical lab or a forensic scientist, or even a surgeon. Peoples lives would then be at stake and so the question of truth becomes even more relevant.

Rest at ease mate. No worries there.
</IMG></IMG>

 

[RichardT]

Given sufficient quantities of amino acids and given sufficent time, it is highly probable that life would form.

No. Tell me, where have seen replicating polymers becoming hypercycles? When have we seen hypercycles become protobionts? Heck we've never seen hypercycles or photobionts, they lie in the imagination of the Abiogenesists themselves.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No.

By all means, demonstrate your refutation. X is possible unless demonstrated otherwise.

Tell me, where have seen replicating polymers becoming hypercycles? When have we seen hypercycles become protobionts?

Never, as far as I know. Like I said, it is simply a question of time before we see whether the abiogenesis theory pans out.

Heck we've never seen hypercycles or photobionts, they lie in the imagination of the Abiogenesists themselves.

Naturally. However, this does not mean they don't exist, or didn't exist in the past.

 

[Inan3]

What age were you when you decided to be a creationist?
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?

I decide everyday so the age varies. Nothing convinced me that creationism was right for me!

 

[RichardT]

Originally Posted by Carey
Heck we've never seen hypercycles or photobionts, they lie in the imagination of the Abiogenesists themselves.

Please change this, I said it, not Carey.

Oh well.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Only because I give them the benefit of a doubt - (they'll thank me later).

Thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the thread.
And now, I will proceed to do the same.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

I couldn't care less about another atheist's defence of religion, as consol said I speak for only myself.

What exactly was wrong with what I said? I simply wished that he would remove the shackles that bind him. He declared himself an atheist before, he can do it again. Here is one person who actually has a chance to escape dogma.

Oh I get it, because my view is that getting out of religion is a good thing, and I don't hide it, then I must be offensive.

Reps for being the first person on this site that I've seen who knows enough to type "couldn't care less" instead of "could care less."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Originally Posted by Carey
Heck we've never seen hypercycles or photobionts, they lie in the imagination of the Abiogenesists themselves.

Please change this, I said it, not Carey.

Oh well.

My bad. This is what I get for being non-linear

 

[horuhe00]

Good thread OP.

 

[Patashu]

And so the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution continues.

JamesDaJust doesn't even know what theory he's attacking!

 

[Split Rock]

And so the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution continues.

JamesDaJust doesn't even know what theory he's attacking!

He's attacking Science

Science is EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111

 

[JamesDaJust]

And so the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution continues.

JamesDaJust doesn't even know what theory he's attacking!

You are so right. I kinda lost my point.
Thanks for posting that out for me.
So I take it nobody is still clinging to Darwinism ToE because of molecular biology?
Almost like taking half a step toward creation theory. Like how many evolutionists have now chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of life, and will try to dodge the issue by claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
Because life seems to be a miracle.
I guess most of what I posted stands anyway.

 

[JamesDaJust]

He's attacking Science

Science is EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111

Please! True science is good. Only evil is the pretence that science is always checking itself within itself, when no one likes to be wrong, even scientists. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry, which is a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence? Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
Is this EVIL!!!!!!!!1111111111 ?????
</IMG>

 

[Patashu]

You are so right. I kinda lost my point.
Thanks for posting that out for me.
So I take it nobody is still clinging to Darwinism ToE because of molecular biology?
Almost like taking half a step toward creation theory. Like how many evolutionists have now chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of life, and will try to dodge the issue by claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
Because life seems to be a miracle.
I guess most of what I posted stands anyway.

That's the thing; Abiogenesis ISN'T part of the theory of evolution. The former is concerned with the origin of life, the latter is concerned with the origin and change of species and one can be false without the other also becoming false.
While I do think both are true I'd suggest you focus on evolution.