Where did the first cell come from?

[juvenissun]

The idea that celestial bodies move in perfect circles derives from Aristotle who held that since heaven is a place of perfection, all heavenly motions express that perfection by moving in perfect circles.

That's why medieval astronomers kept adding epicycles to the assumed circular orbits of planets to account for motions that didn't fit.

It was Kepler (1571-1630) who realized that the observed motions of the planets meant they were moving in ellipses, not circles. The sun is positioned at one focus of the planetary elliptical orbit.

It amazes me that people can still be unaware of such long-established basic astronomical principles.



And, of course, you are right that one mile would not make much difference. As pointed out earlier there is well over a million or two miles difference in the distance from earth to sun every year at different points of its orbit.

I am not sure about that. One mile difference probably WILL make a tiny bit difference. However, as I said, we have an enhancer or a magnifier called TIME. Through time, a tiny difference will become a big difference. As an evolutionist, you should know that well.

Let's give an arbitrary example, if the 1 mile difference causes some tiny change in the order of 10E-12 per year. Then allow 10E12 years, it will make a 10-time significant change.

 

[NGC 6712]

I am not sure about that. One mile difference probably WILL make a tiny bit difference. However, as I said, we have an enhancer or a magnifier called TIME. Through time, a tiny difference will become a big difference. As an evolutionist, you should know that well.

Let's give an arbitrary example, if the 1 mile difference causes some tiny change in the order of 10E-12 per year. Then allow 10E12 years, it will make a 10-time significant change.

Not necessarily - you are assuming that the orbit develops perturbations that linearly increase over time. It is more likely that they damp over time (i.e. convergent not a divergent series).

Earlier today I ran a solar system n-body integrator I had laying around and changed the Earth's orbit by 1,000 km - I ran this forward 10 million years and nothing changed in substance compared to a running it 10 million years with the actual orbit.

 

[NGC 6712]

If you apply the science idea "the present is the key to the past" then the moon would be touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago.

Now the moon touching the Earth 1.5 billions year ago would be a serious problem.

STOP with this utter nonsense. I see this stupid argument again and again on websites.

This statement is nothing short of a lie put about by some Creationist hacks who don't have the first clue how to integrate a first order differential equation never mind even do some basic multiplication.

Though you cannot do the calculation exactly because for that you would need to know the Earth's continent positions at all times - you can do the calculation to a first order approximation using sensible bounds on what is termed the tidal dissipation factor.

I calculated this earlier today (though I have done it before and deleted the program) and 4 billion years ago the Moon would have been at about 75% of its current semi-major axis.

And NO !!!!! - that doesn't cause tsunamis just slightly higher tides.

 

[juvenissun]

Not necessarily - you are assuming that the orbit develops perturbations that linearly increase over time. It is more likely that they damp over time (i.e. convergent not a divergent series).

Earlier today I ran a solar system n-body integrator I had laying around and changed the Earth's orbit by 1,000 km - I ran this forward 10 million years and nothing changed in substance compared to a running it 10 million years with the actual orbit.

OK. Even I still can argue a lot, but they would all be speculation. I will stop arguing, but remained skeptical.

 

[Calminian]

STOP with this utter nonsense. I see this stupid argument again and again on websites.

This statement is nothing short of a lie put about by some Creationist hacks who don't have the first clue how to integrate a first order differential equation never mind even do some basic multiplication.

Though you cannot do the calculation exactly because for that you would need to know the Earth's continent positions at all times - you can do the calculation to a first order approximation using sensible bounds on what is termed the tidal dissipation factor.

I calculated this earlier today (though I have done it before and deleted the program) and 4 billion years ago the Moon would have been at about 75% of its current semi-major axis.

And NO !!!!! - that doesn't cause tsunamis just slightly higher tides.

No doubt here we have conflicting starting premises. Creationist's calculations are quite different. And this get's to the underlying point. Anomalies will always be explained away. That would be true also of the wine Jesus created was examined by skeptics.

Here's the creationist side of this argument.

Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is nearly a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years, but if the earth and moon were over 4,000,000,000 years old (as big-bang supporters teach), then we would have big problems. This is because the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.

Secular astronomers who assume the big bang is true must invoke other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past (for whatever reason), but this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work.

The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn’t been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years, but is perfectly consistent with a young age.​

Source

People can get all worked up over the theories, but they don't realize they're really arguing about premises and tweaking the premises to make their conclusions work. What people need to understand is this is not about math.

 

[philadiddle]

No doubt here we have conflicting starting premises. Creationist's calculations are quite different. And this get's to the underlying point. Anomalies will always be explained away. That would be true also of the wine Jesus created was examined by skeptics.

Here's the creationist side of this argument.

Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is nearly a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years, but if the earth and moon were over 4,000,000,000 years old (as big-bang supporters teach), then we would have big problems. This is because the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.

Secular astronomers who assume the big bang is true must invoke other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past (for whatever reason), but this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work.

The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn’t been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years, but is perfectly consistent with a young age.
​

Source

People can get all worked up over the theories, but they don't realize they're really arguing about premises and tweaking the premises to make their conclusions work. What people need to understand is this is not about math.

You'll notice with creationist propaganda that they always throw out the word "assumption" as a way of sidestepping the actual evidence/calculations. I've been complaining about this cheap tactic for years, you've just presented a great example of it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7404126/#post53015345

Notice the "for whatever reason" in your quote? Why not examine and refute the actual reason instead of just calling it an assumption?

 

[Smidlee]

The forces are caused by the earth rotating faster than the moon orbits, as the earth rotates it pulls the tides ahead of the moon, which in turn pull the moon forward making it go faster and into a higher orbit.

You mean slowing down the moon. (Both the earth and moon is dumping energy into the tides.) The closer the moon is to the earth the faster it has to travel to stay in orbit and farther a object is the slower it must go to stay in orbit.

 

[Assyrian]

You mean slowing down the moon. (Both the earth and moon is dumping energy into the tides.) The closer the moon is to the earth the faster it has to travel to stay in orbit and farther a object is the slower it must go to stay in orbit.

Sorry you are right about speeds. Orbital dynamics can be rather counter intuitive. If you are in orbit and accelerate you will move into a higher orbit at a lower speed. But the loss in speed, which includes the difference between your original speed and new speed and the amount you accelerated by, is kinetic energy that is converted into potential energy from the higher orbit.

Some energy in the tides is lost through friction, but the moon is gaining energy by moving into a higher orbit.

 

[juvenissun]

STOP with this utter nonsense. I see this stupid argument again and again on websites.

This statement is nothing short of a lie put about by some Creationist hacks who don't have the first clue how to integrate a first order differential equation never mind even do some basic multiplication.

Though you cannot do the calculation exactly because for that you would need to know the Earth's continent positions at all times - you can do the calculation to a first order approximation using sensible bounds on what is termed the tidal dissipation factor.

I calculated this earlier today (though I have done it before and deleted the program) and 4 billion years ago the Moon would have been at about 75% of its current semi-major axis.

And NO !!!!! - that doesn't cause tsunamis just slightly higher tides.

I don't need to see the equations.
But could you explain the way you calculate it?

 

[Martyrs44]

STOP with this utter nonsense. I see this stupid argument again and again on websites.

This statement is nothing short of a lie put about by some Creationist hacks who don't have the first clue how to integrate a first order differential equation never mind even do some basic multiplication.

Though you cannot do the calculation exactly because for that you would need to know the Earth's continent positions at all times - you can do the calculation to a first order approximation using sensible bounds on what is termed the tidal dissipation factor.

I calculated this earlier today (though I have done it before and deleted the program) and 4 billion years ago the Moon would have been at about 75% of its current semi-major axis.

And NO !!!!! - that doesn't cause tsunamis just slightly higher tides.

Sir, would you please give me the formula from which you derived your conclusion because I think you are in error. Does that formula include consideration of the Roche limit(?) for our moon could never have been closer than that without breaking up.

quote: "This statement is nothing short of a lie put about by some Creationist hacks who don't have the first clue how to integrate a first order differential equation never mind even do some basic multiplication."

Oh? Are you aware that the formula from which they derive their calculation was made by George Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin himself?
Darwin, G., The Tides, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 278-286, 1898.

Here it is:

1. Since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance.

So dR/dt = k/R^6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)^6 = 1.29x1050 m^7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf^7 — Ri^7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 10^9 years.

2. It can be restated this way:

To compute the moon’s recession time to its present orbit, we first integrate equation (1). Over the time interval 0 to t, the moon’s distance from the earth increases from the Roche limit r0 to its present orbit at distance r:in which t is the maximum age of the earth-moon system. The present value of r is 3.844 x 10^8 m. For an object orbiting a planet, the Roche limit r0 is where R is the radius of the central body (the earth in this case); p(sub)m is the density of the central body; and ñm is the density of the orbiting body, in this case the moon. With R = 6.3781 x 10^6 m for the earth; p(sub)m = 5515 kg/m^3; and p(sub)m = 3340 kg/m^3, we find that r0 = 1.84 x 10^7 m. This is less than 5% of the moon’s current orbital radius.

From equation (1), the proportionality constant k is the product of the sixth power of the distance r, and the current recession rate. The present value of the recession rate is 4.4 ± 0.6 cm/yr, or (4.4 ± 0.6) x 10^–2 m/yr. Therefore, k = 1.42 x 10^50 m^7/yr. With this value for k, the right hand side of equation 1 equals the present recession rate dr/dt, when r = the moon’s current orbital radius.'

Although I don't get how Darwin derived his 'sixth power of the distance' completely, the conclusion was an estimated 1.3 to 1.7 billion yr old age for the moon. The problem is that we don't know about the origin of the moon in naturalistic evolutionary terms. Creationists believe it was created during the six-day account as given in Genesis.

The present rate of lunar recession is about 4 cm per year. At that rate we come to the upper limits of its age as I mentioned above. This has been such a problem that James Verhoogan said, quote: "But if the moon's distance r had ever been much smaller than presently, equation (1) shows that

the recession rate dr/dt "must have been much larger in earlier
times."George Darwin himself saw the problem and stated (independently), "Thus, although the action [rate of lunar recession] may be insensibly slow now, it must have gone on with much greater rapidity when the moon was nearer to us."​

Verhoogen, J.,

​

​

Energetics of the Earth, National Academy of Sciences, p.
22, 1980.​

This they(Darwin, Verhoogan, etc.) assume without evidence for how can we derive the rate of lunar recession in 'pre-hisoric' time without an observer and therefore imposing a different rate for its velocity away from the earth?​

So please don't tell us that it was 'creationist hacks' who came up with the conclusion that the moon is much younger than stellar evolutionists tell us. That simply isn't true and I got this directly from the 'horses mouth'. We didn't say it first, they did.​

 

[ProScribe]

Where did the first cell come from?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7659680/

A primordial pool of slimey muck?...
​

 

[mathetes123]

[/URL]

A primordial pool of slimey muck?...

From the goo, through the zoo, to me and you. Simple as that.

 

[samaus12345]

Its scientifically impossible. Again there is a $1,000,000 prize for the person who wastes his life attempting to come up with a computer MODEL based on chemsitry etc of genetic instructions ('information') arising from 'random' processes. All they are after is INFORMATION. Nucleic acid have carbon in them and (i have to take wiki's word for this, and if anyone has a different pov well thats there own little one, not the worlds) first you have to go from inorganic to organic........game over

Wiki
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes

HASHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA


"Origin of Life Prize - Life Origins - Abiogenesis"

First cell(s)

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Plant cells

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Eukaryotes

 

[samaus12345]

Oh yeah please educate me Martyrs on where our moon or planets moon came from in evolution? So george Darwin said it broke off the earth? ahahahah

 

[Martyrs44]

Oh yeah please educate me Martyrs on where our moon or planets moon came from in evolution? So george Darwin said it broke off the earth? ahahahah

That was his idea. The reigning theory at present is that the moon once came close enough to earth's gravitational pull to be 'captured' in orbit.

But...they've never observed such a thing.

 

[samaus12345]

Ah k so they thought it was already in existence kinda thing? What about the sun lol? What does evolution say about that hahaha?

 

[Martyrs44]

Ah k so they thought it was already in existence kinda thing? What about the sun lol? What does evolution say about that hahaha?

Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jammer]

While evolution and the origin of life are not synonymous, they are inherently linked concepts. The fact of the matter is, Darwinian evolution is an ateleological (design-free) view of biology. It states that life's development is ultimately purposeless and goalless; what survives and reproduces survives and reproduces, what does not, does not, and this is determined entirely by random (read: undirected) mutations and varying environments. That is the alpha and omega of Darwinian evolution.

Here's the thing, and it's why those shrieking out that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life are flat-out wrong: This view of the biological world logically requires a design-free origin of life. You cannot say evolution is a goalless, design-free occurrence while simultaneously saying that human life is a purposeful, designed artifact. The two views are contradictory.

There are two possibilities:

(i) Life was designed, and any evolution which has taken place is a part of that design.

(ii) Life was not designed, and any evolution which has taken place is exactly as Darwinists describe it; a cold, sightless, ateleological, atheistic process.