PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Abiogenesis Research

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RNA that replicates itself indefinitely developed for the first time.

Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute have shown how two RNA enzymes in-vitro can replicate each other indefinitely.  Not only that, but they were able to show how a mixture of such replicating enzymes could mistakenly replicate with another RNA enzyme to produce a new replicating enity.

Here is a good summary of the article.

In Vitro Evolution

A few years after Tracey Lincoln arrived at Scripps Research from Jamaica to pursue her Ph.D., she began exploring the RNA-only replication concept along with her advisor, Professor Gerald Joyce, M.D., Ph.D., who is also Dean of the Faculty at Scripps Research. Their work began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication.

Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that would be challenged to do the job, and carried out a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA.

Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that is a very efficient replicator, something that many research groups, including Joyce's, had struggled for years to obtain. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication. "It kind of blew me away," says Lincoln.

Immortalizing Molecular Information

The replicating system actually involves two enzymes, each composed of two subunits and each functioning as a catalyst that assembles the other. The replication process is cyclic, in that the first enzyme binds the two subunits that comprise the second enzyme and joins them to make a new copy of the second enzyme; while the second enzyme similarly binds and joins the two subunits that comprise the first enzyme. In this way the two enzymes assemble each other — what is termed cross-replication. To make the process proceed indefinitely requires only a small starting amount of the two enzymes and a steady supply of the subunits.

"This is the only case outside biology where molecular information has been immortalized," says Joyce.

Not content to stop there, the researchers generated a variety of enzyme pairs with similar capabilities. They mixed 12 different cross-replicating pairs, together with all of their constituent subunits, and allowed them to compete in a molecular test of survival of the fittest. Most of the time the replicating enzymes would breed true, but on occasion an enzyme would make a mistake by binding one of the subunits from one of the other replicating enzymes. When such "mutations" occurred, the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture. "To me that's actually the biggest result," says Joyce.

The research shows that the system can sustain molecular information, a form of heritability, and give rise to variations of itself in a way akin to Darwinian evolution. So, says Lincoln, "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."



Here is the article
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:58 AM on January 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very cool.

Pretty close to being a synthetic life form.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:32 PM on January 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very cool. Or as Tracey Lincoln herself says, "extremely interesting".
Thanks, Orion.

Now to my way of thinking this gives a lot more credance to the notion of spontaneous organization. Not quite "proof" of evolution, mind you, but the best kind of evidence. Observable, verifyable, testable, reproducable. The only down side I can see from an evolutionists perspective is Tracey Lincoln herself. You know, the designer.



 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:30 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:30 PM on January 29, 2009 :
The only down side I can see from an evolutionists perspective is Tracey Lincoln herself. You know, the designer.


Must have missed this part:

Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that would be challenged to do the job, and carried out a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:43 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you mean

Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory


(Edited by timbrx 1/29/2009 at 11:52 PM).
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:50 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or more generally:Amino acids identified in the Murchison chondritic meteorite by molecular and isotopic analysis are thought to have been delivered to the early Earth by asteroids, comets, and interplanetary dust particles where they may have triggered the appearance of life by assisting in the synthesis of proteins via prebiotic polycondensation reactions [Oró, J. (1961) Nature 190, 389–390; Chyba, C. F. & Sagan, C. (1992) Nature 355, 125–132]. We report the identification of diamino acids in the Murchison meteorite by new enantioselective GC-MS analyses. dl-2,3-diaminopropanoic acid, dl-2,4-diaminobutanoic acid, 4,4′-diaminoisopentanoic acid, 3,3′-diaminoisobutanoic acid, and 2,3-diaminobutanoic acid were detected in the parts per billion range after chemical transformation into N,N-diethoxycarbonyl ethyl ester derivatives. The chiral diamino acids show a racemic ratio. Laboratory data indicate that diamino acids support the formation of polypeptide structures under primitive Earth conditions [Brack, A. & Orgel, L. E. (1975) Nature 256, 383–387] and suggest polycondensation reactions of diamino acids into early peptide nucleic acid material as one feasible pathway for the prebiotic evolution of DNA and RNA genomes [Joyce, G. F. (2002) Nature 418, 214–221]. The results obtained in this study favor the assumption that not only amino acids (as the required monomers of proteins) form in interstellar/circumstellar environments, but also the family of diamino monocarboxylic acids, which might have been relevant in prebiotic chemistry.

Prebiotic compounds in Murchison meteorite


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:24 AM on January 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On the same topic, the Murchison meteorite may help solve the mystery of the chirality of biomolecules on earth.  The question of chirality (or left/right handedness of amino acids, sugars, DNA) came up in another thread on this forum.

When scientists synthesize these molecules in the laboratory, half of a sample turns out to be "left-handed" and the other half "right-handed." But amino acids, which are the building blocks of terrestrial proteins, are all "left-handed," while the sugars of DNA and RNA are "right-handed." The mystery as to why this is the case, "parallels in many of its queries those that surround the origin of life," said Pizzarello.

Years ago Pizzarello and ASU professor emeritus John Cronin analyzed amino acids from the Murchison meteorite (which landed in Australia in 1969) that were unknown on Earth, hence solving the problem of any contamination. They discovered a preponderance of "left-handed" amino acids over their "right-handed" form.



Murchison meteorite and Chirality

If you do a search of any credible science web-site you will see a lot of research going on in the field dealing with the origin of life.  A lot of exciting stuff going on!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:10 AM on January 30, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by orion at Fri January 30, 2009 - 01:10 AM
If you do a search of any credible science web-site you will see a lot of research going on in the field dealing with the origin of life.  A lot of exciting stuff going on!


Yes, I agree that there is a lot of exciting scientific discoveries being made every day. And yes I do read articles from "credible" science websites and magazines and books. And much I find indeed credible. Rarely do I find an article without a slant towards either evolution or creation. Simply because an article slants towards evolution does not in my mind make it not credible. And neither is a creation slant automatically credible. Everything put forth by humans must be weighed. I am continually amazed by the intolerant closed mindedness of evolutionists. I thought only us archaic feeble minded Christians were that way. I can admit freely that much in, say SciAm, is credible even though I don't particularly like the tone of condescention towards creation in some of the authors. Can you not admit the same towards say, Institute for Creation Research?

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:50 AM on January 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx -

I have to admit, you hang in there.  You stick by your beliefs, and I find that admirable in a way.  It takes strong faith to do that in face of strong (indeed, overwhelming) opposition arguments.

And I do understand the desire some people express when they say 'why not give alternate ideas a chance, why not present the idea of Creationism along side evolution in HS biology class.'  Americans have a strong desire for fairness.

However, fairness in this situation does not trump rationality and reason - it does not trump science.  Creationism cannot, and should not, be presented as a SCIENTIFIC alternative to evolution for the simple reason that Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory.

Ask yourself this question:  What is it that science sets out to accomplish?  What are its goals?

In my mind, science endeavors to understand and explain natural phenomenon according to a methodolgy that science has developed over the years - the scientific method.  One of the dictates of the scientific method is that the supernatural is not involved.  

Why not?  Mainly because invoking a supernatural enity to explain nature leads to a dead-end.  If a supernatural enity is used as an explanation, then there is no need to pursue investigation further.  Inquiry ends.  Understanding ends.  

Science doesn't work that way.  Science demands more rigorous and empirical explanations - ideas must testable, falsifiable, and verifiable.  It must be predictable.

God cannot (to this present day) be tested, falsified, or verified.  God can throw out all the rules and predictablity by mere whim of will, if he wanted to - by merely saying "Let it be so!"

But we don't see this happening in nature.  Nature appears to have established rules, an order.  Science tries to discover what those rules are, and to reveal what the order is.

God, or another supernatural entity, doesn't have to play by the rules of nature.  It is outside of nature.  

Creationists are trying to bring God into an explanation of what we see in nature.  But science can't do that.

That is why science and faith are two seperate areas of human thought/expression.  

Does evolution theaten some people's religious beliefs?  Sure, that is obvious.  But denying what is true doesn't make the truth go away.  Whether you like it or not, the fact is evolution of life on earth has occurred, and is still occurring today.  We may not know all the mechanics involved in evolution, but not having every last detail right in the theory doesn't make the facts go away.  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:29 PM on January 30, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,

Sure I hang in there. And admittedly my faith in what I understand gets rattled on occasion. But remember I have allready admitted to having an ulterior motive. I do not in any way believe I can somehow convince you or anyone else to believe what I believe. But I do require excercise. This debate forum has been an excellent mental exercise. And I have learned much. Not just opposing views and current examples but actual research into both view points.

I hope to make some sense out of the whole "teaching a different viewpoint" perspective in the thread addressing your challange. I also think that you will be surprised as to how much we have in common regarding our understanding of science. Truely we are arguing for the same thing: the freedom to challenge our understanding of the world around us for the purpose of advancement for ourselves and our posterity.

The difference in viewpoints amounts to personal motivation. I won't presume to guess your personal motivation for an interest in science but I don't mind telling you mine: To glorify God by making the most out of what he gave me.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:11 PM on January 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
I am continually amazed by the intolerant closed mindedness of evolutionists.
Couldn't flat earthers say the same about you?

Or would you consider a flat Earth?

Or are you a flat earther???

I won't presume to guess your personal motivation for an interest in science but I don't mind telling you mine: To glorify God by making the most out of what he gave me.
Well that sounds really great. No sarcasm.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:44 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Orion,
Ask yourself this question:  What is it that science sets out to accomplish?  What are its goals?


One would hope that science seeks to establish the truth. Nobody fights for creation or intelligent design just to be contrary. We believe it is true. We believe it just as you believe that evolution is true. We believe it because less anomalies need to be explained by creation. Our data base is the same. We intepret it differently and believe that our interpretation matches truth and reality far better that the just-so stories of evolution.

One of the dictates of the scientific method is that the supernatural is not involved.


The only problem with this, of course, is if the supernatural was and is involved. That is like saying Dick or Jane may have been responsible for the ball going missing but we refuse to blame Dick so only Jane is allowed to be part of the investigation. In this argument, we either evolved or were created. Eliminate the one obvious possibility a priori and you're going to need to plug a lot of holes if you're wrong and it was Dick. We believe the holes are now unpluggable and  the evolution boat is sinking. Don't believe the big propaganda machine out there saying there is nothing wrong. This is not primarily a religious argument. It is a scientific one and calling it a religious one just keeps people's blindfolds on.

Why not?  Mainly because invoking a supernatural enity to explain nature leads to a dead-end.  If a supernatural enity is used as an explanation, then there is no need to pursue investigation further.  Inquiry ends.  Understanding ends.


That is not true. Why bother with SETI then? We know how to determine whether a signal has an intelligent origin -why ignore the DNA message right here on this planet. Where did the code come from? It is encoded. No chance mutation accidentally makes a code that reads another accidentally formed code that enables every cell in your body to constantly manufacture (molecule by molecule) all of the 100 000 different protein molecules that you need.

God cannot (to this present day) be tested, falsified, or verified.


Neither can evolution it seems but we can infer to the best explanation.

God can throw out all the rules and predictablity by mere whim of will, if he wanted to - by merely saying "Let it be so!"


That's not a good excuse for leaving God out of the hypothetical possibilities however because the physical laws had to come from somewhere. If God established them (as He claims to have) then He did so in order for us to be able to investigate the world around us with the brains He provided us with.
Is logic a material expression? Can information arise from matter?

God, or another supernatural entity, doesn't have to play by the rules of nature.  It is outside of nature.


However it looks as if He chose to. If He doesn't play by the rules (by overriding with miracles) then you're just going to have to live with that or ignore them just as you prefer. Just because you don't want it to be so, doesn't mean it isn't -no offense intended here.

That is why science and faith are two seperate areas of human thought/expression.


That is unfortunately the same as saying God is a myth and science is the truth. If God is real and science ignores Him, then science is the one with the problem.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:53 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
God is a myth and science is the truth.
Hahaha! Misquoting is fun! No wonder why creationists enjoy it!

Why not?  Mainly because invoking a supernatural enity to explain nature leads to a dead-end.  If a supernatural enity is used as an explanation, then there is no need to pursue investigation further.  Inquiry ends.  Understanding ends.
That is not true. Why bother with SETI then?
Not to search for any supernatural entities, i tell ya.

God cannot (to this present day) be tested, falsified, or verified.
Neither can evolution it seems
Well, it can't be falsified (because it's not false). But it could, only if you found a dinosaur with a saddle, or a dish of trilobites. Or you uncovered a huge conspiracy to make it look as if we were not the center of the Universe, and the center of God's worries.

That's not a good excuse for leaving God out of the hypothetical possibilities however
Yeah, in Math too! Let's make up a symbol that means "God willing".

1 + 1 = 2 (◘)

It can be used in anything!

Well, in music it shouldn't have a sound, because it would ruin the piece...

If God is real and science ignores Him, then science is the one with the problem.
Yeah... So is baking.

Those godless pies!!


(Edited by wisp 2/3/2009 at 02:55 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:54 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,

I think you missed Lester's point. But I believe this opens up the core issue in this debate: whether naturalism and supernaturalism are compatible or whether they conflict. Once again it falls to definition but let me toss a few ideas into our soup.

Natural: being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

Supernatural-1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe  ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

So in a nutshell natural is what we perceive and supernatural is outside of perception.  

This cannot mean that supernatural doesn't exist. It only means that if it does exist it is outside of our perception. So if we were to figure out a way to see ghosts than would that make them natural? Would proof of ghosts all around us mean that they were in fact part of the natural world?

Look at it this way. Are people natural? Yes. Is it natural for us to build roads through the forest? Again yes. Is a road through the forest thus a natural occurrence? I would argue yes. Treehugger environmentalists would want to burn my house down for such a sacrilege. Nevertheless the road occurs because of features occurring in nature: human ingenuity.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:38 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still haven't heard a reason explaining what makes Creationism a valid scientific theory.

One of the conerstones of a good scientific theory is its ability to explain what is AND its ability to make useful predictions.  Evolution meets these criteria very well.  It explains life's vast diversity and relationships, and it makes useful predictions that are continuing today.  That's why it is the cornerstone of the biological sciences.

Creationism simply fails to do these things.  Creationism cannot explain the relationships we see in life.  It cannot provide a useful tool for making predictions.  It can only say that 'a Creator is responsible' without explaining why.  We cannot know 'why God did it' - Creationism is an intellectual dead end.

Example: evolution predicts that land animals evolved from fish ancestors.  And indeed we have found fossils that show that this did happen.  Tiktaalik, a fossil species with characteristics of both fish and tetrapods dating back to the Devonian - about 375 mya.  The right time, the right characteristics as predicted by evolution.  There are other fossils that provide evidence that a transtion took place between a marine environment and land - Panderichthys, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega, for instance.

Was Tiktaalik (and others) trying to become a land creature?  No - natural selection was at work, leading new species to develop to take advantage of a shallow water niche.  Characteristics such as limbs and joints that could bear more weight, primitive lungs as well as gills so that it could live in oxygen poor warmer water.  There is more:

Tiktaalik



Can Creationism explain it?  No, all Creationism can say is that God created a creature we call Tiktaalik, and others.  It can provide no explanation why these creatures existed.  Creationism cannot even have PREDICTED that such creatures existed!  But there it is, in the fossil record.  

Evolution predicted that such creatures existed.  Creationism did not.  

And that is why Creationism is not a scientific theory.  That's why it is not a useful tool in biology.  That's why it would be out of place in a science classroom.  

This is just one illustration.  There are many, many more, as I'm sure that many member of this forum can point out.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:14 PM on February 3, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One of the conerstones of a good scientific theory is its ability to explain what is AND its ability to make useful predictions.  Evolution meets these criteria very well.  It explains life's vast diversity and relationships, and it makes useful predictions that are continuing today.  That's why it is the cornerstone of the biological sciences.

Creationism simply fails to do these things.  Creationism cannot explain the relationships we see in life.  It cannot provide a useful tool for making predictions.  It can only say that 'a Creator is responsible' without explaining why.  We cannot know 'why God did it' - Creationism is an intellectual dead end.


I totally disagree. The predictions you mention are based on conjecture and have no bearing on what is happening now.  Creationism makes the same kind of predictions regarding agriculture, husbandry, metallurgy, etc.etc. Things that are happening now. The general theory of evolution is more dangerous than useful. For example, a creationist would predict that tampering with life through cloning and genetic manipulation could result in total catastrophe. Therefore it is best to let life be life on its own as with selective breeding.

As a creationist I would predict that we would enjoy better health if we ate foods that were not processed such as fresh ground wheat because that is how we were intended to eat. All of the chemical junk we eat every day messes up our body chemistry. And while medicine is for the most part good, I believe we could benefit from naturally occurring compounds rather than synthesized ones because that is why they were created.

And as for evolution being the cornerstone for biological sciences, that is only if you want it to be. I am good friends with several MD's of various disciplines who practice medicine every day and don't believe in evolution. But then they operate in the real world rather than the text book version. And by the way not only does modern science have its roots in Christianity but so does systematic medicine.

I still haven't heard a reason explaining what makes Creationism a valid scientific theory.


That's because you are not listening. Creation as an explanation of origin and a standard for experimentation and prediction is every bit as valid as the theory of evolution. Perhaps more so because it not  only respects physical laws but also moral laws. And no matter how cold and hard science is the scientist will always be a person.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:07 PM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you missed Lester's point.
I'll read it again...

Done. He tried to make several points. Perhaps you saw one that interested you more than the rest.

He said
We believe it because less anomalies need to be explained by creation.
...which isn't very smart, i think.

I can make up a thousand better myths (better at explaining things).

For instance: We're all someone's imagination.

I can imagine my imaginer just as powerful as to imagine everything i know. Perhaps a little more, to account for things i don't know yet. If i learn that there are things much more complex than i had imagined, then i'll just upgrade my imaginer.

The problem with such an encompassing account is that it can explain everything, and nothing.

It can predict everything, and nothing.

I don't believe in a "real" reality. All i have access to are models of it. This model is perfect at explaining, but it sucks at predicting. A naturalistic view is more useful and edifying. And Occam's razor is a great tool to carve a good model.

That's when speaking of great things like the origin and fate of the Universe. Evolution is, to me, a far more ordinary knowledge. More than the speed of light, the nature of consciousness, or the asymmetry of the temporal dimension.

Bible literalists could be more successful discussing those confusing aspects of reality. Because Evolution (the main aspects of it) came to be quite simple and clear to most scientists.

timbrx
But I believe this opens up the core issue in this debate: whether naturalism and supernaturalism are compatible or whether they conflict.
It ultimately depends on what branch of supernaturalism we're talking about. My imagining imaginary super-being is compatible with just about anything.

The biblical God isn't even compatible with Itself.

Lester10 said:
Lester10
The only problem with this, of course, is if the supernatural was and is involved.
Not true. At least not necessarily true. There could be some supernatural being holding the laws of the Universe like we know them. We just use Occam's razor to rule him out. Because if his effort is to give the Universe a naturalistic appearance, then it doesn't matter whether he's real or not.

Lester10
That is like saying Dick or Jane may have been responsible for the ball going missing but we refuse to blame Dick so only Jane is allowed to be part of the investigation.
I guess he means "to be subject of the investigation". I mean, you don't allow suspects to be a part of the investigation, right?

But nobody said "Dick or Jane". STOP PRETENDING THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS! It gets annoying. Like REALLY annoying.

Brahma makes much more sense than Yahweh to me. The Tao makes more sense to me than Yahweh.

Yahweh beats Xenu, i give Him that.

Lester10
In this argument, we either evolved or were created.
As i've said before, i don't understand the use of the word "created". I ask again: What about Math, snowflakes and the color blue? Were they created? Did they create themselves?

Lester10
Eliminate the one obvious possibility
"the one easy to think impossible to make a use of" possibility.
a priori and you're going to need to plug a lot of holes if you're wrong and it was Dick.
Or Brahma. Perhaps Brahma missed the ball.

We believe the holes are now unpluggable and  the evolution boat is sinking.
We believe that belief is hilarious and sad at the same time.

Don't believe the big propaganda machine out there saying there is nothing wrong. This is not primarily a religious argument. It is a scientific one and calling it a religious one just keeps people's blindfolds on.
No biologist ever looked around, reached his conclusions, asked what religion described his findings, and decided that some branch of Christianism was right all along.

Nobody found evidence of an ark, a global flood, a garden with fossilized vegetarian lions. So your side of the discussion isn't scientific. You try to force science into supporting your fantasies. And that's not how science works.

You have to pretend you never knew anything about the Bible (only when doing scientific research), and start from scratch. See where the evidence leads you.

You already have faith in the Bible, so it must be right no matter what. But try it as a mental exercise.

And if you're not willing to do that, well then don't. But you can't blame us for believing it. And neither can your god.

timbrx
Natural: being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
Yeah... "Natural" pretty much defines the Universe, doesn't it?

Supernatural-1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
EXACTLY, EXACTLY!!!

especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
Hum, yeah.

So, ok... Existing is interacting with the Universe, and our Universe is finite, and God is infinite, and beyond our Universe...

So can we agree that He doesn't exist? What else do you need to reach that conclusion???

Let's make it graphic.



It's self explanatory, isn't it?
(I know God is infinite, but allow me a graphic license.)

"Existing" means "being in our Universe", or at least "interacting with our Universe".

So in a nutshell natural is what we perceive and supernatural is outside of perception.
We just keep agreeing! This is exciting!

This cannot mean that supernatural doesn't exist.
Oh, crap...

It only means that if it does exist it is outside of our perception.
If it exists, it is outside the existence.

Is this just a matter of semantics??

So if we were to figure out a way to see ghosts than would that make them natural?
MOST CERTAINLY!! OF COURSE IT WOULD!

And then our scientists would find a commercial, medicinal or military use of ghosts.

Would proof of ghosts all around us mean that they were in fact part of the natural world?
Yeap.

AT BEST the definition of "natural" would have to be upgraded, but yeap.

Look at it this way. Are people natural?
It depends on your definition of "natural". Today it can be so encompassing that it can barely have any meaning (which is good, actually).

I totally disagree. The predictions you mention are based on conjecture and have no bearing on what is happening now.
What? No bearing? What does that mean? That you don't care about the Tiktaalik?

That's fine, but if that's the case why argue?

We predicted (yes, i include myself and a lot of non scientists) the Tiktaalik.

You just keep predicting the end of the world.

Creationism makes the same kind of predictions regarding agriculture, husbandry, metallurgy, etc.etc.
Huh? What? When?

For example, a creationist would predict that tampering with life through cloning and genetic manipulation could result in total catastrophe.
"Could". Great predictions.

Therefore it is best to let life be life on its own as with selective breeding.
"Therefore" is a word we use in logic. Leave that poor word alone. It did nothing to you, and you obviously have no business with it.

As a creationist I would predict that we would enjoy better health if we ate foods that were not processed such as fresh ground wheat because that is how we were intended to eat.
We were intended to eat locusts. Right? I bet you don't do that.

So where is the intelligent foresight that benefit the bacteria so much? I still can't digest nylon.

Your god gave me a craving for sweets and fats.

Oh, but He was busy giving the bacteria cool "adaptative" mechanisms...

And as for evolution being the cornerstone for biological sciences, that is only if you want it to be.
I want it to be magic!

Can i have it my way? Pretty pretty please????

I want to make myself a genie.

I am good friends with several MD's of various disciplines who practice medicine every day and don't believe in evolution.
MD? VARIOUS??

But then they operate in the real world rather than the text book version.
You mean the Bible?

And by the way not only does modern science have its roots in Christianity
What do you mean? I don't have a clue...

I still haven't heard a reason explaining what makes Creationism a valid scientific theory.
That's because you are not listening.
We listen. Creationists don't have a consistent theory. It's a collection of refuted statements and attacks on Evolution.

They seldom agree between themselves.

They make up patches for their fantasies.

They are desperate to find any feature in any living being that could not be due to Evolution. They have failed.

They tried the bombardier beetle...

In the garden of Eden every animal was at peace. Why would the bombardier beetle need such a weapon? Was it on the outside? Were there any animals on the outside?

Creation as an explanation of origin and a standard for experimentation and prediction is every bit as valid as the theory of evolution.
Then how come you don't make vaccines? Or ANYTHING?

What kind of predictions? "If you keep doing that things could go wrong". Yeah, got it. You will always say that.

"The world will end soon".

Perhaps it will. Because of creationists who don't care about CO2 in the atmosphere.

Perhaps more so because it not  only respects physical laws but also moral laws.
Like getting your dead brother's wife knocked up? Like making a girl marry her rapist?

And no matter how cold and hard science is the scientist will always be a person.
We try to work on that. We developed a system meant to deal with that. It's called "the Scientific Method".

Your system is called "Don't Question the Bible".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:47 PM on February 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx - I still haven't heard how Creationism explains the fossil record.  How it explains Tiktaalik and other species that show clear characteristics of transition between water and land.  And remember, these fossils were found at just the right time frame that evolution predicts we would find them.  Creationism could not have predicted that.

Hominid fossils - the fossil record shows a clear trend of hominid fossils becoming more human as we travel forward in time - just as evolutionary theory predicts.  Here's just a partial list.

- Australopithecus africanus (3 - 2 mya)
- Homo habilis (2.2 - 1.6 mya)
- Homo erectus (2 - 0.4 mya)
- Homo neanderthalennsis (200,000 - 30,000)
- Homo sapiens sapiens (130,000 - present)

How does Creationism explain this?

You keep ignoring the fossil record.  Why?


I totally disagree. The predictions you mention are based on conjecture and have no bearing on what is happening now.

Timbrx, the fossil record is full of examples of life transitioning from one form to another over time.  Conjecture?  I hardly think so.  Evolution predicts that whales evolved from land mammals - look it up yourself.  Why?  Because the first mammals evolved on land.  

Dinosaur to bird connection.   The evidence is becoming more compelling with each passing year that birds are descended from dinosaurs.  Why?  Because we see evidence of this in the fossil record.

 Creationism makes the same kind of predictions regarding agriculture, husbandry, metallurgy, etc.etc.

Would you please explain this to me.

The general theory of evolution is more dangerous than useful. For example, a creationist would predict that tampering with life through cloning and genetic manipulation could result in total catastrophe.

I agree that there must be ethical guidelines and caution to using new technology such as cloning and genetic engineering.  But that's hardly a Creationism prediction.

Timbrx - Creationism cannot make predictions.  And I'm still waiting for you to show why you thing Creationism is a science.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:34 AM on February 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, actually i'm afraid of that too.

It's not very hard to imagine that they could make superstrong corn, resistant to anything, rapid growth and dissemination, that becomes a plague.

I'm also afraid of self-replicating nanobots.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:00 AM on February 4, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,
Thank you for the long and illuminating rant. I can't help but notice how your sarcasm tries to mask your ignorance.

STOP PRETENDING THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS! It gets annoying. Like REALLY annoying.


If you will look at the title of this debate it is obviously two words with a vs in between. That means one OPTION (creation) verses another OPTION (evolution). As in two OPTIONS.

If you can demonstrate the ability to wrap your mind around that concept than I would take great pleasure in walking you through your faulty logic point by point.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:40 AM on February 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can't help but notice how your sarcasm tries to mask your ignorance.
I wasn't trying to mask it.

And i don't think my sarcasm has a will of it's own.

And i used very little of it in my long rant.

Can you please point out in what part of my rant my sarcasm tries to mask my ignorance? Seriously, i'd like to know. Thanks in advance.

If you will look at the title of this debate it is obviously two words with a vs in between.
Yes. Creationism tries to attack Evolution. That´s true.

That means one OPTION (creation) verses another OPTION (evolution).
It's "versus". "Verses" are pieces of metrical literature.

If you can demonstrate the ability to wrap your mind around that concept
Piece of cake.
than
The word is "then". "Than" is used for comparisons. As in "More ignorant than me." Haha! Kidding! xD
I would take great pleasure in walking you through your faulty logic point by point.
Ok, so i have to demonstrate it...

The concept is so very easy that i don't know how to demonstrate that i understand it.

The followers of Thor and Zeus don't try to disprove Evolution. And Evolution treats Yahweh the same as Thor and Zeus: not at all.

If i'm one of many candidates in some election, and i lose, and then i denounce the election as fraudulent, it's "Me vs. Him".

If i get to demonstrate that the election was fraudulent, that wouldn't automatically make me the winner of the election.

"Me vs. Him" doesn't really imply that there are two options in the election. It only implies that i oppose Him.

That's specially true in Creationism vs. Evolution, since everything creationists do is trying to disprove Evolution, instead of trying to prove Creationism.

If Creationism wins against Evolution, the next combat is Yahweh vs. Thor (and Yahweh is strong, but Thor has a hammer, so beware).

I'd really like you to show me my faulty logic point by point. But i can't be sure that you will consider that i wrapped my mind around the easy concept of "versus"... =(



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:10 PM on February 4, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now here's an interesting item that makes sense - the evolution of minerals has direct connections to the evolution of life on earth.  

While Mars and Venus have an estimated 500+ mineral species in their surface rocks, earth has about 4,300 mineral species.

While plate tectonics had an impact on the formation of some minerals on earth.  However, life had the largest impact.

What ultimately had the biggest impact on mineral evolution, however, was the origin of life, approximately 4 billion years ago. "Of the approximately 4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two thirds of them are biologically mediated," says Hazen. "This is principally a consequence of our oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is a product of photosynthesis by microscopic algae." Many important minerals are oxidized weathering products, including ores of iron, copper and many other metals.

Microorganisms and plants also accelerated the production of diverse clay minerals. In the oceans, the evolution of organisms with shells and mineralized skeletons generated thick layered deposits of minerals such as calcite, which would be rare on a lifeless planet.



Mineral Kingdom has co-evolved with life

So here is yet another piece of evidence in support of a long history of life on earth, and for evolution.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:42 PM on February 4, 2009 | IP
Fliszt

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Wisp, you can play this silly game of "There are no two options, there is only evolution" till the cows come home, but I as a Creationist could just as well say the same about Creation. And where would that get us? Nowhere. Truth is not determined by some popularity game, but by the evidence. Now this story of the duplicating RNA enzymes hardly qualify as evidence. Why? Because it was designed by a scientist in the first place! This is evidence for intelligent design, can't you see that? These results in the lab came about by very controlled preset conditions which require intelligence. So RNA enzymes are duplicating each other. Big deal. Do we see any real evolution going on here? If some way these replicating enzymes start evolving into proteins and DNA and eventually into cells, then that would qualify for proof. Now I suggest that you get to work and provide us some real evidence to sink our teeth in. Until then, the model of Creation remains the superior one.


-------
Michael
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 12:57 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now this story of the duplicating RNA enzymes hardly qualify as evidence. Why? Because it was designed by a scientist in the first place!

You're overlooking an important piece of the experiment - the experiment also mimicked evolution in that a new combination of RNA units were put together - a mutation, so to speak.

Besides, I wasn't presenting this article as proof of abiogenesis.  I was presenting it as one more step showing that the origin of life may have a naturalistic origin.  It was an illustration showing that precursors of life may have involved RNA before DNA evolved.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:20 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fliszt at 3:57 PM on February 5, 2009 :
Hey Wisp, you can play this silly game of "There are no two options, there is only evolution"
Hey, Fliszt, you can play this silly game of "I pretend to read what others post" till...

What? Cows? I'm not acquainted with that expression.

I didn't say that there's only one. There are hundreds (which, in principle, should be even more dangerous to Evolution, if there was any danger at all).

Now this story of the duplicating RNA enzymes hardly qualify as evidence. Why? Because it was designed by a scientist in the first place!
"IT" being the story? The experiment? The enzymes?

If you mean the enzymes you should say "they were", not "it was".

And if that's what you mean, you would be proving once more that you're talking about something you didn't even pay attention to.

As Apoapsis points out, there was no designer of the enzymes.
Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that would be challenged to do the job, and carried out a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA.
You see?

This is evidence for intelligent design, can't you see that?
Even if the enzymes were designed, that in no way would be evidence for Intelligent Design as a valid theory to explain life. Can't you see that?

You don't seem to understand how evidence works.

Even if the enzymes were designed, their evolution would still be evidence for (can you guess?) Evolution!

Pay attention: their evolution implies that they evolve, which implies that evolution can happen, which in turn is evidence for Evolution.

These results in the lab came about by very controlled preset conditions which require intelligence.
Yes. We require control, because we don't have what Nature had: A vast time, space and different conditions to experiment with.

So RNA enzymes are duplicating each other. Big deal.
Yes.

Do we see any real evolution going on here?
Yes.

If some way these replicating enzymes start evolving into proteins and DNA and eventually into cells, then that would qualify for proof.
No. It would still qualify as evidence. But creationists sure like the word "proof".

Now I suggest that you get to work and provide us some real evidence to sink our teeth in.
I was going to, but since you don't read, meh.

I suggest you get to work and start reading.

Until then, the model of Creation remains the superior one.
It's only superior at easing ignorant minds.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:26 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
Fliszt

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp my man, let me give you a little education 'cause you are surely in need of one. Here is a definition of chemical synthesis as found in the wikipedia. "In Chemistry, chemical synthesis is a purposeful execution of chemical reactions in order to get a product or several products. This happens by physical and chemical manipulations usually involving one ore more reactions." Okay, the key phrases here in this definition is "purposeful" and "physical and chemical manipulations". This clearly implies an intelligent input coming from the mind of the one doing the synthesis. It took intelligence to put the right amount of chemicals in the test tube, it took intelligence to manipulate the chemicals to get the desired product and it took intelligence to set the proper conditions to set it in place. Last time I checked, this process of chemicals magically evolving into RNA enzymes is something that is currently not happening. And it has not been observed in the past. And it has not been observed in the fossil record. Observation my dear fellow is a key ingredient in the game of science, get it? No observation, no science. Now what we do observe is an intelligent human being manipulating chemicals to produce this product. And to ignore this by invoking the magical mantras of time and chance doesn't work my friend. Haven't you heard of stastical science? Stastics show that the odds of an ordered structure of just 200 parts aligning together correctly are 1 in 10 to the 375th power. In other words, imagine arranging a large number of sets of the 200 parts, all being tried simultaneously. Imagine that each part is only the size of an electron and then let us fill the entire universe with solidly packed electrons. It can be shown that the whole universe could only contain, at the most, 10 to the 130th power such sets of 200 solidly packed electrons. Now try to visualize 10 to  the 130th  sets of 200 parts each by chance arranging only one set in the correct alignment, just once in 20 billion years, the supossed age of the universe. Imagine that a billion-billion different trials happen every second on every one of the sets. After all this, the chance that one of these trials would give the right result is 1 in 10 to the 209th power.In another words the idea that a simple system of two hundred parts being arranged by chance is absurd. This is called science Wisp, unlike what evolutionists do whenever they invoke their gods time and chance. Have you ever heard of the law of entropy wisp? Let me school you in case you haven't. The law of entropy basically states that all ordered systems in the universe are running down. In another words, everything is falling apart, continually getting more disordered.Whereas the religion of evolution blindly states that everything by dint of time and chance is getting progessively complex. Clearly there is a contradiction here between a known physical law of science that has been empiricly proven and the blind assertion of evolution. I don't know about you wisp, but I am going to opt on the side of Science on this one and reject the phantasy known as evolution. I hate to say it wisp as you sound like a very intelligent guy, but your last post made zero sense. You have a great knack for nit picking everybody elses posts for grammar mistakes,ect. I suppose this means that your forte is in the realm of language and literature. But these are mere diversionary tactics on your part to distract from the main issues here. Engaging in wittiscms just doesn't cut it when it comes to these things. The onus lies on you and every evolutionist out there to prove the case for evolution. You guys just can't seem to cut the mustard on this one. Since there are only two options, Evolution and Creation, and since both can't be right, then one of them has to be absolutely true and the other abysmally false. Part of what makes science science is its ability to make correct predictions. Well, what are some of the predictions that both of the models of evolution and creation give? Evolution predicts that there should be many transitional forms found in the fossil record. Creation predicts that there should be none. If you check out what evolutionary scientists are saying about the fossil record as of late, they are all saying(Richard Dawkins included) that there are no intermediate fossils in the record. None! The father of evolutionary theory Charles Darwin admitted in his book on origins in 1859 that if no intermediates were to be found, then that would deal a lethal blow to his theory. The prediction has failed for evolution but is brilliantly fulfilled by the Creation prediction. And here is a lttle last reminder to sum up the point that I made in the last post regarding the RNA enzyme experiments. Once the enzyme was created, it continued replicating itself into more enymes with the ocassional mutants. But what did the mutants produce? Anything new like an improvement on the original type? Was there an increase in complexity, a more ordered system? Because if there were, then that would be evolution. But we see nothing of the sort. Instead we see an RNA enzyme(that was created by human intelligence) that replicates itself into more of the same. But evolution is about transformation of species folks, not minor variations brought on by random mutations! And since no evidence can be shown in the fossil record that this happened, and none can be shown that it is happening now, then the theory of evolution has to be discarded and ipso facto, the creation model remains the only viable option. Think about it folks, really think about it.


-------
Michael
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 4:16 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please, somebody put me out of my misery!  I haven't seen so many mistakes in a post since Creationist6 was terrorizing this forum.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:31 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
Fliszt

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's wrong Orion, cat got your tongue? Can't handle the heat? Just a reminder, this is a debate forum where ideally the discussion of ideas are supposed to be taking place. Nice try with the sarcasm, but since I have made "so many mistakes" Orion, please do me the honor of pointing out at least one mistake, and refute it by cogent argumentation and the evidence. Then hopefully a fruitful dialogue will ensue. Until then, I am just going to assume that the theory of Evolution does not have a leg to stand on and all of the sarcastic rhetoric in the world is not going to magically erase that fact. Comprehende? If evolution is science, then please do us the service in providing the actual evidence for it. Go for it, I am all ears and I really do want to believe.


-------
Michael
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 9:53 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fliszt -

Last time I checked, this process of chemicals magically evolving into RNA enzymes is something that is currently not happening. And it has not been observed in the past. And it has not been observed in the fossil record.

The experiment shows that RNA replication can occur on its own, and continue occurring given the right conditions.  Sure, the condition were put together by the researcher.  So what?  Furthermore, the experiment showed that a mixture of RNA enzyme pairs could occassionally have one RNA enzyme combine a different subunit, producing a new combination that could itself replicate.  This certainly mimicks evolution.

Sure, it happened in a lab.  But research into the origins of life are going to proceed in a labratory environment until we find a planet where the origin of life is actually taking place.  What's so hard to understand about that?  

Last time I checked, this process of chemicals magically evolving into RNA enzymes is something that is currently not happening. And it has not been observed in the past. And it has not been observed in the fossil record.

But it certainly did happen about 3.6-4 billion years ago.  And it most likely happens elsewhere on other planets.

The point is, no one knows yet how life originated here on earth.  That's why we have research - a quest to find possilble scenarios for the origin of life.  There wouldn't be any need for research if we said 'God did it', now would there.  Fortunately there are people who don't by that explanation.

To be continued.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:07 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fliszt at 3:16 PM on February 5, 2009 :
Haven't you heard of stastical science? Stastics show that the odds of an ordered structure of just 200 parts aligning together correctly are 1 in 10 to the 375th power. In other words, imagine arranging a large number of sets of the 200 parts, all being tried simultaneously.


OK, lets start with something simple.  What are the odds of hexamethylenetetramine forming spontaneously?

Production of Hexamethylenetetramine in Photolyzed and Irradiated Interstellar Cometary Ice Analogs


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:52 PM on February 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From Fliszt -
Stastics show that the odds of an ordered structure of just 200 parts aligning together correctly are 1 in 10 to the 375th power.

flaws in Creationist probability

My dear fliszt, I'm certainly not a mathematician, so allow others to direct you to the failings of this argument.

Essentially the above probability do not take into account:

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

I think the example that Apoapsis gave in the prior post of the formation of hexamethylenetetramine is a good illustration of this point.  Molecules don't form in a random fashion.  Anyone who has taken high school chemistry knows that.  

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.

The origin of the first living cells most likely took place in simpler small steps - one step being smaller replicating molecules, akin to the example given in the initial article - only simpler.

Another basic flaw to the probability Fliszt gives is that it considers a single sequential trial.  In actuality there would be countless billions and trillions of trails going on at the same time.  Coupled with chemical bonding rules, the sequencing of amino acids, or other biomolecules doesn't become so impossible as Creationists would have you imagine.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:38 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp my man, let me give you a little education 'cause you are surely in need of one. Here is a definition of chemical synthesis as found in the wikipedia. "In Chemistry, chemical synthesis is a purposeful execution of chemical reactions in order to get a product or several products. This happens by physical and chemical manipulations usually involving one ore more reactions." Okay, the key phrases here in this definition is "purposeful" and "physical and chemical manipulations". This clearly implies an intelligent input coming from the mind of the one doing the synthesis. It took intelligence to put the right amount of chemicals in the test tube, it took intelligence to manipulate the chemicals to get the desired product and it took intelligence to set the proper conditions to set it in place.
Ok, this is getting tiresome.

When are you going to actually read before replying?

YES, YES, YES!!! We do need to control the conditions (using intelligence, of course)!! Because we don't have a huge variety of environments and billions of years to do the test!!!!

But there was no designer of the enzymes. That is true, and you don't want to acknowledge it.

Last time I checked, this process of chemicals magically evolving into RNA enzymes is something that is currently not happening. And it has not been observed in the past. And it has not been observed in the fossil record.
Fossil RNA from billions of years ago?

Even that wouldn't convince you.

But this is what life is all about. Evolving self-replicators.

Observation my dear fellow
Somehow i don't believe that i'm dear to you.
is a key ingredient in the game of science,
Somehow i don't believe that you're a scientist (guess how i guessed!).
get it?
I certainly do.

Observe the image representations of the fossils that i posted in the thread "Facts", here:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=41427

Click on it using your mouse (not your pet, the other one).

No observation, no science.
You're right about that.

Observations allow us to make theories. Theories allow us to make predictions. If you observed something before predicting, well, it wouldn't be much of a prediction, now would it?

Now what we do observe is an intelligent human being manipulating chemicals to produce this product.
You state this statement, expecting no expectation from me... Well, i will allow for no allowance and will tolerate no tolerance. I won't ignore your ignorance.... Ok, not funny.

And to ignore this by invoking the magical mantras of time and chance doesn't work my friend.
A magic God making us with love but with our ocular retina flipped over so we have a blind spot makes more sense to you?



Haven't you heard of stastical science?
Oh, man, here come the PRATT...

Stastics show that the odds of an ordered structure of just 200 parts aligning together correctly are 1 in 10 to the 375th power.
Woah! And who gets to say when it's ordered? Who gets to say when the alignment is correct?

Mathematicians don't usually know much about Chemistry. Specially those mathematicians quoted by creationists.

What about the sand grains escaping from your hand and forming a cone shaped structure? Is that ordered?

How many "parts" does the snowflake have? Is it ordered?

If we can make self replicant enzymes in such a short time, with so few ingredients, in such a limited space, imagine what billions of years could do having the entire Earth as a playground!

I know about statistics. I find them interesting.

I bet that the only reason you find the slightest interest in them is because some people manage to give them a part in the biblical delusion.

This is called science Wisp, unlike what evolutionists do whenever they invoke their gods time and chance.
Chance? You're still talking about abiogenesis, right? Then why say "evolutionists"?

Have you ever heard of the law of entropy wisp?
Most certainly. It's the second law of thermodynamics. And subject to a lot of creationist PRATT.

Let me school you in case you haven't.
This ought to be funny.

The law of entropy basically states that all ordered systems in the universe are running down.
It does not.

The Universe as a whole is growing in entropy.

So is any isolated system.

The Earth is not isolated. It receives energy from the entropy-growing Sun.

We take advantage of the Sun's growing entropy. Get it?

I bet you don't...

In another words, everything is falling apart, continually getting more disordered.
No, silly!

This morning i cleaned and ordered my house. And i'm no magician.

Dissipative systems can show spontaneous order. Like snowflakes and other crystals.

Other dissipative systems include shaken potato chips, and (horror!) life itself.

A dissipative system takes energy in, and then it takes it out, producing patterns.

Like i did this morning, with my house (the energy i took in came from the food i ate, and it's energy came directly from the Sun, so i'm a Sun-powered dissipative system, and i'm ok with it).

Take a bag of potato chips and shake it. The big pieces will go to the top, the small ones and crumbs will go to the bottom.

You know the odds of that happening by chance alone? Hahaha!

Will you say that i shook them "intelligently"?

You will find the same pattern in the pebbles in the ground next to many rivers.

Whereas the religion of evolution blindly states that everything by dint of time and chance is getting progessively complex.
No, silly!

Man... This guy doesn't pay attention to anything... Unless it "fits" his delusion...

Clearly there is a contradiction here between a known physical law of science that has been empiricly proven and the blind assertion of evolution.
Clearly you are clueless...

I don't know
Finally something right!
about you wisp,
Oh...
but I am going to opt on the side of Science on this one and reject the phantasy known as evolution.
Yeah... Michael, the Science guy... Fighting the phantasy...

Phantasy: A fantasy related to phantoms.

I hate to say it wisp as you sound like a very intelligent guy,
After that compliment i hate to say that you don't...

but your last post made zero sense.
If Mike, the Science guy says so...

You have a great knack for nit picking everybody elses posts for grammar mistakes,ect. I suppose this means that your forte is in the realm of language and literature.
What language? English is not my language. I'm from South-American third world. I speak Spanish.

But these are mere diversionary tactics on your part to distract from the main issues here.
I see what you mean.

Actually i point out (cruelly, perhaps) that someone with such basic mistakes shouldn't treat others as ignorants so promptly.

Engaging in wittiscms just doesn't cut it when it comes to these things.
"Cut"... Another expression i didn't know applied like this...

The onus lies on you
Woah! You know Latin?

Actually actoris incumbit onus probandi. It's you who tries to disprove a widely accepted fully tested theory explaining the fact of evolution.

So try to prove your claims with something else than PRATT.

You guys just can't seem to cut the mustard on this one.
Ok, you're using a lot of expressions that i don't know... Are you making those up?

Since there are only two options, Evolution and Creation,
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

I can see another easy-to-think (ideal for you) option: Both.

The Universe could have been created and left to evolve on it's own.

Do you mean that the only two options are Evolution and Christian account for creation?

There are many creation myths. Yours is not special. And there never were two options. That's a creationist silly claim.

and since both can't be right,
Why?

You just make claims and don't support them.

Show us your logic.

then one of them has to be absolutely true and the other abysmally false.
What's with the adverbs?  

Part of what makes science science is its ability to make correct predictions.
Yes. Like "Mammals evolved from reptiles. So in a specific segment of the fossil strata you could find animals with characteristics of both, mammals and reptiles."

"It's possible that some animal could have evolved from that period independently of mammals, conserving reptilian traits."

And we have the ornithorhynchidae (platypus).

Ah, i can't keep doing this.

Please, Flisz, one PRATT at a time. Maybe start a thread for each PRATT (although probably it has already been started and refuted, but i don't think you will search for them).

A quick glance to the rest of your post... Mmm...

PRATT, ipse dixit, false claims (with not even the effort of misquoting), an unnecessary use of the Latin locution "ipso facto"...

Bye.


(Edited by wisp 2/6/2009 at 12:49 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:41 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - good job.  You hung in there longer than  I did.

That's the problem with answering some of these posts - they include so many mistakes it takes time to address them all.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:47 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
Fliszt

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey guys, I'm back. Ummm... I really hate to do this, but I am not going to go over each and every one of your refutations. Please don't take it personally, you guys are pretty smart, especially Wisp, but I instead am going to cut to the chase and let the chips fall where they may. I'll leave you guys with this challenge. Can you please show me where the transitional fossils are in the record? I hate to keep harping on that, but science is about the record of evidence. I'll leave you with this quote from Richard Dawkins "The God delusion" and another challenge. Here it is. On pg.128-129 of his book it states, "When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."  Now here is my challenge. What do you do with the fact that in many places in the world there are fossils from different ages that are found out of order, or even mixed together? And not only that but also the numerous locations in the world where entire formations are missing or inverted?I would be most interested in hearing your answers on these questions,especially from the ever engaging and always entertaining Wisp.(I mean that in the best possibe way.) If your answer to the last question goes something like this "Well, maybe some of the gigantic older rock blocks by some tectonic process, overthrust(ridden up and over) the younger ones", then how would you explain the lack of rock breakage and ground up powder at the interface, along with the lack of deep grooves and scratches along the undersurface? Also there should be a general mixture of the upper and lower rocks along the thrust plane, but in most cases there are not. Now I know this is kind of digressing from the subject matter at hand(abiogenesis), but I feel that if adequate and reasonable explanations can be given to explain these anomalies in nature, alongside with given demonstrations of genuine intermediate fossils, then that would go a long way in improving my outlook on the theory of evolution. This would of course enable me to take the claims of abiogenesis much more seriously. So bon voyage fellows, it's been really fun engaging in these debates with you. I'll let you know if I'm convinced by your evidences in the future. If I remain unconvinced, then consider this the last time that I'm debating you. Take care and Peace out.


-------
Michael
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 3:02 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fliszt, give us some examples of fossils being mysteriously out of order.  Because, as far as I know, there are none, absolutely none.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:04 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm, I must be reading the wrong material because I haven't heard of any fossils being found out of order either.

I would like to see some examples too.  And please list your source.

Thanks.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:07 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In another words, everything is falling apart, continually getting more disordered.

No, silly!

This morning i cleaned and ordered my house. And i'm no magician.

Dissipative systems can show spontaneous order. Like snowflakes and other crystals.

Other dissipative systems include shaken potato chips, and (horror!) life itself.

A dissipative system takes energy in, and then it takes it out, producing patterns.

Like i did this morning, with my house (the energy i took in came from the food i ate, and it's energy came directly from the Sun, so i'm a Sun-powered dissipative system, and i'm ok with it).


I think the important thing to consider regarding entropy is that life is the one thing that bends the rule. Sure chemicals do lots of interesting things when you add or subtract energy. But eventually the energy runs out. Wisps house will get messy again. The snowflake will melt or compress into ice. Our bodies wear out and we die, but our life regenerates in the form of progeny.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:57 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Life is not the only example that breaks these "rules". Stars have incredably high consentrations on hydrogen and helium. Planets have high consentrations of denser elements.

But eventually the energy runs out.

Wrong. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 6:30 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the important thing to consider regarding entropy is that life is the one thing that bends the rule.
Just like any other dissipative system? Then yes.

But again dissipative systems are pretty common in the Universe.

That being the case, why would we call that a "rule"?

The real rule is that the total entropy in the Universe and every isolated system keeps growing. Nothing bends this rule.

Sure chemicals do lots of interesting things when you add or subtract energy. But eventually the energy runs out. Wisps house will get messy again. The snowflake will melt or compress into ice. Our bodies wear out and we die, but our life regenerates in the form of progeny.
Well, diamonds are forever.

Did you know that diamonds are self replicating structures?

With carbon basic units diamonds are built up spontaneously, forming a structure that is actually a lone giant molecule.

Did you know that the largest diamond is just one molecule?

So perhaps diamonds are superior to us.

But ultimately every order that we can see and put a name on, will decay. Even diamonds (they are not really forever).

Every life form (as an evolving structure, starting with the first basic self-replicators) has been supplied with an uninterrupted energy supply since 3.5 +/- billion years ago.

So no, energy doesn't run out everywhere. Living structures are very good at looking for energy inputs. And this doesn't have to stop before the Sun dies or some other big catastrophe befalls.

Oh, and Fliszt is just repeating creationist rumors that only they ever bought.

You can find them listed and refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

Under "d)".

Meh, i'll copypaste it:

Edit: I erased my copypasted text so the page is more readable. Flisz won't read it anyway.


(Edited by wisp 2/8/2009 at 01:15 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:55 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole
Life is not the only example that breaks these "rules". Stars have incredably high consentrations on hydrogen and helium. Planets have high consentrations of denser elements.
I think timbrx was talking about growing in order instead of decaying. Stars are decaying.

timbrx:
But eventually the energy runs out.
Aswissrole
Wrong. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Give him this one. Energy can't be destroyed, but it kinda runs out, in a way... I mean, it runs out of things. Out of a battery, for instance.

I can't be sure timbrx meant it that way, but that's what i thought. He seemed smart enough to realize the difference.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:04 PM on February 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:57 PM on February 6, 2009 :
[
I think the important thing to consider regarding entropy is that life is the one thing that bends the rule. Sure chemicals do lots of interesting things when you add or subtract energy. But eventually the energy runs out.


If your point is that life on earth will end when it ceases to receive energy from the sun I agree with you.

You've been shown a number of self-organizing chemical reactions where complex organic molecules form under natural conditions.  Why do you see a limit to the chemistry for anything other than religious reasons?  Can you show some chemistry that sets a limit?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:03 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Give him this one. Energy can't be destroyed, but it kinda runs out, in a way... I mean, it runs out of things. Out of a battery, for instance.

I can't be sure timbrx meant it that way, but that's what i thought. He seemed smart enough to realize the difference.


Thanks, wisp. I did mean it that way. Otherwise I might have said "used up". I think if left on its own the universe would eventually decay into a homogenous mass of basic energy, whatever that is.

You've been shown a number of self-organizing chemical reactions where complex organic molecules form under natural conditions.  Why do you see a limit to the chemistry for anything other than religious reasons?  Can you show some chemistry that sets a limit?


You can't prove a negative. And long before I became "religions" in a biblical sense I have intuitively felt that life is something more than the sum of its parts. I can't explain or prove it but it sure seems to be a universal instinctive awareness that pushes humanity to need to understand. Is this some "evolved" trait or an "implant"? I don't know. You should know my opinion by now. And I am certain you know what I'm talking about.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:49 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're welcome.

And i agree with you about the Universe reaching a maximum decay point. It's the way of the Entropy.

Roger Penrose came up with a new interesting model for the Big Bang.

An older model stated that, even in a decayed energy soup, gravity would shrink the universe back to a point, and it would then bounce to a new Big Bang in a series of infinite big bangs.

Penrose's new model says that upon reaching that state of maximum entropy, time and space would lose their meaning and substance. The Universe wouldn't recognize itself. Without a defined space, things wouldn't have any size. Without time, events wouldn't have any duration.

The slow expansion would now have no measurable velocity, but there would be a switch (when all information is gone), and the unsized Universe would be the new material for a new Big Bang.

He surely explains it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

I find it interesting as a mental exercise. But i discard it just as i discard God. Such "events" take place outside the realm of our experience/knowledge, and it wouldn't even be "our universe".

It's not like i don't believe it (or that i don't believe in God). It's just that it has no meaning for scientific purposes, OR the ordinary human experience.

You've been shown a number of self-organizing chemical reactions where complex organic molecules form under natural conditions.  Why do you see a limit to the chemistry for anything other than religious reasons?  Can you show some chemistry that sets a limit?
You can't prove a negative.
Well, could you show us evidence for such a limit?

The replicating enzymes (with or without intelligent intervention) are growing in complexity. And they're chemicals.

Such a limit doesn't exist. But i don't blame you for thinking that. It certainly looks that way regarding the chemicals in our normal layman experience. Baking soda doesn't take over your cake and make a civilization.

I can't explain or prove it but it sure seems to be a universal instinctive awareness that pushes humanity to need to understand.
Yes, indeed.

It is a marvelous byproduct of our consciousness, and our need to control things.

Those of our ancestors who controlled things had first to have a basic understanding of them.

Understanding became vital.

But yes, i do know what you mean. And indeed it's weird. I can see that.

From the evolution point of view i can only consider humans to be EXTREMELY lucky that Nature presented us with this gift of craving for knowledge.

There are some curious animals, and some non-human apes certainly show some interest in learning, but it doesn't look like the human level of understanding was even necessary.

I mean, other animals fare very well without it.

It's indeed very tempting to think that our existence serves some purpose. At least that our evolution was somehow guided.

That's not what i believe, but i can still marvel.

I bet that a lot of "evolutionists" feel like they're not allowed to marvel, for it leaves open the way for a creator.

In fact, when evolutionists do marvel, they often get misquoted by creationists.

timbrx, nothing can deny an infinite God. It's just the biblical Yahweh that doesn't make much sense.

I agree with you about faith. I believe that everyone has some form of faith.

And, in a way, they even have a god.
For everyone has some values. Once you have values, you think that some things are good. Once you think that, an ideal archetype of "good" sets place in your mind.

That archetype is different in each person. And it can change. And it can grow. And i think this is a good thing.

My ideal "God" archetype is about intelligence/knowledge. When i consider intelligence abstractly i see no reason why i couldn't call "God" the sum of the infinite intelligence/knowledge. In a way it is the source.

How can some abstraction in my mind be the source of the same intelligence that allows me to make abstractions?

It doesn't matter.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:56 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You've been shown a number of self-organizing chemical reactions where complex organic molecules form under natural conditions.  Why do you see a limit to the chemistry for anything other than religious reasons?  Can you show some chemistry that sets a limit?

You can't prove a negative.

Well, could you show us evidence for such a limit?


Touche!
I guess that would be like logically defending illogic.

It seems that we have reached unprecedented  understanding! Praise the Lord!

Except for one thing that we can't agree upon unless you have a supernatural encounter.

I find it interesting as a mental exercise. But i discard it just as i discard God. Such "events" take place outside the realm of our experience/knowledge, and it wouldn't even be "our universe".


My own personal experience regarding God defies the truth in this. Suffice it to say that I didn't always believe the way I now do. In fact I used to believe very much like you do now. What has changed in me was not a convincing argument but an awakening.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:28 AM on February 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Supernatural" is a way to put it...

I've had a lot of mystical experiences. I don't deny them.

I think i can still have them whenever i want... Let me see...

Yeap, i still have it. (Y)

I've felt guidance. I've made questions, and received answers.

They have never contradicted the laws of physics...

To me consciousness is the highest value. But our perception of consciousness is limited. Perhaps the Universe is "conscious" in a way. Perhaps it makes sense once you know everything.

Actually that's one of the things that have been "told" to me.

I saw the Universe as a dynamic fractal mandala (hence my avatar).


Consciousness is information. Matter is information (information that can arrange itself to produce new information, and so produce consciousness, like tunning a radio set).

Any part of the Universe it reflects the whole. Any part of it only makes complete sense when you know the rest of them. Any change in any part of it reflects instantly (no light speed limit) in all the rest. Nothing has a separate existence.

And i am a humble part of it all.

(I wish i could reflect that humbleness in my daily life.)

But, again, God is infinite. So any experience (ordinary or not) can be related to Him. And no experience can show you God as a whole.

I've had not one, but many awakenings. But be like Descartes, and ask yourself why would any god want to show you pure lies.

Learn from interacting chemicals. Don't deny the poor fellows.

Make your God grow enough to embrace what the world actually shows you.

If your experience about God showed you that the Genesis is a historical account, and that Evolution is a lie, i can only conclude that you had a hallucination.

You're always welcome to marvel at Evolution. You can call it one of God's wonders.


(Edited by wisp 2/7/2009 at 1:36 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:31 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If your experience about God showed you that the Genesis is a historical account, and that Evolution is a lie, i can only conclude that you had a hallucination.


That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that an awareness or a personal knowable God has prompted me to re- think my worldview to include the biblical account as plausible.

(I wish i could reflect that humbleness in my daily life.)


You can always work on that.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:02 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd like to know more about such an experience. I can't see how such an experience could point to a specific sacred text (considering the abundance of sacred texts in the world). And even more: point to the literal interpretation of such text.

Did you see the virgin Mary or something?

So your experience showed you the plausibility of the Genesis historical account?

Did it also show you the implausibility of Evolution? Because you seem convinced that it didn't happen.

Did your experience touch the subject of abiogenesis?

Do your mystical experiences deal with definitions?

What do you think would happen if you give the Earth (without humans, for convenience) a hundred million years more?

Edit: Flisz, answered in private.


(Edited by wisp 2/8/2009 at 12:38 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:46 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Fliszt

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi guys, Just dropping in for the very last time to ask a question that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. This question is directed toward Wisp. If you would be kind enough to answer me this question Wisp, it would be greatly appreciated. Just out of naive curiousity, would you mind telling me where you were formally educated? The reason I asked is because I notice that you seem to have a good grasp of different languages like latin,ect. Also you quoted from St.Augustine in one of your posts, which I found to be intriguing, since I am a traditionalist Catholic. Okay, this is my last post. Thanks.


-------
Michael
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 10:10 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very cool paper on amino acids:

A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:49 PM on April 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's the link to the document.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.0402v1

I'm about to read it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:59 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.