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
     Evidence for Creation?
       Is there any?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously single organisms dont evolve. I thought that was already clear and i didnt have to make that a point each post.

Exchanging genetic material is a long way off from the complex male and female reproductive systems of mammals. You give no evidence of how these can evolve.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:44 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The second law of thermodynamics has been proven mathematically for thermodynamic systems, where entropy is defined in terms of heat divided by the absolute temperature. The second law is often applied to other situations, such as the complexity of life, or orderliness. [14] However it is incorrect to apply the closed-system expression of the second law of thermodynamics to any one sub-system connected by mass-energy flows to another ("open system"). In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he states: "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."[15]

This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.[16] Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems,[17] arguably making the Theory of Evolution itself an expression of the Second Law.

Furthermore, the second law is only true of closed systems. It is easy to decrease entropy, with an energy source. For example, a refrigerator separates warm and cold air, but only when it is plugged in. Since all biology requires an external energy source, the Sun, there's nothing unusual (thermodynamically) with it growing more complex with time."

So no, your claim that the start of life and earth had to be in a higher state than it is today is flat out wrong.  You're 0 for 2 here, both your claims are completely wrong.


Sorry i didnt address this earlier.

The universe is increasing in entropy because of the second law. This requires a state of very low entropy as the beginning. How did this happen? The only explanation is creation, or the second law is violated.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:48 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you ever taken a course in Thermodynamics?


-------
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: 6:53 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course there is a source for these comets, the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt.  We have directly observed over 200 objects in the Kuiper belt.  As for the Oort cloud, from here:
Oort Cloud

"The Oort cloud is the source of long-period comets and possibly higher-inclination intermediate comets that were pulled into shorter period orbits by the planets, such as Halley and Swift-Tuttle. Comets can also shift their orbits due to jets of gas and dust that rocket from their icy surface as they approach the sun. Although they get off course, comets do have initial orbits with widely different ranges, from 200 years to once every million years or more. Comets entering the planetary region for the first time, come from an average distance of 44,000 astronomical units.

Long period comets can appear at any time and come from any direction. Bright comets can usually be seen every 5-10 years. Two recent Oort cloud comets were Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp. Hyakutake was average in size, but came to 0.10 AU (15,000,000 km) from Earth, which made it appear especially spectacular. Hale-Bopp, on the other hand, was an unusually large and dynamic comet, ten times that of Halley at comparable distances from the sun, making it appear quite bright, even though it did not approach closer than 1.32 AU (197,000,000 km) to the Earth.

Recognition of the Oort cloud gave explanation to the age old questions: "What are comets, and where do they come from?" In 1950, Jan H. Oort inferred the existence of the Oort cloud from the physical evidence of long-period comets entering the planetary system. This Dutch astronomer, who determined the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy in the 1920's, interpreted comet orbital distribution with only 19 well-measured orbits to study and successfully recognized where these comets came from. Additional gathered data has since confirmed his studies, establishing and expanding our knowledge of the Oort cloud."

So yes there is a source to replenish comets, it's been observed and verified.  No evidence for a young universe.


The Oort cloud is not the source of these comets for many reasons.

There is no good mechanism for the formation of the Oort cloud.

Comets have 20 times the heavy hydrogen concentration than the average for the rest of the universe. Why would this be true if they come from the Oort cloud?

There are no comets observed coming in with a hyperbolic orbit. Why not? If they are coming from the Oort cloud many should have a hyperbolic orbit.

The comets in Jupiter's family have an average lifespan of only about 12,000 years. Why are there so many comets in Jupiter's family?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:54 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 6:54 PM on July 25, 2009 :
There are no comets observed coming in with a hyperbolic orbit. Why not? If they are coming from the Oort cloud many should have a hyperbolic orbit.


List of hyperbolic comets found within 15 seconds of googling: Non-periodic comets
Comet Discoverer(s) or Namesake
C/1998 K2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 K3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 K5 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 M1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 M2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 M4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 M5 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 Q1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 T1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 U1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 U5 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1998 W3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 H3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 J3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 J4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 K3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 K4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 K5 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 K6 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 K7 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 K8 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 L2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 L3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 N4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 S4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 T2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 T3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/1999 Y1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2000 B2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2000 CT54 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2000 H1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2000 K1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2000 K2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2000 SV74 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2000 U5 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2000 WM1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 A1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 A2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 B1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 C1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 HT50 (LINEAR-NEAT) LINEAR & NEAT
C/2001 K5 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 N2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 RX14 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 U6 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 W1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2001 X1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 A3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 B2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 B3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 C2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 H2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 J5 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 K2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 O7 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 Q2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 Q3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 Q5 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 T7 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 U2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 V2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 VQ94 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2002 X1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 G1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 G2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 H1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 H2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 K4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 L2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 O1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 S3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 S4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 T2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 T4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 V1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2003 WT42 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 B1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 DZ61 (Catalina-LINEAR) Catalina Sky Survey & LINEAR
C/2004 F2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 G1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 H1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 K3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 L1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 L2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 RG113 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 U1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 X2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 X3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2004 YJ35 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2005 A1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2005 G1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2005 H1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2005 K2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2005 Q1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2005 R4 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2005 YW (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2006 M1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2006 S2 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2006 VZ13 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2006 X1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2006 XA1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 D1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 D3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 G1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 JA21 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 M3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 O1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 U1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 W3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2007 Y1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2008 H1 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2008 R3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2008 X3 (LINEAR) LINEAR
C/2009 B2 (LINEAR) LINEAR



-------
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: 7:17 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Responses to other evidence against Oort Cloud?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:27 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 7:27 PM on July 25, 2009 :
Responses to other evidence against Oort Cloud?


What evidence?  Give me a reference for the deuterium concentration of X20.  I don't believe it.





-------
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: 8:00 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously single organisms dont evolve. I thought that was already clear and i didnt have to make that a point each post.

No, simple organisms most certainly do evolve, what are you talking about, where did you support the claim that they don't?

Exchanging genetic material is a long way off from the complex male and female reproductive systems of mammals. You give no evidence of how these can evolve.

Sure, but why can't they evolve?  And you didn't acknowledge the fact that you didn't understand how evolution works.  If you don't understand a simple concept like single organisms don't evolve, populations do, what good is it to into more detail about the evolution of sexual reproduction.  
Your claim that sexual reproduction could not evolve because of the impossiblity of a male and female orgamism evolving at the same time was incredibly incorrect.  Evolution can certainly explain how sexual reproduction can arise, since you're the one claiming it can't happen, it's up to you to provide evidence to support your claim.  You haven't and can't do this.  If you want to learn how it evolved, do your own research if you have the guts and integrity.  Otherwise, you have failed to support your conclusion that sexual reproduction could not have evolved.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:29 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The universe is increasing in entropy because of the second law. This requires a state of very low entropy as the beginning. How did this happen? The only explanation is creation, or the second law is violated.

Total nonsense.  There are many theories with actual evidence on how the Big Bang occurred, none of them mention creation and none of them violate the 2LOT.  It looks like your understanding of thermodynamics is about as good as your understanding of evolution (in other words, you don't know what you're talking about).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:32 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Oort cloud is not the source of these comets for many reasons.

Such as....?

There is no good mechanism for the formation of the Oort cloud.

From here:
Oort cloud

"The Oort cloud is thought to be a remnant of the original protoplanetary disc that formed around the Sun approximately 4.6 billion years ago.[1] The most widely accepted hypothesis is that the Oort cloud's objects initially coalesced much closer to the Sun as part of the same process that formed the planets and asteroids, but that gravitational interaction with young gas giant planets such as Jupiter ejected the objects into extremely long elliptic or parabolic orbits.[1][23] Simulations of the evolution of the Oort cloud from the beginnings of the Solar System to the present suggest that the cloud's mass peaked around 800 million years after formation, as the pace of accretion and collision slowed and depletion began to overtake supply.[1]

Models by Julio Ángel Fernández suggest that the scattered disc, which is the main source for periodic comets in the Solar System, might also be the primary source for Oort cloud objects. According to the models, about half of the objects scattered travel outward towards the Oort cloud, while a quarter are shifted inward to Jupiter's orbit, and a quarter are ejected on hyperbolic orbits. The scattered disc might still be supplying the Oort cloud with material.[24] A third of the scattered disc's population is likely to end up in the Oort cloud after 2.5 billion years.[25]

Computer models suggest that collisions of cometary debris during the formation period play a far greater role than was previously thought. According to these models, the number of collisions early in the Solar System's history was so great that most comets were destroyed before they reached the Oort cloud. Therefore, the current cumulative mass of the Oort cloud is far less than was once suspected.[26] The estimated mass of the cloud is only a small part of the 50–100 Earth masses of ejected material.[1]"

Seems like a pretty good explaination of how the Oort cloud formed.  Why don't you go into specifics and tell us why it's false...

Comets have 20 times the heavy hydrogen concentration than the average for the rest of the universe. Why would this be true if they come from the Oort cloud?

I don't understand the objection, why can't comets have 20 times the heavy hydrogen and why can't they come from the Oort cloud?

There are no comets observed coming in with a hyperbolic orbit. Why not? If they are coming from the Oort cloud many should have a hyperbolic orbit.

Apoapsis quickly showed how wrong you were with this claim.

The comets in Jupiter's family have an average lifespan of only about 12,000 years. Why are there so many comets in Jupiter's family?

12,000 years? Don't think so, from here:
Jupiter family comets

"The best currently known targets for volatile extraction are the Jupiter-family comets. These have been tossed into the inner solar system by Jupiter, into highly elliptical orbits, with perihelions as low as Mercury's orbit (0.4 AU) and aphelions near Jupiter's. Influenced by the inner planets, the orbits slowly circularize. Most of the perihelions are near 1 AU, although to some extent that's observational selection; we're less likely to see objects with perihelions at 2 AU, and ice there sublimates much more slowly.

The comets live very short active lives on a geological timescale, 100,000's to millions of years, but Jupiter's gravity well is quite hungry and continually replenishes the supply when comets wander its way from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud. Some of these visitors get a rought welcome; we recently saw a comet calve into dozens of pieces as it swung in too close to Jupiter. Caught in orbit around Jupiter, these pieces, the largest c. 10 km diameter, are projected to collide with the gas giant (on the far side, alas) in 1994[7]."

Longer than 12,000 years, they come from the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud, no problem for an old universe.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:51 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Total nonsense.  There are many theories with actual evidence on how the Big Bang occurred, none of them mention creation and none of them violate the 2LOT.  It looks like your understanding of thermodynamics is about as good as your understanding of evolution (in other words, you don't know what you're talking about).

Explain the best of these theories and how they do not violate the second law.


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:04 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, simple organisms most certainly do evolve, what are you talking about, where did you support the claim that they don't?

Whoa calm down there i was talking about mammals not simple organisms. I didnt  know you wanted to get technical.

Sure, but why can't they evolve?  And you didn't acknowledge the fact that you didn't understand how evolution works.  If you don't understand a simple concept like single organisms don't evolve, populations do, what good is it to into more detail about the evolution of sexual reproduction.  
Your claim that sexual reproduction could not evolve because of the impossiblity of a male and female orgamism evolving at the same time was incredibly incorrect.  Evolution can certainly explain how sexual reproduction can arise, since you're the one claiming it can't happen, it's up to you to provide evidence to support your claim.  You haven't and can't do this.  If you want to learn how it evolved, do your own research if you have the guts and integrity.  Otherwise, you have failed to support your conclusion that sexual reproduction could not have evolved.


Seems like your having a tough time supporting the evolution of sexual organisms. There are many factors involved in sexual reproduction from egg and sperm being able to successfully combine their genetic material to the organisms actually being able to produce these gametes. How could an organism be able to produce a gamete and another organism of the same species be able to produce another gamete to fertilize it if asexual reproduction was their normal mode of reproduction? The ability of the organism to produce offspring would be destroyed before they were able to successfully produce gametes that would be capable of fertilizing each other and growing into a new organism with DNA from both parents.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:11 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't understand the objection, why can't comets have 20 times the heavy hydrogen and why can't they come from the Oort cloud?

Why would the Oort cloud have such a high concentration of heavy hydrogen when interstellar space has so much less? The Oort cloud should have almost the same concentration of heavy hydrogen if it formed how you said.

"The best currently known targets for volatile extraction are the Jupiter-family comets. These have been tossed into the inner solar system by Jupiter, into highly elliptical orbits, with perihelions as low as Mercury's orbit (0.4 AU) and aphelions near Jupiter's. Influenced by the inner planets, the orbits slowly circularize. Most of the perihelions are near 1 AU, although to some extent that's observational selection; we're less likely to see objects with perihelions at 2 AU, and ice there sublimates much more slowly.

The comets live very short active lives on a geological timescale, 100,000's to millions of years, but Jupiter's gravity well is quite hungry and continually replenishes the supply when comets wander its way from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud. Some of these visitors get a rought welcome; we recently saw a comet calve into dozens of pieces as it swung in too close to Jupiter. Caught in orbit around Jupiter, these pieces, the largest c. 10 km diameter, are projected to collide with the gas giant (on the far side, alas) in 1994[7]."


This shows no reason why they determine the lifespan of the comets is predicted as so long.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:17 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Explain the best of these theories and how they do not violate the second law.

You're the one claiming modern astronomy and physics are wrong, you explain to us how they violate the 2LOT and then I'll respond.  You made the claim, you support it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:25 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 10:04 PM on July 25, 2009 :
Explain the best of these theories and how they do not violate the second law.


I specifically want creationists to positively support creation, not show how bad evolution is. In the scientific world just falsifying evolution doesn't support creationism, you have to show how creationism is positively supported by the evidence or it is no better than any theory you shoot down.

In any case here is another creation/evolution debate forum where the person shows how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't contradict evolution. It is a two part post and long. I have only skimmed parts of it and if you read and understand all of it you will know more than me.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2558054/


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:28 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What evidence?  Give me a reference for the deuterium concentration of X20.  I don't believe it.

Here you go:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...229..923L
For interstellar space-
"a D/H ratio of 0.000014."
For comets-
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Deuterium
"with a natural abundance in the oceans of Earth of approximately one atom in 6500 of hydrogen" which is .0001538
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-do-we-know-about-the
"We know this because the ice in the comets contains twice as many atoms of deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen) to each atom of ordinary hydrogen as we find in seawater."
Two times .0001538 is .000307 for comets which means comets have .000307/.000014=21.928 times the amount of heavy hydrogen as interstellar space.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:31 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 10:11 PM on July 25, 2009 :
Seems like your having a tough time supporting the evolution of sexual organisms. There are many factors involved in sexual reproduction...


Are you saying that sexual reproduction is an irreducibly complex system and therefore couldn't have evolved? Just be aware that Behe said under oath that no irreducibly complex system that couldn't have evolved has ever been found.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:35 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you saying that sexual reproduction is an irreducibly complex system and therefore couldn't have evolved? Just be aware that Behe said under oath that no irreducibly complex system that couldn't have evolved has ever been found.

You believe everything Behe says?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:38 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whoa calm down there i was talking about mammals not simple organisms. I didnt  know you wanted to get technical.

It's a fact, mammals evolved in the past and continue to evolve today.

Seems like your having a tough time supporting the evolution of sexual
organisms.


I didn't even try, the evolution of sexual reproduction is established.  You're the one who claimed it was impossible based on a faulty understanding of evolution, which I showed was wrong.  When you present another claim I'll respond to it.  That's how debates work, you presented a claim, I refuted it, you failed to defend your original claim which means you admit that it was incorrect.  

How could an organism be able to produce a gamete and another organism of the same species be able to produce another gamete to fertilize it if asexual reproduction was their normal mode of reproduction?

Because sexual reproduction has many advantages over asexual reproduction.  Greater amount of diversity, so they can evolve more quickly.  From here:
Sex

"It seems that a sexual cycle is maintained because it improves the quality of progeny (fitness), despite reducing the overall number of offspring (the two-fold cost of sex). In order for sex to be evolutionarily advantageous, it must be associated with a significant increase in the fitness of offspring. One of the most widely accepted explanations for the advantage of sex lies in the creation of genetic variation. Another explanation is based on two molecular advantages. First is the advantage of recombinational DNA repair (promoted during meiosis because homologous chromosomes pair at that time), and second is the advantage of complementation (also known as hybrid vigor, heterosis or masking of mutations).

For the advantage due to creation of genetic variation, there are three possible reasons this might happen. First, sexual reproduction can bring together mutations that are beneficial into the same individual (sex aids in the spread of advantageous traits). Second, sex acts to bring together currently deleterious mutations to create severely unfit individuals that are then eliminated from the population (sex aids in the removal of deleterious genes). Last, sex creates new gene combinations that may be more fit than previously existing ones, or may simply lead to reduced competition among relatives."

So we see why sex is more advantageous than asexual reproduction.

The ability of the organism to produce offspring would be destroyed before they were able to successfully produce gametes that would be capable of fertilizing each other and growing into a new organism with DNA from both parents.

That doesn't make sense because the population of organisms would all be able to make gametes and fertilize each other.  And many organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually, so we see intermediates between totally asexual reproduction and sexual reporduction.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:47 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did i ever say sexual reproduction doesnt have advantages over asexual reproduction?

And yes we see organisms which can reproduce sexually and asexually, but we see no logical way for the ability to sexually reproduce to evolve. What kind of mutation would move an asexually reproducing organism closer to sexual reproduction and also be advantageous so natural selection would choose this organism over its rivals? Evolution from asexual organism to sexual organism will not happen in a single mutations it would take thousands of perfect mutations. Many of these mutations would destroy the organisms ability to reproduce even asexually, and thus destroy the organism. Sexual reproduction is only advantageous in its final form, not in the forms it would have to take along the way if it evolved.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:57 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 10:38 PM on July 25, 2009 :
You believe everything Behe says?


Quite the contrary, just saying that you're saying that sexual reproduction couldn't have evolved because it is irreducibly complex. In addition the most qualified biologist to speak on the subject, being Behe, said under oath that there were no IC systems yet discovered. When the champion of ID says there's no IC, I don't know why people are still trying to say that IC exists.




-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:34 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would the Oort cloud have such a high concentration of heavy hydrogen when interstellar space has so much less?

Why do you say the Oort cloud has a high concentration of heavy hydrogen?  We've looked at the chemical composition of what, 2 coments?  And I still don't understand how comets having a higher concentration of deuterium than interstellar space supports a young universe.

This shows no reason why they determine the lifespan of the comets is predicted as so long.

It shows that they come from the Kuiper belt or Oort cloud and that they are NOT 12,000 old, as you claim.
As to how we know how old a comet is, well, we examine and analyze them, from here:
Age of comets

"Within this cloud of comet matter, astronomers have found two kinds of dust grains; grains with their molecules stuck together every which way, called amorphous, and grains with molecules that have an orderly, crystalline structure. The two types of dust emit light of various colors at different intensities, allowing astronomers to distinguish between them. Giant molecular clouds, like the one that collapsed to form the solar nebula, contain only amorphous dust. Crystalline grains must have formed in the solar nebula.

The researchers believe the dust grains changed from amorphous to crystalline as they were heated by the forming Sun. The research, to be published in the July 20 issue of Nature, indicates that comets with mostly amorphous dust are ancient because they formed early in the solar nebula's evolution, before the nascent Sun had time to heat and distribute very much crystalline dust. Comets with a large proportion of crystalline dust formed later as the nebula evolved and crystalline grains became more common."

So we can get a pretty good aproximation of how old comets are, and they don't support a young universe.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:36 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And yes we see organisms which can reproduce sexually and asexually, but we see no logical way for the ability to sexually reproduce to evolve.

Yes we do, mutation and natural selection.

What kind of mutation would move an asexually reproducing organism closer to sexual reproduction and also be advantageous so natural selection would choose this organism over its rivals?

One that allowed it to reproduce both sexually and asexually, which is what we see in nature,
from here:
Sex/Asex

"Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions. For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases. Many protists and fungi alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction. For example, the slime mold Dictyostelium undergoes binary fission as single-celled amoebae under favorable conditions. However, when conditions turn unfavorable, the cells aggregate and switch to sexual reproduction leading to the formation of spores. The hyphae of the common mold (Rhizopus) are capable of producing both mitotic as well as meiotic spores. Many algae similarly switch between sexual and asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is far less complicated than sexual reproduction. In sexual reproduction one must find a mate."

So we see all the steps needed to go from completely asexual reproduction to completely sexual reproduction.  We know that sexual reproduction offers advantages.  Where's the specific problem?

Evolution from asexual organism to sexual organism will not happen in a single mutations it would take thousands of perfect
mutations.


Perfect mutation?  Evolution doesn't deal in perfection.  And it wouldn't take thousands because we all ready see asexual organisms that exchange genetic material without creating gametes.  Small steps is all it takes, and we see those small steps already, in nature.

Many of these mutations would destroy the organisms ability to reproduce even asexually, and thus destroy the organism.

Right, so the mutations that wouldn't allow an organism to reproduce sexually or asexually would soon be gotten rid of by natural selection, leaving only the mutations that allowed the organisms to reproduce more successfully.  No problem here, this is basic evolution.

Sexual reproduction is only advantageous in its final form, not in the forms it would have to take along the way if it evolved.

Wrong, it's advantageous in every step of the way, from simple exchange of genetic material to the creation of gametes.  Every little step would provide some advantage from the previous form.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:47 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do you say the Oort cloud has a high concentration of heavy hydrogen?  We've looked at the chemical composition of what, 2 coments?  And I still don't understand how comets having a higher concentration of deuterium than interstellar space supports a young universe.

Every comet we've looked at has a very high concentration of heavy hydrogen. Since the concentration is so much different than that of interstellar space, it implies the comets did not originate in space. This means they originated from the earth, where there is a much higher deuterium concentration, and this invalidates the Oort cloud theory.

"Within this cloud of comet matter, astronomers have found two kinds of dust grains; grains with their molecules stuck together every which way, called amorphous, and grains with molecules that have an orderly, crystalline structure. The two types of dust emit light of various colors at different intensities, allowing astronomers to distinguish between them. Giant molecular clouds, like the one that collapsed to form the solar nebula, contain only amorphous dust. Crystalline grains must have formed in the solar nebula.

The researchers believe the dust grains changed from amorphous to crystalline as they were heated by the forming Sun. The research, to be published in the July 20 issue of Nature, indicates that comets with mostly amorphous dust are ancient because they formed early in the solar nebula's evolution, before the nascent Sun had time to heat and distribute very much crystalline dust. Comets with a large proportion of crystalline dust formed later as the nebula evolved and crystalline grains became more common."


None of this is proven and is merely speculation.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:28 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you get from exchanging genetic information in simple organisms to the complexity and specificity of the mammalian reproductive system? There are no intermediates found. Exchanging DNA in unicellular organisms is much different than sexual reproduction in complex organisms. A complete reproductive system would not be able to evolve because the male and female reproductive systems would need to evolve together and still be functional at every point along the way. This would not happen. First, why should there be male and female? wouldnt it be more advantageous to have one sex which can reproduce with any other member of the species? This is just the first problem in the evolution of sexual reproduction. Once the male and female sex became differentiated from each other for some reason as would be required by evolution, they would have to remain compatible through their evolution from merely the exchange of DNA to the complex mammalian reproductive system. This is an impossibility.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:39 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Every comet we've looked at has a very high concentration of heavy hydrogen. Since the concentration is so much different than that of interstellar space, it implies the comets did not originate in space. This means they originated from the earth, where there is a much higher deuterium concentration, and this invalidates the Oort cloud theory.

How does it imply comets originated on earth?  Deuterium concentrations in the oceans of earth are much lower than those of comets, so this would directly refute your claim.
From here:
Comets/Oceans

""The composition of the ocean offers some clues as to its origin. If all the comets contain the same kind of water ice that we have examined in Comets Halley and Hyakutake--the only ones whose water molecules we've been able to study in detail-- then comets cannot have delivered all the water in the earth's oceans. We know this because the ice in the comets contains twice as many atoms of deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen) to each atom of ordinary hydrogen as we find in seawater."

So this refutes your claim, the water in comets is different from the water on earth, comets could not have come from the earth.

None of this is proven and is merely speculation.

Speculation??  What's your explaination for the 2 different kinds of dust grains found in comets?  Please be specific.  This isn't speculation it's a conclusion based on facts.  And of course you reject it out of hand, without even examining the evidence because it destroys your fairytale.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:50 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you get from exchanging genetic information in simple organisms to the complexity and specificity of the mammalian reproductive system? There are no intermediates found.

yes there are!  And I showed them to you.  Why do you keep ignoring the evidence?  We have asexual organisms, asexual organisms that exchange genetic material, organisms that reproduce both asexually and sexually, then organisms that reproduce completely sexually.  It's a progression that clearly supports sexual reproduction evolving.  You're the one who hasn't been able to prove that sexual reproduction is impossible, which was your original claim.  You've failed miserably at every turn.

Exchanging DNA in unicellular organisms is much different than sexual reproduction in complex organisms.

And yet, we see organisms that reproduce both asexually and sexually, those 2 different methods of reproduction are utilized by the same organism.  So if an organism can do both, where's the problem?

A complete reproductive system would not be able to evolve because the male and female reproductive systems would need to evolve together and still be functional at every point along the way.

Don't you pay attention or do you just ignore the evidence presented to you and continue to repeat invalid claims.  Organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually, the same organisms, they can do both.  Organisms can be both male and female at the same time and reproduce with others of their species, so both male and female reproductive systems DID evolve together, both in each member of a population.

This would not happen.

This DID happen because we still see organisms that reproduce this way.

First, why should there be male and female?

More efficient, better genetic diversity, with meosis different mutations can now be combined on the same genes.  

wouldnt it be more advantageous to have one sex which can reproduce with any other member of the species?

In what environment?  Evolution doesn't work in a vacum, what's more advantageous depends on the environment.

This is just the first problem in the evolution of sexual reproduction.

No problem here, just your misunderstanding of evolution and biology.

Once the male and female sex became differentiated from each other for some reason as would be required by evolution, they would have to remain compatible through their evolution from merely the exchange of DNA to the complex mammalian reproductive system. This is an impossibility.

Nonsense, any mutations that made them incompatible would quickly be eliminated by natural selection, leaving only those that could mate.  Once again, basic evolution that you obviously don't understand.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:03 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The oceans high concentrations of heavy hydrogen are high because the heavy hydrogen is from the same source as the comets. Before the flood there was an underground layer of water below the crust, which had a very high concentration of heavy hydrogen. When the crust cracked at the time of the flood, the chamber waters were released, some particles making it into outer space, the ones passing near the sun forming crystalline comets and the ones moving away from the sun forming amorphous comets. This release of underground water also significantly increased earth's oceans content of heavy hydrogen.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:03 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 9:57 PM on July 25, 2009 :
Did i ever say sexual reproduction doesnt have advantages over asexual reproduction?

And yes we see organisms which can reproduce sexually and asexually, but we see no logical way for the ability to sexually reproduce to evolve. What kind of mutation would move an asexually reproducing organism closer to sexual reproduction and also be advantageous so natural selection would choose this organism over its rivals? Evolution from asexual organism to sexual organism will not happen in a single mutations it would take thousands of perfect mutations.


First, I see the creationist posters still can't provide any scientific evidence for creation.  It appears you guys are running on empty.  

As for the above statement, it has been shown that in a species of fungi that a single mutation led to the production of two versions of a gene, and only those individuals with different versions of that gene will mate to reproduce sexually.  

Hence, we can see that the beginning of sexual reproduction could have arisen via a single mutation.  Given that we all agree, evidently, that sexual reproduction offers advantages over asexual reproduction, then it's clear that evolution in favor of sexual reproduction would occur.



(Edited by Mustrum 7/26/2009 at 01:18 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 01:16 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nonsense, any mutations that made them incompatible would quickly be eliminated by natural selection, leaving only those that could mate.  Once again, basic evolution that you obviously don't understand.

It seems that you dont understand the specificity of mammalian reproductive systems. The reproductive systems would never advance beyond their most basic form because, as you said, and mutations that made them incompatible would be eliminated by natural selection. The only way to advance in complexity would be for the male and female reproductive systems to make complimentary advancements at some point in time. Taking into account the HIGHLY unlikely occurence of a beneficial mutation, this would statistically never happen.



 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:41 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In what environment?  Evolution doesn't work in a vacum, what's more advantageous depends on the environment.

Explain in what environment having a male and female variation of a species, and in essence half the mating possibilities, would be more advantageous than a single sex which was able to mate with others of the same sex.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:56 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The oceans high concentrations of heavy hydrogen are high because the heavy hydrogen is from the same source as the comets.

But the ocean's concentration of heavy hydrogen is LOWER than that of comets, so you point is invalidated.  From my post above:

"We know this because the ice in the comets contains twice as many atoms of deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen) to each atom of ordinary hydrogen as we find in seawater." "

So the ocean's concentration of deuterium is NOT the same as those of comets.

Before the flood

There was no world wide flood, already been disproven.

there was an underground layer of water below the crust

Impossible, how could a layer of water support the crust?  Rock sinks in water!

When the crust cracked at the time of the flood, the chamber waters were released, some particles making it into outer space, the ones passing near the sun forming crystalline comets and the ones moving away from the sun forming amorphous comets.

Ha hahaha!  You can't be serious?!?!  This has no basis in reality!  Claims like this are just plain nuts.  Really no use in debating you now, you're just too delusional.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:24 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems that you dont understand the specificity of mammalian reproductive
systems.


Sure I do, they evolved from reptilian reproductive systems.

The reproductive systems would never advance beyond their most basic form because, as you said, and mutations that made them incompatible would be eliminated by natural selection.

But it's the population that's evolving, not just one or two individuals.  Once sexual reproduction was established, small beneficial changes could occur that would NOT make reproduction impossible and would continue to accumulate while the harmful mutations would be eliminated.  Do you understand that sexual reproduction evolved long before mammals?  That male and female sexes where established while organisms could still reproduce both sexually and asexually?  Do you even understand that populations evolve, not individuals, so it would be an entire population that aquired these mutations.  There would be no barrier to sexual reproduction evolving.

The only way to advance in complexity would be for the male and female reproductive systems to make complimentary advancements at some point in time.

Why?  I don't see this at all.  A mutation that increased sperm production in a male would NOT need a complimentry advancement in a female.  In fact, give us an example of a beneficial change that would absolutely require a simultaneous beneficial change in the other sex....

Taking into account the HIGHLY unlikely occurence of a beneficial mutation, this would statistically never happen.

First of all, your basic premise is wrong and second of all, you admit that beneficial mutations occur.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:33 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great point about reproduction Jango, you've got Demon 38 really talking nonsense now. Pretty inexplicable this sexual reproduction thing in the light of 'evolution' -amazingly weird in fact. Even weirder than turning hippos into whales by random changes over millions of years. Ha! Ha!

As for the point about beneficial mutations - talk about changing the subject.


-------
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: 04:04 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great point about reproduction Jango, you've got Demon 38 really talking nonsense now.

What point is that.  jango doesn't understand biology or evolution.

Pretty inexplicable this sexual reproduction thing in the light of 'evolution' -amazingly weird in fact.

Not at all.  Do some research and stop believing in fairytales.

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles."  
[Dr. James D. Watson, winner of the Nobel prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA]


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:01 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

jango doesn't understand biology or evolution.


Seems to me he has a clearer picture of the possibilities than you do however. Education has apparently minced your brain. Tall stories of how things happened need a little logic installed along with scientific principles that can be demonstrated otherwise they remain tall stories.
It's funny to me how evolutionists are constantly calling creationists out on lies when everytime they open their mouths to discuss how this thing turned into that, they are lying apparently without even noticing.

Do some research and stop believing in fairytales.


How do you research once off past events? How do we repeat and observe these events?
We can only settle for the most likely storyaccording to the evidence, but evolutionists only have one story to choose from and they keep building on it so that it looks more and more silly.

Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority


Science has accepted wrong things often before, they're doing it again. As for fundamentalist minority, it seems according to poll results that it's not just fundamentalist Christians that believe God was responsible for life but a significant majority of people in general. The 'scientists' (not all) have become the fundamentalist minority fighting to protect their religion in the face of the facts that don't support their worldview.

whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles."  


Seems to me scientific facts have more to do with it than anything religious. You comfort yourself in vain.

 




-------
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: 08:06 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 02:33 AM on July 26, 2009 :


The reproductive systems would never advance beyond their most basic form because, as you said, and mutations that made them incompatible would be eliminated by natural selection.

But it's the population that's evolving, not just one or two individuals.  Once sexual reproduction was established, small beneficial changes could occur that would NOT make reproduction impossible and would continue to accumulate while the harmful mutations would be eliminated.  Do you understand that sexual reproduction evolved long before mammals?  That male and female sexes where established while organisms could still reproduce both sexually and asexually?  Do you even understand that populations evolve, not individuals, so it would be an entire population that aquired these mutations.  There would be no barrier to sexual reproduction evolving.

The only way to advance in complexity would be for the male and female reproductive systems to make complimentary advancements at some point in time.

Why?  I don't see this at all.  A mutation that increased sperm production in a male would NOT need a complimentry advancement in a female.  In fact, give us an example of a beneficial change that would absolutely require a simultaneous beneficial change in the other sex....

Taking into account the HIGHLY unlikely occurence of a beneficial mutation, this would statistically never happen.

First of all, your basic premise is wrong and second of all, you admit that beneficial mutations occur.


AS I pointed out in a previous post, we do have examples where a single mutation essentially creates two different genders in an organism.  As Demon stated, once that happens, then additional genetic changes and natural selection will account for the rest.

I would also emphasize Demon's statement that sexual reproduction occurred long before mammals.  It is the dominant form of reproduction among life on Earth.  To insist that sexual reproduction had to evolve separately for mammals is silly.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:54 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:06 AM on July 26, 2009 :
jango doesn't understand biology or evolution.


Seems to me he has a clearer picture of the possibilities than you do however.



No, what Jango is arguing is nonsense. What Jango appears to be doing is attempting to apply a simplistic and inappropriate model of evolution to the problem of sexual reproduction as exemplified by his (?) apparent insistence on mammals having to evolve sex separately from the rest of all organisms on Earth.


I still note that the creationists can't seem to find any valid, scientific evidence to support their view.  All you guys do is take pot shots at science, but you seem to have nothing positive to put forward.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:00 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 01:03 AM on July 26, 2009 :
The oceans high concentrations of heavy hydrogen are high because the heavy hydrogen is from the same source as the comets. Before the flood there was an underground layer of water below the crust, which had a very high concentration of heavy hydrogen. When the crust cracked at the time of the flood, the chamber waters were released, some particles making it into outer space, the ones passing near the sun forming crystalline comets and the ones moving away from the sun forming amorphous comets. This release of underground water also significantly increased earth's oceans content of heavy hydrogen.


This... just doesn't make any sense. As Demon pointed out rock is more dense than water, even heavy water. Not to mention if any water was under the surface it would be under so much pressure and heat from the mantel I doubt it would stay in liquid form for very long.

Putting all that aside and saying that there was heavy water under the surface that came up in a world wide flood, how do you explain how heavy hydrogen got to the escape velocity necessary to escape the atmosphere, and how all the comets magically were in the right place at the right time to pick up the heavy hydrogen. Or did the rocks come from Earth as well, which will give you even more problems.

As Mustrum so readily addressed, you (creationists) have yet to make one positive claim that hasn't been debunked that supports creation.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 2:06 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the ocean's concentration of heavy hydrogen is LOWER than that of comets, so you point is invalidated.  From my post above:

"We know this because the ice in the comets contains twice as many atoms of deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen) to each atom of ordinary hydrogen as we find in seawater." "

So the ocean's concentration of deuterium is NOT the same as those of comets.


Yes the oceans concentrations are not the same because the water in the subterranean chamber had the same deuterium concentration as comets. When this water mixed with the current water on earth, you get the content of the oceans. Think logically about how it would work.

There was no world wide flood, already been disproven.

How was the flood disproven?

Impossible, how could a layer of water support the crust?  Rock sinks in water!

The crust was not floating on the water, but the water was trapped under the crust. Rock that is about 5 miles high exerts such great pressure on the rock below it that no cracks can open up. The water had no way to escape. Plus there were columns that would help support the crust.

Ha hahaha!  You can't be serious?!?!  This has no basis in reality!  Claims like this are just plain nuts.  Really no use in debating you now, you're just too delusional.

No basis in reality? What about oceanic trenches, high concentration of deuterium in comets (which has been proven, and you have shown no alternate way for this to happen), major mountain ranges, frozen mammoths, and many other features we see today that are not adequately explained by modern science.

(Edited by jango 7/26/2009 at 3:59 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 3:55 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This... just doesn't make any sense. As Demon pointed out rock is more dense than water, even heavy water. Not to mention if any water was under the surface it would be under so much pressure and heat from the mantel I doubt it would stay in liquid form for very long.

Putting all that aside and saying that there was heavy water under the surface that came up in a world wide flood, how do you explain how heavy hydrogen got to the escape velocity necessary to escape the atmosphere, and how all the comets magically were in the right place at the right time to pick up the heavy hydrogen. Or did the rocks come from Earth as well, which will give you even more problems.


You answered your own question. The great pressure from the crust on the water caused it, when the crust was fractured along the oceanic ridge, to blast out of the chamber, eroding the edges of the crack and pushing the water and these pieces of rock out, some at escape velocity. Comets are composed of this water and rock, brought together by their weak gravity in space. This is why comets have such low density, the wead gravity of the particles brought them together. The crusts weight, along with other factors, provided the thrust needed to attain escape velocity.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:04 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But it's the population that's evolving, not just one or two individuals.  Once sexual reproduction was established, small beneficial changes could occur that would NOT make reproduction impossible and would continue to accumulate while the harmful mutations would be eliminated.  Do you understand that sexual reproduction evolved long before mammals?  That male and female sexes where established while organisms could still reproduce both sexually and asexually?  Do you even understand that populations evolve, not individuals, so it would be an entire population that aquired these mutations.  There would be no barrier to sexual reproduction evolving.

Yes populations evolve, but one member of the population is mutated, they do not become mutated at the same time. So this individual is the first to evolve of the population correct?

Why?  I don't see this at all.  A mutation that increased sperm production in a male would NOT need a complimentry advancement in a female.  In fact, give us an example of a beneficial change that would absolutely require a simultaneous beneficial change in the other sex....

Easy. The coating of the human egg which requires the acrosome of the sperm for fertilization to occur. The female mutates to form the coating, but the sperm doesnt have the acrosome. No fertilization occurs. The mutation you suggested, an increase in sperm production, will not change the physiology of the reproductive system. This is not the kind of mutations we are talking about.

(Edited by jango 7/26/2009 at 4:15 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:10 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes the oceans concentrations are not the same because the water in the subterranean chamber had the same deuterium concentration as comets. When this water mixed with the current water on earth, you get the content of the oceans. Think logically about how it would work.

Water could not be under the surface of the earth, not only do we have no evidence of it but rcok is heavier than water so it's impossible.  Where did this water with a high concetration of heavy hydorgen come from?  

How was the flood disproven?

Numerous ways.  by the 19th century geolgoists realized by observing the earth that a world wide flood could not possibly have happened.  Since then we have only found more evidence to falsify it.  Evidence for modern humans goes back about 150,000 years with no evidence of a flood killing everyone off but 8 people.  We've found too many geologic features that falsify a world wide flood and there's just not enough water on the planet.  No, we've known there wasn't a world wide flood for 200 years.

The crust was not floating on the water, but the water was trapped under the crust. Rock that is about 5 miles high exerts such great pressure on the rock below it that no cracks can open up. The water had no way to escape. Plus there were columns that would help support the crust.

Where is the evidence for this undergroung water?  Any water trapped under the crust of the earth would be converted to steam due to the great heat.  It's just impossible that this claim is true.

No basis in reality?

Yes, no basis in reality.

What about oceanic trenches,

What about them?  They are accounted for by plate tectonics and have nothing to do with underground water, from here:
Oceanic trenches

"Trenches are a spectacular and distinctive morphological feature of plate boundaries. Plates move together along convergent plate boundaries at convergence rates that vary from a few millimeters to ten or more centimeters per year. A trench marks the position at which the flexed, subducting slab begins to descend beneath another lithospheric slab."

high concentration of deuterium in comets (which has been proven, and you have shown no alternate way for this to happen)

Many alternate ways they could have happened.  but we should note that you claim that even though comet composition is nothing like the water on earth, you claim they did come from earth and present a crazy, impossible idea to explain it.  No, you haven't proven anything either and specificlly you didn't explain how all that deutirium got under the earth's surface.  Evidence indicates that comets formed from accreations left over material from the formation of our solar system over 4.5 billion years ago.  Gravity would suffice to clump together concentrations of deutirium and form comets.

major mountain ranges

Mountain ranges are explained by plate tectonics, not your wild, impossible claim.

frozen mammoths

Frozen mammoths?  they are best explained by evolution and fossilization.  Don't see how they support water under the crust or deuterium coming from the earth.

many other features we see today that are not adequately explained by modern
science.


While science doesn't know everything, none of the things you posted remotely support your hairbrained claims.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:56 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You answered your own question. The great pressure from the crust on the water caused it, when the crust was fractured along the oceanic ridge, to blast out of the chamber, eroding the edges of the crack and pushing the water and these pieces of rock out, some at escape velocity.

Impossible, where is the evidence?  How does your claim account for some comets with crytalline silicates and some with amorphous dust grains?




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:06 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes populations evolve, but one member of the population is mutated, they do not become mutated at the same time. So this individual is the first to evolve of the population correct?

Yes, but then the mutation, it it wasn't harmful would have to be passed on to the entire population through reproduction and natural selection.  Since it is passed on, it would not prevent reproduction.

Easy. The coating of the human egg which requires the acrosome of the sperm for fertilization to occur. The female mutates to form the coating, but the sperm doesnt have the acrosome. No fertilization occurs.

So the female that developes this mutation dies off without reproducing, the mutation is elliminated from the gene pool of the population.  Natural selection weeds out harmful mutations and keeps the beneficial ones.  The mutation you describe would be harmful and quickly elliminated.  That's how evolutin works.

The mutation you suggested, an increase in sperm production, will not change the physiology of the reproductive system. This is not the kind of mutations we are talking
about.


Any mutation that changes the physiology of the reproductive system so much that an organism can't mate is elliminated.  So the mutations we do see that happened in the past and were passed on obviously didn't prevent reproduction.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:16 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Water could not be under the surface of the earth, not only do we have no evidence of it but rcok is heavier than water so it's impossible.  Where did this water with a high concetration of heavy hydorgen come from?

I explained already how the water was kept under the rock, if you did not see it look at my earlier posts. The earth was created with this water of high deuterium concentration under the crust.

Numerous ways.  by the 19th century geolgoists realized by observing the earth that a world wide flood could not possibly have happened.  Since then we have only found more evidence to falsify it.  Evidence for modern humans goes back about 150,000 years with no evidence of a flood killing everyone off but 8 people.  We've found too many geologic features that falsify a world wide flood and there's just not enough water on the planet.  No, we've known there wasn't a world wide flood for 200 years.

Numerous ways? such as...
And evidence for humans that goes back 150,000 years? is this evidence based on carbon dating which is inaccurate since it assumes the amount of Carbon 13 in the atmosphere is the same as it is today which is very likely to be false?

Where is the evidence for this undergroung water?  Any water trapped under the crust of the earth would be converted to steam due to the great heat.  It's just impossible that this claim is true.

Magma was formed after the flood by the sliding of the hydroplates and the friction this produced. The earth was not as hot then as it is now. The water would not turn to steam.

What about them?  They are accounted for by plate tectonics and have nothing to do with underground water, from here:
Oceanic trenches

"Trenches are a spectacular and distinctive morphological feature of plate boundaries. Plates move together along convergent plate boundaries at convergence rates that vary from a few millimeters to ten or more centimeters per year. A trench marks the position at which the flexed, subducting slab begins to descend beneath another lithospheric slab."


Here's a little something for you on why subduction is impossible:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches5.html#wp4480432

Many alternate ways they could have happened.  but we should note that you claim that even though comet composition is nothing like the water on earth, you claim they did come from earth and present a crazy, impossible idea to explain it.  No, you haven't proven anything either and specificlly you didn't explain how all that deutirium got under the earth's surface.  Evidence indicates that comets formed from accreations left over material from the formation of our solar system over 4.5 billion years ago.  Gravity would suffice to clump together concentrations of deutirium and form comets.

Many alternate ways? like what? why so much deuterium? and i already explained why the oceans do not match the composition of comets.

Mountain ranges are explained by plate tectonics, not your wild, impossible claim.

My link shows why subduction, a key part of plate tectonics, does not occur.

Frozen mammoths?  they are best explained by evolution and fossilization.  Don't see how they support water under the crust or deuterium coming from the earth.

But they do. Some mammoths we have found have food in their stomachs that is not digested. For this to have occured the mammoths would have to be incased in ice of a very low temperature, rapidly. This happened when water from the underground chamber reached high into the atmosphere, then froze because of the extreme cold temperatures. It fell back to earth and buried the mammoths. This is the only way they could have been frozen that fast that their residual body heat would not be sufficient to complete the breakdown of their food.

While science doesn't know everything, none of the things you posted remotely support your hairbrained claims.

I believe i have established that  they do.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:06 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Impossible, where is the evidence?  How does your claim account for some comets with crytalline silicates and some with amorphous dust grains?

I believe i also already answered this. The comets that were expelled from the earth facing the sun formed crystalline comets, while the water and rock expelled from the other side formed amorphous comets.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:08 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So the female that developes this mutation dies off without reproducing, the mutation is elliminated from the gene pool of the population.  Natural selection weeds out harmful mutations and keeps the beneficial ones.  The mutation you describe would be harmful and quickly elliminated.  That's how evolutin works.

You prove my point. This should have been eliminated but this is an actual feature we see in human eggs. How did it evolve? You say yourself it should have been eliminated from the gene pool.

Any mutation that changes the physiology of the reproductive system so much that an organism can't mate is elliminated.  So the mutations we do see that happened in the past and were passed on obviously didn't prevent reproduction.

Explain the coating of human eggs.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:11 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Explain the coating of human eggs.


Logic fail. To rehash the point:


Any mutation that changes the physiology of the reproductive system so much that an organism can't mate is elliminated.  So the mutations we do see that happened in the past and were passed on obviously didn't prevent reproduction.


I'd like to tack on an additional fact: Mutations that are harmful may well pop up, but if they are so harmful that they cause 100% of all organisms with the mutation to be unable to reproduce, then there is no conceivable way for the mutation to be carried through multiple generations. In other words, the mutation itself would have to be new and could not have been something that was always present, unchanging, in the population's gene pool.








(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/26/2009 at 9:44 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:33 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I explained already how the water was kept under the rock, if you did not see it look at my earlier posts. The earth was created with this water of high deuterium concentration under the crust.

Your expaination fails because it is not physically possible for water to be under the crust of the earth, too hot for one thing.  And you could provide no evidence to support this claim.  As for deuterium, no, it is present in the universe, not just in water on earth, so it is obvious that comets that contain a high concentration of deuterium and are older than the earth did not acaquire this from earth water.  Deuterium is evidence for an old universe.

Numerous ways? such as...

Too many to mention.  Pick what you think is evidence for a world wide flood and I'll show you where you're wrong.

And evidence for humans that goes back 150,000 years?

Yes.  And it shows no signs of a genetic bottleneck which would be evident if the entire population descended from 8 people 6,000 years ago.

is this evidence based on carbon dating which is inaccurate since it assumes the amount of Carbon 13 in the atmosphere is the same as it is today which is very likely to be false?

Since carbon dating is only good going back about 50,000 years, no it's not.  And of course the experts are well aware of the limitations of carbon dating so when it is applied they can compensate for them, so carbon dating is extremely accurate when used properly.

Magma was formed after the flood by the sliding of the hydroplates and the friction this produced.

No, magama has been around a lot longer than that.  Magma is not produced by plates sliding around, this is another mistake.  From here:
Magma

"Magma, molten or partially molten rock beneath the earth’s surface. Magma is generated when rock deep underground melts due to the high temperatures and pressures inside the earth."

So let's add geology to the subjects you don't understand.

The earth was not as hot then as it is
now.


Yes it was.

Here's a little something for you on why subduction is impossible:

Sorry, I can't take your sights seriously because they don't do any real research and don't understand science.  they base their silly claims on wishful thinking and a fairytale.

let's look at one of their claims:

"If trenches have been on earth for hundreds of millions of years, many trenches should now be buried. Some should even have been lifted above sea level. Such ancient trenches have never been found. "

What an idiotic statement!  As my source plainly tells us, "A trench marks the position at which the flexed, subducting slab begins to descend beneath another lithospheric slab."

So no, they shouldn't have been filled in or lifted above the sea.  Now you see why I discount your incredibly bad sources.

i already explained why the oceans do not match the composition of comets.

With a crazy, unsupported fantasy.  That's not science, that's dark age superstition.

My link shows why subduction, a key part of plate tectonics, does not occur.

And your link is spectacularly wrong.

But they do.

No they don't.

Some mammoths we have found have food in their stomachs that is not digested. For this to have occured the mammoths would have to be incased in ice of a very low temperature, rapidly. This happened when water from the underground chamber reached high into the atmosphere, then froze because of the extreme cold temperatures.

No, many mammoths have been found mummified and ignorant laymen have claimed they were frozen very rapidly.  This is not the case.  Give us a specific example of a quick frozen mammoth and I'll prove you're wrong.  
As to undigested food, no problem for standard fossilization processes, it doesn't indicate a quick freeze, from here:
Mammoth

"There need not have been a "snap freeze" to explain the mammoth carcasses found intact. Mammoths, like today's elephants, have a different digestive system to what we're familiar with. Digestion is a slower process, and their stomach is more of a "holding area" than the acid-filled digestive organ of humans, and only about 40% of the food elephants consume actually gets digested (that seems rather inefficient, but they make up for it in volume). In very cold climates decomposition is far slower, and if the carcass ends up in a low-oxygen environment it can be remarkably well preserved (even without freezing - preserved mastodons have been found in non-frozen soil too). A deep snowfall could preserve a recently-deceased mammoth by cutting the body off from oxygen and halting decomposition, and gradually the snow gets compacted into ice."

So once again, no evidence to support your crazy claims.  Undigested food doesn't equal a quick freeze.

It fell back to earth and buried the mammoths. This is the only way they could have been frozen that fast that their residual body heat would not be sufficient to complete the breakdown of their food.

Simply wrong.

I believe i have established that  they
do.


As I've shown, your beliefs are incorrect.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:42 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
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.