[Wobble73]

Praytell, why bring up abiogenesis in a thread on evolution?

It's a thread about evolution versus CREATION, (abiogenesis?) The creation of life on this planet, don't you have to go back to the start of evolution?

[Mefustae]

But evolution starts when you already have life.

It's a common misconception, but the general theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the generation of life in one form or another. Bringing the scientific approach to abiogenesis into a debate of "Creationisn vs. Evolution" as you put it makes about as much sense as those creationist dullards going all the way back to the Big Bang when whinging about evolution.

If you're after an interesting read, I suggest you have a look at the contemporary theories regarding abiogenesis, as it's an intruiging topic to say the least. Of course, the subject is obviously somewhat more contested that evolution - an example of which being the Vatican's acceptance of evolution, but mild opposition to abiogensis - and of course less developed given its youth, but it's still a very informative subject.

Regarding your 'statement' earlier: it should be noted that, while you made it out that Evolution is attempting to 'disprove' Creationism and/or the existance of a deity, it's actually the other way around, in that Creationism is the school of thought trying to muscle a well-accepted idea out of its rut and force itself upon the minds of people.

[aldo_14]

Praytell, why bring up abiogenesis in a thread on evolution?

It's a thread about evolution versus CREATION, (abiogenesis?) The creation of life on this planet, don't you have to go back to the start of evolution?

No.  Evolution is the development of life, abiogensis is the formation of the first life.

[Shade]

Besides, we know perfectly well how the dirt got here, too. But again, that's out of biology and into astrophysics, and has nothing to do with the subject.

[Wobble73]

Well I thought it was a funny joke anyway, and I wasn't the one who brought up abiogenesis either. I'm routing for the evolutionaries on this one though! C'mon you EVOLUTIONARIES! Do you think that chant will catch on?? HMMM!

[NGTM-1R]

You see, I hate that joke, because it basically says God has to change the rules to win. The challenge wasn't to create your own dirt but to create life from pre-existing dirt; the origin of the dirt's irrevelant to the challenge.

I suppose you could make a parallel to the arguements out of that, but I'm busy right now.

[Black Wolf]

Anyways, back to life/atmosphere. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9745762&dopt=Abstract
(if anyone has access and can get the full report, please do )

http://isotope.colorado.edu/~astr5835/Cockell%201998.pdf

Always Google the title of these things once you've found an abstract. Often places like to charge for stuff that's been freely posted elsewhere. That said, unless you're pretty good on your micro-biuology and chemistry, there's not a lot there that isn't in the abstract (I'm having a hard time reading it and I'm supposed to be full bottle on this stuff). There is a good table on page 11 though which summarises a lot of the potential survival strategies pretty well.

Personally, I don't think UV radiation is such a problem for early life, since it probably couldn't have started on the surface. We have tenuous evidence for life as far back as 3.8 billion years and definite evidence from 3.5 billion years, when we know the earth was regularly being pummelled by huge meteorites large enough to wipe out most or all life on the surface. It's easier to imagine life starting under the earth or deep underwater and migrating up over and over again until it managed to get enough of a foothold that the (gradually less and less frequent) meteorite strikes didn't completely wipe it out and it could get properly started.

[m]

In fact, I'd like to follow Kara in asking for people to actually explain why they are right, rather than launch rather erroneous attacks upon a tried and tested scientific theory.

Indeed. I'll never understand why the hell these people suddenly think they've found a hole in one of the best-supported modern scientific theories, and that they've proven thousands upon thousands of scientists wrong and their own twisted beliefs right.

May I name a few scientists who disagree with you?

Antony Flew: Leading Atheist studied DNA for awhile and became a deist. http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

Dr. Raymond V. Damadian: Invented the MRI, despite everyone telling him it was impossible.

Dr. Wernher Von Braun: Need I say more?

[aldo_14]

Dr. Raymond V. Damadian; not a biologist (degree in Mathematics and MD in Medicine).  Also a young-earth creationist, and we know how wrong that is...right?

Antony Flew; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html  He also does not disagree with evolution, only abiogenesis; http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

also, from Flew (in the latter link); " I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."  (this quote also appeared after the article you linked)

He is also - again - a philosopher, not a biologist.  And one who admitted he 'certainly didn't' keep up with theological and scientific developments.

Dr. Wernher Von Braun; again, not a biologist but a (to paraphrase) rocket scientist.

Also worth noting the ages and consequential academic experience (teaching) of these people; born 1936, 1923, and 1912 respectively.  So none are actually qualified as biologists, and none have had a modern biological education as a consequence.

EDIT; I note that's not actually any sort of evidence or support.  It's just a 'these people have letters after their names, so i'll claim that validates me' type position.  Would you trust, say, Einstein to give you open heart surgery?

[m]

Anyway, I've only got a limited amount of time here; I will probably be back sometime next week.

You all jumped on me when I said "evolution" in reference to snowflakes.  I was able to predict that that would be a major issue.  I KNOW that it's not evolution; I just made a mistake; you (for the most part) missed my point entirely.  (Thanks to the few who actually responded.)  My point was that you see complexity in snowflakes.  And if they react to some sort of law that makes them that way, why are no two alike?  (other than the ones that split from each other)

BTW don't be so quick to flame jr2... I think he may have only been trying to explain things from my point of view (which you did rather well, jr2, thanks )

Anyway, personally I think that the whole "Earth is a closed system and entropy doesn't apply" thing is a bunch of nonsense.  Show me ONE place where you can throw an ice cube in a cup of water and the water doesn't cool down.  If you are correct in your point of view, then to @!!*!# with science!  How did they discover entropy?  I know that Earth is not an extremely secure place, but c'mon!  A meteor crashing will NOT bring more order!  ENTROPY APPLIES TO THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!!! 

BTW the "proof denies faith" thing is bunk...

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

And before you jump on me and say, "That's a contradiction!" listen:

Faith applies to all areas of life.  For example I may not have all the evidence for what I believe memorized, and I may not be able to blow away all your arguements, but I know I'm right; I know that the evidence is out there.  Sometimes faith is assaulted (by you and others : and it HELPS to have evidence.

Please don't waste time responding to that faith bit... you won't convince me; I do have more to throw at you.

Oh, the tornado in a junkyard?

A JUNK PILE CAN'T FLY!!!
Chances of a tornado whipping through said junkyard and building anything that flies is practically nil.

BTW how long does it take to make a fossil?

Just a side note:

Nice to see how FS2 has evolved without any intelligence being involved...  (no offense, karajorma, etc.)
What I'm saying is, you could bork up FS2 and guess what? It would no longer be a computer game!  It would be meaningless code!  If you took millions of copies and applied random changes, you would never get anything like Inferno!  There would be little benefitial code and that would be nullified by all the rest!  You see what I'm saying now?

Gotta go... will find creationist microbiologists, etc. for you later...  Sorry I don't have time to read all your replies right now...

(BTW thanks for the print idea jr2...) 

later,
m

[karajorma]

My point was that you see complexity in snowflakes.  And if they react to some sort of law that makes them that way, why are no two alike?  (other than the ones that split from each other)

When you thow a pair of dice they obey the law of gravity that brings them down to the ground. So why do they always land on different numbers?

The answer in both cases is that minute differences result in a large change in the end result. Crystals grow in one direction instead of another is dependant on the way that the first molecules or atoms to form the crystal happen to stick together. This is in turn dependant on the energy present in the molecules that happen to come across the developing crystal. If they have enought kinetic energy to overcome the attraction of the molecules in the crystal they will stay in solution. If not they will form a bond with the molecules in the crystal.

You want to tell me that all that should happen in a deterministic fashion?

[aldo_14]

Anyway, personally I think that the whole "Earth is a closed system and entropy doesn't apply" thing is a bunch of nonsense.  Show me ONE place where you can throw an ice cube in a cup of water and the water doesn't cool down.  If you are correct in your point of view, then to @!!*!# with science!  How did they discover entropy?  I know that Earth is not an extremely secure place, but c'mon!  A meteor crashing will NOT bring more order!  ENTROPY APPLIES TO THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!!!

Already debunked this. 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics simply states "Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.", which in turn means "The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.".

I note you've managed to actually fundamentally misunderstand the 2nd Law 'arguement' (fallacy, really); the creationist claim is that Earth is a closed and thus disordered system (I hope you'll note that the 2nd law doesn't actually say disorder; there is no law relating to disorder).  Entropy can actually produce order, such as sorting molecules by size.

Firstly, Earth is not a closed system; we have heat flow to and from space (i.e. solar radiation).  This causes differences in local entropy, which is our environmental changes driving selection.  Secondly, the universe is both infinite and expanding, as thus is its maximum entropy.  Thirdly, entropy is not a barrier to evolution; all evolution needs is a reproductive process, a selection method, and inheritable variation (all processes we can see are not forbidden by natural laws).  Fourthly, and finally (I'll let other people pick over the bones), the 2nd law says nothing about organized complexity.

Oh, the tornado in a junkyard?

A JUNK PILE CAN'T FLY!!!
Chances of a tornado whipping through said junkyard and building anything that flies is practically nil.

Debunked earlier.  The 'tornado in a junkyard' analogy is wrong in two ways; firstly it provides an incorrect characterisation of chance skewed by human perspective, seccondly it presupposes an existing 'design' which is the only working one.

Nice to see how FS2 has evolved without any intelligence being involved...  (no offense, karajorma, etc.)
What I'm saying is, you could bork up FS2 and guess what? It would no longer be a computer game!  It would be meaningless code!  If you took millions of copies and applied random changes, you would never get anything like Inferno!  There would be little benefitial code and that would be nullified by all the rest!  You see what I'm saying now?

Complete false and incorrect analogy; evolution is not random, mutation is random.  Please see basic evolutionary theory.

[Bobboau]

Nice to see how FS2 has evolved without any intelligence being involved...  (no offense, karajorma, etc.)
What I'm saying is, you could bork up FS2 and guess what? It would no longer be a computer game!  It would be meaningless code!  If you took millions of copies and applied random changes, you would never get anything like Inferno!  There would be little benefitial code and that would be nullified by all the rest!  You see what I'm saying now?

you know incedently, there have been a number of time's I've had a problem codeing in FSO and the way I solved it was brute force guess and check, if a change I made made the game behave the way I wanted I kept it, if it made it worse I reverted, just pick a semi-random number then see how it plays, this is remarcably similar to how evolution works.
I beleive the best example of this was the cloaking effect I was working on at one point, it got nearly perfict then my computer crashed and I lost it unfortunately.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Oh, the tornado in a junkyard?

A JUNK PILE CAN'T FLY!!!
Chances of a tornado whipping through said junkyard and building anything that flies is practically nil.

 


OMG m, what the hell is wrong with you?!  We all told you the first time round, evolution is NOTHING like a tornado in a junkyard! Why do you think misrepresentation and dishonesty is going to prove anything?


 

[jr2]

Oh, the tornado in a junkyard?

A JUNK PILE CAN'T FLY!!!
Chances of a tornado whipping through said junkyard and building anything that flies is practically nil.

 


OMG m, what the hell is wrong with you?!  We all told you the first time round, evolution is NOTHING like a tornado in a junkyard! Why do you think misrepresentation and dishonesty is going to prove anything?


 

Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently).  I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously.  And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution.  In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.

EDIT: BTW

Nice to see how FS2 has evolved without any intelligence being involved...  (no offense, karajorma, etc.)
What I'm saying is, you could bork up FS2 and guess what? It would no longer be a computer game!  It would be meaningless code!  If you took millions of copies and applied random changes, you would never get anything like Inferno!  There would be little benefitial code and that would be nullified by all the rest!  You see what I'm saying now?

you know incedently, there have been a number of time's I've had a problem codeing in FSO and the way I solved it was brute force guess and check, if a change I made made the game behave the way I wanted I kept it, if it made it worse I reverted, just pick a semi-random number then see how it plays, this is remarcably similar to how evolution works.
I beleive the best example of this was the cloaking effect I was working on at one point, it got nearly perfict then my computer crashed and I lost it unfortunately.

- Thus Bobboau claims he has no intelligence? 

[Kamikaze]

And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution.  In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.

I'm surprised you can equate generations of mutation and natural selection to a tornado with a straight face. Shows just how much you have bothered to understand.

[jr2]

And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution.  In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.

I'm surprised you can equate generations of mutation and natural selection to a tornado with a straight face. Shows just how much you have bothered to understand.

(emphasis added)

I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it.  It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say.  Oh, and   No hard feelings, just pointing that out.

[Kamikaze]

(emphasis added)

I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it.  It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say.  Oh, and   No hard feelings, just pointing that out.

Understanding it is easy. It's just that it's completely and utterly wrong. I'm pretty sure aldo and others have pointed that out numerous times.

[jr2]

In fact, I'd like to follow Kara in asking for people to actually explain why they are right, rather than launch rather erroneous attacks upon a tried and tested scientific theory.

Indeed. I'll never understand why the hell these people suddenly think they've found a hole in one of the best-supported modern scientific theories, and that they've proven thousands upon thousands of scientists wrong and their own twisted beliefs right.

Did a search on ICR- turned this up:.

Today there are thousands of scientists who re creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies?not their awareness of scientific facts.

Lists of scientists are divided into sections. Choose a list below.

Biological Scientists - Physical Scientists

1. Why must ICR and other creationist organizations continually appeal to authority by using these types of lists to support their case?

This list and others like it are primarily in response to false claims and appeals to authority by evolutionists. Below are some of these false claims.

"professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it" - S.J. Gould

"A few so called "creation scientists" are much touted as possessing PhDs, but it does not do to look too carefully where they got their PhDs from nor the subjects they got them in. They are, I think, never in relevant subjects." - Richard Dawkins

"The Institute for Creation Research ... staffed by self-proclaimed 'professors' which lack any discernable credentials in the field within which they pontificate." - The Skeptic Tank

"no real scientist believes in creation" - Anonymous

"all or most creation scientists have bogus degrees" - Anonymous

"no intelligent person believes in creation" - Anonymous

2. Your lists are extemely small in the grand scheme of things. Is that it?

No, this is a small sampling of real scientists from around the world who believe in a literal creation. Nobody has ever taken a comprehensive survey of the world's universities, research organizations, etc. to find out who is an evolutionist or creationist. Whether evolutionist or creationist, most scientists do not get involved in the creation versus evolution controversy. Also, many creationists keep their beliefs secret depending on the situation for fear of discrimination, etc.

3. Why do you list so many scientists who are in fields not related to biological evolution?

The creation versus evolution controversy is not just about biological evolution. It also includes Chemistry, Physics, Geology, real History, Anthropology, Archaeology, Paleontology, Paleoclimatology, Astronomy, Geophysics, etc. It involves many different areas like design, alleged vestigial organs, age of the earth, origin of life, noah's flood, and much more.

4. Isn't "Creation Scientist" an oxymoron?

No. This simply means a scientist who believes in creation. These partial lists give irrefutable evidence that these two words can go together.

5. If these people are real scientists and really do or did work for these big universities and companies, why do they deny that biological evolution happens or call it just a theory when all it means is cumulitive change over time?  We see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today

Generally, they are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor, primates and humans sharing a common ancestor, etc. Some have termed this "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, and "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Variations of bacteria, viruses, birds, moths, dogs, etc., which falls within limited expression of existing traits, are also a part of the creation model and thus are not a problem for creation scientists. They observe and study these things like any other scientist. Look for a more detailed faq on the term evolution in our faq database some time in the future.

More to come...

[Mefustae]

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from...