Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

[f95toli]

No, you can "create" mass (in the form of particles) from energy. This is how particle accelarators work, if you let two particles with high kinetic energy (high speed) collide the result can be a particle with a mass larger than the sum of the rest mass of the two particles, energy is still conserved; we have just "converted" some of the kinetic energy into mass.

In the begining there was only energy. As far as I remember (I am not a cosmologist) electrons and the other lighter particles came first followed by protons and neutrons.

In fact, If you sum all the energies in the universe (including mass, since energy=massxspeed of light squared) you will get exactly zero (the energy in for example the mass is exacly balanced out by the "negative" energy of gravity); this is what is known as the "ultimate free lunch"

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: stratman

I admit some ignorance on this topic. In engineering they don't teach us much about history. But aren't you saying that mass was converted in to energy, and therefore not conserved? Meaning mass is not conserved in every circumstance, but the mass+energy is instead, which is ground for the Law of conservation of mass and energy?
I admit I am not an expert with regards to the history of science. I'm curious though (genuinely, not to further my arguement) , what are your credentials?

My credentials include my double major of chemistry and something else. I have more than 100 credits in hard science and am really good at science, with a science GPA of about 3.5.

Anyways, on to your point. Energy and mass are exactly the same thing, this is given by Einstein famous E=mc^2. Solving for mass we have m = E/c^2, or more simply mass is irrelevant at very low energies (because the c^2 term overpowers it to render it very small). So in classical conservation equations there is, in fact, an energy-mass term but is so small as to be irrevelant. For example we balance salt as a whole atom approach, ie 1 Na + 1 Cl -> 1 NaCl. We don't add the mass-energy term to make the full equation:

1 Na + 1 E(Na)/c^2 + 1 Cl + 1 E(Cl)/c^2 -> 1 NaCl + 1 E(NaCl)/c^2

because the other terms are so small as to be irrelevent. This is also why Newtonian mechanics still works: the extra terms do not matter until E or v is very, very large or (that is, E approaches the energy of the system or the velocity approach c).

In everyday life these corrections are too small to matter so we simply ignore them and accept the .0000000001 difference they make to our final result. I made that number up but the real number is very very very very small.

Googling for a definition of the law of conservation of mass, I found this from a recognized educational institution, the url being http://nobel.scas.bcit.ca/resource/glossary/i-m.htm :

"The Law of Conservation of Mass states that mass is neither created nor destroyed, therefore, atoms are neither created nor destroyed."

The first thing that should jump out at you is that what you posted is written in plain, simple English. Nothing in science counts unless it is written in the language of science, namely math. That is a definition for normal people who want to understand, not a technical definition fit for our technical discussion.

And more to the point... the English definition you provided is entirely consisten with what I wrote. It is saying exactly the same thing I did, namely M = M', that is you can't have more mass than you started with (a little differently "mass cannot be created or destroyed").

The real law of the conservation of mass, written in the language of science, says basically what I wrote: M = M'. So when you add all your terms up they better equal each other or else you screwed up somewhere.

Maybe you are just looking at the most recent version of the laws of conservation?

Also, there is no such thing as "the most recent laws." Either mass is conserved or it isn't. The conservation of mass was discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in the 1700s after he discovered that the weights were always equal and gave us the idea of atoms, little blocks, and that every reaction must have the same amount of blocks at the end as it did in the beginning. Einstein didn't change the law - he didn't add more blocks or take some away - he merely showed that sometimes the blocks appear blue (mass) and sometimes red (energy) but in reality they are all purple and you better have a constant number of purple blocks.

But what you are saying is that mass can be converted to energy and vice versa. Fine, the number of purple blocks is constant. But you admit that the number of blue blocks isn't constant, as some can turn red , and some red can turn blue (to use your analogies). So mass, as understood by the classical definition, is not conserved. Mass AND energy, as one thing, is conserved, but mass isn't, by classical definition.

Do your credentials with respect to science and (more importantly) the history of science trump the credentials of one of the largest educational institutions in my province?

It is about facts, not credentials, facts.
Actually, it's about definitions and human understanding of laws. Conservation of mass and energy is understood differently today than it was in the past. Perhaps I misstated my claim. Science doesn't change, the laws that govern the universe don't change, but our understand of science does. Our understanding of the laws that govern our universe changes.

And if your institution is worth anything I assure you it agrees with me and that you have obviously misunderstood something somewhere. But nonetheless the prestige of your institution has nothing to do with the facts about nature and the laws of nature. That is a wholly irrelevant point.

Lastly, what exactly are your credentials? My father is a mechanical engineer and my brother is a chemical engineer and I assure you they have a very thorough education in thermodynamics and conservation laws - are you sure you are getting your money's worth? 'Cause if you are an engineer and that ignorant of these laws you are at the bottom of engineering students.

Woooaah there, tough guy. I'm glad your family is well educated and well understands thermodynamics and conservation laws. But our current understanding of the laws of conservation are not in dispute. I'm disputing that what scientists hold true today isn't what scientists have always held true. Everything else is tangental to the discussion.

I am, actually, pretty close to the bottom of engineering students: I'm a first year.

Again, I never disputed that mass and energy are conserved, according to E=mc^2. I am saying scientists once believed that mass on its own was conserved and was never converted into energy.

EDIT: The institution I reference was from a google search, it is not my institution. I never brought up the presige of my institution.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: stratman
But what you are saying is that mass can be converted to energy and vice versa. Fine, the number of purple blocks is constant. But you admit that the number of blue blocks isn't constant, as some can turn red , and some red can turn blue (to use your analogies). So mass, as understood by the classical definition, is not conserved. Mass AND energy, as one thing, is conserved, but mass isn't, by classical definition.

No, it isn't. There is no such discrete thing as mass and no such discreet thing as energy. They are the exact same thing. The exact same thing. And what is this "classical definition" that you describe? I have no idea what you are talking about...

I think that it is obvious that you can't handle the abstract so let's do a real world example.

We'll take 1 mole of Na and 1 mole of Cl and we'll make 1 mole of NaCl in both the classical and relative functions and compare the result.

Classical

Na = 23
Cl = 36

Na + Cl -> NaCl
23 + 36 -> 59

59 = 59, check!

The equation balances and we are OK.

Relativistic

Na = 22.989770
Cl = 35.453

Na + Cl -> NaCl - 411 kJ/mol

That means that the creation of salt releases 411 kJ of energy per mole of salt.

So now we can figure out the mass of that energy using E = mc^2.

Solving for m we get m = E/c^2

so m = E(-411 kJ) / c(3e8)^2.

so m = -411 / 90,000,000,000,000,000

making m = .0000000000000056 (4.56e-15)

Therefore the difference between the mass solution and the energy solution is .0000000000000056 or in other words simply unimportant.

Why is this the case? Well the major source of mass is the actual atoms and we never changed the atoms themselve - the Na and the Cl never changed, we merely changed the way that the electrons were attached by making a new bond between them.

So what is that little difference in mass? It's the mass of the bonds, and because it is so little we calculate bonds using only energy (ie kJ/mol) and not mass. But they are exactly the same thing and we just do whichever is easier.

All that the law of conservation of mass states is that we have to have the same amount of mass as we started with. In both cases we started with 56 grams/mol and ended with 56 grams/mol; thus the mass was conserved. It's really beautiful how the laws of science work out like that.

Actually, it's about definitions and human understanding of laws. Conservation of mass and energy is understood differently today than it was in the past. Perhaps I misstated my claim. Science doesn't change, the laws that govern the universe don't change, but our understand of science does. Our understanding of the laws that govern our universe changes.

No, it simply isn't. It is understood exactly today as it was when it was first discovered. What you are seeing is that in the last 50 years we have been able to explore areas where those tiny little insignificant numbers actually mattered - we fundamentally changed an atom, for example, rather than merely changing the bonds around it. In that case - nuclear fission, for example - you can't use the mass laws because it is better to use energy. You can solve them using the mass laws but it is not as simple or efficient. You choose the best tool for the job. In chemistry it's mass and in physics its energy. Our understanding of the laws simply has not changed.

Woooaah there, tough guy. I'm glad your family is well educated and well understands thermodynamics and conservation laws. But our current understanding of the laws of conservation are not in dispute. I'm disputing that what scientists hold true today isn't what scientists have always held true. Everything else is tangental to the discussion.

Well then you are simply wrong. Just wrong. Plain wrong. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. You get my point I hope.

I am, actually, pretty close to the bottom of engineering students: I'm a first year.

Then why on Earth do you think your opinion is worth anything compared to people who actually know what they are talking about? I think it's time you actually learn rather than spout.

I am saying scientists once believed that mass on its own was conserved and was never converted into energy.

Then you were wrong. See above.

EDIT: The institution I reference was from a google search, it is not my institution. I never brought up the presige of my institution.

What you said was "Do your credentials with respect to science and (more importantly) the history of science trump the credentials of one of the largest educational institutions in my province?"

This seems to be trying to use the prestige of an institution to bolster your claims and, more to the point, to question my credentials or ability in the area discussed. I think I have proven that I have a thorough understanding of thermodynamics and chemistry regardless of what some Candian Institute posts on its website.



More to the point what does any of this have to do with evolution? Evolution is a scientific fact - not a belief, but a real and true provable reality. It, like thermodynamics, requires a certain level of education to fully understand but it rests on solid physical, chemical, and biological grounds.

The fact that it upsets some people, those who believe in God or the truth of the Bible, is wholly irrelevant - it is the truth, the reality, the way that the world works regardless of whom that bothers.

Like I said science is about facts. Nothing else counts.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: biostud
Who made the snake that lured Eve into eating the apple?

the snake was Satan

Did god create satan? If not where did satan origin?

Yes, God created Satan

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
It's hard enough to create amino acids and the like from random muck, but to create cells out of that is highly improbable.

Uhm, actually it is really, really easy to create amino acids from random much. You can do it in your basement right now.

You need an electrical discharger (to discharge electricity at regular intervals), some ammonia (NH3), methan (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O). Put them together, heat them up, electrocute them regularly and you will create amino acids and other organic molecules really easily.

This is the famous Miller-Urey experiment summarized as:

"By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system.

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments."

You can read all about it http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/...Exobiology/miller.html and like real science you can even do it in your house to replicate his results.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
It's hard enough to create amino acids and the like from random muck, but to create cells out of that is highly improbable.

Uhm, actually it is really, really easy to create amino acids from random much. You can do it in your basement right now.

You need an electrical discharger (to discharge electricity at regular intervals), some ammonia (NH3), methan (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O). Put them together, heat them up, electrocute them regularly and you will create amino acids and other organic molecules really easily.

This is the famous Miller-Urey experiment summarized as:

"By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system.

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments."

You can read all about it http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/...Exobiology/miller.html and like real science you can even do it in your house to replicate his results.

Yes... I'm sure the universe had exactly those conditions before life was formed :roll:

EDIT: Furthermore, I actually said that it's already hard enough to make amino acids, but to make cells from amino acids??? Improbable, bordering on impossible.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

I'm disputing that what scientists hold true today isn't what scientists have always held true. Everything else is tangental to the discussion.

Well then you are simply wrong. Just wrong. Plain wrong. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. You get my point I hope.

I'm gonna focus on this point, because it is the crux of our discussion. Keep in mind that you bolded my sentence in the above quotes, and it is the sentence you are referring to in your repetition of WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Scientists have ALWAYS held true what they hold true today? There have been NO discoveries about our universe in the last thousand years? No times where scientists have been wrong? Do you realize what you are saying?

I'm simply amazed that you would take that view.

 

[chess9]

iateyourmother:

Do you have a scientific reference for this bald assertion?

"EDIT: Furthermore, I actually said that it's already hard enough to make amino acids, but to make cells from amino acids??? Improbable, bordering on impossible."


-Robert

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: daveshel
I'm not so sure this proves anything about ignorance, since the theory of evolution is still a theory. Moreover, it seems to me the most telling statistic would be the percentage that believes that God created the human race through the forces of evolution.

Yeah, a scientific "theory", as in, an explanation or account of the development of life on this earth which is at this stage so well supported by the available relevant evidence that no reputable scientist seriously questions the validity of it's 'broad brush strokes' (altho of course the 'finer brush strokes' of evolutionary theory are subject to constant refinement, development, revision). A scientific "theory", as in, an account of the development of life in which the mechanisms are so well delineated that the theory can be regarded as an accepted scientific truth as opposed to a tentative working hypothesis.

Compare with creationism, intelligent design, & the like -- laughable 'fairy tales', for which there is no empirical support, and which no reputable scientist takes seriously.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: jjsole
God created Evolution. However he also created Intelligent Design.

And I'm just saddened that most of you are products of the former and have never experienced life as the latter.

huh?
oh?
alright?


heh.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
It's hard enough to create amino acids and the like from random muck, but to create cells out of that is highly improbable.

Uhm, actually it is really, really easy to create amino acids from random much. You can do it in your basement right now.

You need an electrical discharger (to discharge electricity at regular intervals), some ammonia (NH3), methan (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O). Put them together, heat them up, electrocute them regularly and you will create amino acids and other organic molecules really easily.

This is the famous Miller-Urey experiment summarized as:

"By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system.

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments."

You can read all about it http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/...Exobiology/miller.html and like real science you can even do it in your house to replicate his results.

The problem with Miller's experiment is that the early atmosphere was not composed of ammonia, methane and hydrogen. They used this because it would allow them to get the results they wanted, amino acids. The early atmosphere was composed mainly of water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and it definatley did not have substantial amounts of what Miller used. You can see the dilemna, because amino acids readily dissolve in water.

If you are really trying to say Stanley Miller's experiment proves anything beyond the fact that its possible to synthesize amino acids with the proper, specific conditions, then you are only fooling yourself.

The finding definately did trigger a bunch of other experiments, but none did anything other than confirm the enormous improbabilty of forming proteins, amino acids, etc. in the prebiotic earth conditions, which is one reason the "water washing up onto clay" hypothesis was brought about.

EDIT: And what I find interesting is your definition of "random much": an electrical discharger (to discharge electricity at regular intervals), some ammonia (NH3), methan (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O). I find that "random much" coupled with a lot of forethought, but then again, I'm sure you also believe "random" processes are capable of forming everything we see today, given time.

 

[Moonbeam]

A mirror gives rise to it's image. The reason life exists in the universe is because it can.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

I'm disputing that what scientists hold true today isn't what scientists have always held true. Everything else is tangental to the discussion.

Well then you are simply wrong. Just wrong. Plain wrong. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. You get my point I hope.

I'm gonna focus on this point, because it is the crux of our discussion. Keep in mind that you bolded my sentence in the above quotes, and it is the sentence you are referring to in your repetition of WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Scientists have ALWAYS held true what they hold true today? There have been NO discoveries about our universe in the last thousand years? No times where scientists have been wrong? Do you realize what you are saying?

I'm simply amazed that you would take that view.

Well, I wouldn't think a thousand years... real "science" in the way we think of it, that being modern science with it's predictive ability, began with Isaac Newton around 1690 or so.

But yes, ever since then we have known that Newton got it right. His laws of mechanics are still absolutely valid.

And in about 1760 Antoine Lavoisier gave us the idea of chemical reactions being composed of block like atomic molecules. That view is still the correct view.

And in about 1690 Robert Boyle gave us the gas laws that govern the behavior of gases vis a vis pressure and temperature. He also introduced the idea of specific gravity. All of this remains the viewpoint today.

So yes, I am right. Those ideas have remained with us as scientific truth from the 1690s or so.

What Einstein did was merely take Newton's laws and apply them to the specific situations of very high velocity, very high mass, and very high energy. In doing so you have to take account of the fact that the atoms (or whatever) fundamentally change and thus you can't use classical physics - he merely added a slight correction to the Newtonian laws for these situation. But Newton's laws are still absolutely valid and nobody threw Newton's ideas away.

The same with the gas laws and how they merged all of the gas laws into one specific universal gas law - that PV = nRT - but yet the original gas laws are still completely valid.

So you are wrong and were wrong. Physics has been with us since modern science, as has calculus, as has the gas laws, etc.

The scientist who discovered them got it right, they really figured out how it worked, and there is no need to reject their findings or change their theories simply because it was hundreds of years ago.

But like all science if somebody comes up with an experiment to disprove any of those we will change the laws.

Really, you need a more thorough education before you start attacking people who know more than you. Think for yourself, learn for yourself, and refrain from trying to poke holes in things you don't understand.

And lastly - what does any of this have to do with evolution?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

The problem with Miller's experiment is that the early atmosphere was not composed of ammonia, methane and hydrogen. They used this because it would allow them to get the results they wanted, amino acids. The early atmosphere was composed mainly of water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and it definatley did not have substantial amounts of what Miller used. You can see the dilemna, because amino acids readily dissolve in water.

If you are really trying to say Stanley Miller's experiment proves anything beyond the fact that its possible to synthesize amino acids with the proper, specific conditions, then you are only fooling yourself.

The finding definately did trigger a bunch of other experiments, but none did anything other than confirm the enormous improbabilty of forming proteins, amino acids, etc. in the prebiotic earth conditions, which is one reason the "water washing up onto clay" hypothesis was brought about.

EDIT: And what I find interesting is your definition of "random much": an electrical discharger (to discharge electricity at regular intervals), some ammonia (NH3), methan (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O). I find that "random much" coupled with a lot of forethought, but then again, I'm sure you also believe "random" processes are capable of forming everything we see today, given time.

Well, what have your experiments shown? How do you know what the early atmosphere was like? Care to show us your data?

This is science, put up or shut up. Tell us how you designed your experiment, how you determined the composition of the early atmosphere, and what your results yielded.

Oh, and by the way, they have used completely different set up to create amino acids. When you say "its possible to synthesize amino acids with the proper, specific conditions" you are simply wrong. Don't argue chemistry with a chemist - amino acids are very easy to produce. You're only talking about 1 carbon atom... I mean completely easy to produce.

The reason Miller chose those conditions is because he thought (based on actual evidence) it replicated the early atmosphere. Other people that the atmosphere was composed differently, did the same experiment with their set ups, and also produced organic matter (including amino acids).

No, I think the real truth is that you know nothing about science and are scared that we have basically proven the Bible to be a lie from page 1. But science is about facts and not faith...

again, I demand that your produce your experiment and results.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: daveshel
I'm not so sure this proves anything about ignorance, since the theory of evolution is still a theory. Moreover, it seems to me the most telling statistic would be the percentage that believes that God created the human race through the forces of evolution.

Popular belief doesn't make anything a fact. There are very little facts on both sides of this arguement. Faith is a belief in the impossible. Theory is a belief in the improbable.

 

[0marTheZealot]

For our discussion, intelligent design or creationism PREDICTS NOTHING. It is USELESS as a scientific theory because it makes no PREDICTIONS. In science, if you have a theory that predicts nothing, you have nothing at all but a jumbled mass of words (or equations).

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

I'm disputing that what scientists hold true today isn't what scientists have always held true. Everything else is tangental to the discussion.

Well then you are simply wrong. Just wrong. Plain wrong. Wrong. Not right. Incorrect. You get my point I hope.

I'm gonna focus on this point, because it is the crux of our discussion. Keep in mind that you bolded my sentence in the above quotes, and it is the sentence you are referring to in your repetition of WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Scientists have ALWAYS held true what they hold true today? There have been NO discoveries about our universe in the last thousand years? No times where scientists have been wrong? Do you realize what you are saying?

I'm simply amazed that you would take that view.

...yes.

But like all science if somebody comes up with an experiment to disprove any of those we will change the laws.

And lastly - what does any of this have to do with evolution?

I cropped your reply for the sake of space.

So scientists never believed that the universe had no origin, that it had been here forever? The steady-state theory of the universe once was the prominant theory in science. Now nearly no scientist adheres to it.

Collectively, scientists have changed their minds. But you said scientists believe today what they always believed. Whoops.

In the 1800's before spectroscopy was discovered, the UNIVERSAL belief among astronomers (scientists!) was that man would NEVER discover the composition of stars, because of the limits of vision. Auguste Comte (1798-1857), a prominant astronomer at the time, even went so far to say "We must carefully sepatate the idea of the solar system from that of the universe, and be always assured that our only true interest is in the former.... In fact, the innumerable stars that are scattered through space are of no other scientific interest".

Do scientists still believe that? Do scientists believe today what they have always held true? Whoops.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
And lastly - what does any of this have to do with evolution?

I saw false reasoning in a tiny part of someone's post, you saw false reasoning in a tiny part of my response to his post, because you feel the need to defend all scientists, saying that they have always believed what they believe today. As I said 2 or 3 posts ago, this is tangental to the discussion.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I think many of you who are attacking faith don't understand what faith is.

Faith is a committment to a belief in something. Christian faith is not faith in God and the Bible in spite of the evidence, it is faith IN LIGHT of the evidence.

Regardless of how readily you dismiss the evidence as mere "fact-less God talk", there is evidence against evolution to this day, and there is evidence for creationism. And yes, evidence that attacks the very fundamentals of evolution. If you actually study the facts, rather than the conclusions that many evolutionists reach, you will find a lot of holes in the logical process.

Science is not the altruistic search for truth that many of you claim it is. It is victim to the same human faults and logical-fallacies that are present in everything we do. The arguements of many evolutionists and the claims they make often reflect their own personal beliefs that there is nothing more than nature. Of course, if you are trying to find the truth about evolution of life and one of your presuppositions is that there is no God, then yes, you aren't going to accept evidence that points to an Intelligent Designer.

Michael Behe makes and interesting point:

"The.. most powerful reason for science's reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."

Many scientists simply have an allegiance to the natural that blinds them... "Science is a noble pursuit that can engender fierce loyalty.... some dedicated people put their discipline ahead of the goal it is supposed to serve... We must be careful not to allow our distaste for a theory to prejudice us against a fair reading of the data."

Maybe you would like to point out some of these huge logical flaws?

One of the major things that Creationists miss is that the Theory of Evolution is not a static theory. Theories change over time as new facts come in. As more ideas come in, theories are reconciled iteratively with the evidence. This is the process of all scientific endeavors. Therefore the fact that new facts come up that are slightly in opposition to the current theory does not mean that the theory should be thrown away. It needs to be modified to account for those facts.

The notion of altruism has nothing to do with the process of science. The humans who run our churches are bound to the same human fallibility as our scientists. The goal of science is to uncover the truths of our world. This says nothing about the motivation to get at those truths; but they are still truths.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

The problem with Miller's experiment is that the early atmosphere was not composed of ammonia, methane and hydrogen. They used this because it would allow them to get the results they wanted, amino acids. The early atmosphere was composed mainly of water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and it definatley did not have substantial amounts of what Miller used. You can see the dilemna, because amino acids readily dissolve in water.

If you are really trying to say Stanley Miller's experiment proves anything beyond the fact that its possible to synthesize amino acids with the proper, specific conditions, then you are only fooling yourself.

The finding definately did trigger a bunch of other experiments, but none did anything other than confirm the enormous improbabilty of forming proteins, amino acids, etc. in the prebiotic earth conditions, which is one reason the "water washing up onto clay" hypothesis was brought about.

EDIT: And what I find interesting is your definition of "random much": an electrical discharger (to discharge electricity at regular intervals), some ammonia (NH3), methan (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O). I find that "random much" coupled with a lot of forethought, but then again, I'm sure you also believe "random" processes are capable of forming everything we see today, given time.

Well, what have your experiments shown? How do you know what the early atmosphere was like? Care to show us your data?

This is science, put up or shut up. Tell us how you designed your experiment, how you determined the composition of the early atmosphere, and what your results yielded.

Oh, and by the way, they have used completely different set up to create amino acids. When you say "its possible to synthesize amino acids with the proper, specific conditions" you are simply wrong. Don't argue chemistry with a chemist - amino acids are very easy to produce. You're only talking about 1 carbon atom... I mean completely easy to produce.

The reason Miller chose those conditions is because he thought (based on actual evidence) it replicated the early atmosphere. Other people that the atmosphere was composed differently, did the same experiment with their set ups, and also produced organic matter (including amino acids).

No, I think the real truth is that you know nothing about science and are scared that we have basically proven the Bible to be a lie from page 1. But science is about facts and not faith...

again, I demand that your produce your experiment and results.

Sigh... If you honestly want to know the truth about Miller's experiment you should at least read the basics. Like you said, science isn't static. Stanley Miller thought the early earth had a reducing atmosphere, but he was later proven wrong. The scientific community today accepts largely that prebiotic earth was not a reducing atmosphere, but full of CO2, N2, ie an oxidizing atmosphere.

Don't believe me? Here's just the first link I found, Duke's Chemistry Website.

And in case you have trouble reading the site, I'll go ahead and quote a section of it for you:

"For a long time it was thought that the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere. A reducing atmosphere contains reductants, or molecules saturated with hydrogen atoms, which are able to reduce other molecules. Many scientists believed that the atmosphere consisted of CH4, NH3, and H2. This is the mixture of gases Miller and Urey used in 1953 to mimic the conditions of the early earth. Their experiment showed that abiotic molecules could be used to create important biotic compounds thought to be necessary for the origin of life.

However, most of the scientific community now believes that the early Earth's atmosphere was not reducing. Instead, scientists beleive the atmosphere was full of oxidants, such as CO2 and N2. An oxidizing atmosphere is essentially neutral, and does not permit organic chemistry to occur."

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I think many of you who are attacking faith don't understand what faith is.

Faith is a committment to a belief in something. Christian faith is not faith in God and the Bible in spite of the evidence, it is faith IN LIGHT of the evidence.

Regardless of how readily you dismiss the evidence as mere "fact-less God talk", there is evidence against evolution to this day, and there is evidence for creationism. And yes, evidence that attacks the very fundamentals of evolution. If you actually study the facts, rather than the conclusions that many evolutionists reach, you will find a lot of holes in the logical process.

Science is not the altruistic search for truth that many of you claim it is. It is victim to the same human faults and logical-fallacies that are present in everything we do. The arguements of many evolutionists and the claims they make often reflect their own personal beliefs that there is nothing more than nature. Of course, if you are trying to find the truth about evolution of life and one of your presuppositions is that there is no God, then yes, you aren't going to accept evidence that points to an Intelligent Designer.

Michael Behe makes and interesting point:

"The.. most powerful reason for science's reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."

Many scientists simply have an allegiance to the natural that blinds them... "Science is a noble pursuit that can engender fierce loyalty.... some dedicated people put their discipline ahead of the goal it is supposed to serve... We must be careful not to allow our distaste for a theory to prejudice us against a fair reading of the data."

Maybe you would like to point out some of these huge logical flaws?

One of the major things that Creationists miss is that the Theory of Evolution is not a static theory. Theories change over time as new facts come in. As more ideas come in, theories are reconciled iteratively with the evidence. This is the process of all scientific endeavors. Therefore the fact that new facts come up that are slightly in opposition to the current theory does not mean that the theory should be thrown away. It needs to be modified to account for those facts.

The notion of altruism has nothing to do with the process of science. The humans who run our churches are bound to the same human fallibility as our scientists. The goal of science is to uncover the truths of our world. This says nothing about the motivation to get at those truths; but they are still truths.

Two main categorical problems with evolution:

1. Lack of certain evidence that is needed to justify certain conclusions
2. Evidence that opposes evolution

Basically for #1 we are missing some things that are expected to have been discovered. For instance, many archaeologists don't accept that the fossil records contributes to the evolutionary theory, and yet it still is used by evolutionary biologists as evidence for evolution. We still have no transitional fossils, and every time we uncover new fossils of the same species they are identical, even though their age differences can be very vast. (Meaning that even though there is a large gap between some fossils, the species is unchanged, even after long periods of time).

Also, there are still no solutions for irreducibly complex systems that are present everywhere in nature. I'm not talking about generic A->B->C step solutions, I'm referring to specific proposed solutions to specific systems that are irreducibly complex, that lose function with even minor changes. They simply do not exist... the scientific community has offered no solution to these systems, so they are very much still a flaw in reasoning. Darwin himself said that if certain systems could be shown to not be able to be put together in step-by-step physical manner, it would uproot his theory.

I will accept the fact that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But I am surprised by the conclusions that are drawn and the conjectures that are made when there are many facts missing.

For #2 there are obstacles to the theory, obstacles with no apparent reconciliation. Now if you want to limit to biological evolution and not discuss origin of life, origin of the universe, etc. then the problems become more narrow. For instance, mutations are not generally beneficial, and they aren't huge leaps, how could tiny increments of mutations offer a benefit to a species? How could wings come about slowly without seriously hampering the species ability to survive?

One of the most staggering difficulties given is the pure probability of evolution actually taking place. If the Earth cooled down enough to support life about 400 million years ago, the time for evolution is very short, and the probability is very low. It isn't just about constructing an amino acid, totalcommand, its about sequencing those specific amino acids in long chains in a specific order to make just one specific protein. How did the function of the proteins that evolved come to be needed in the first place? Surely their function is not "known" before it has evolved, so what must be claimed is that multiple amino-acid chains evolved by chance and then the onces with useful functions were utilized and kept. However, the pure improbability of amino acid chains being constructed by random chance in an oxidizing atmosphere is simply phenomenal... how do you account for this? The clay theory is a popular choice among scientists, which can in part get over the fact that amino acids break down in water, given that the clay is less wet, but the problem still remains that there is no information from which to construct these complicated chains of hundred of amino acids.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Oh, and by the way, they have used completely different set up to create amino acids. When you say "its possible to synthesize amino acids with the proper, specific conditions" you are simply wrong. Don't argue chemistry with a chemist - amino acids are very easy to produce. You're only talking about 1 carbon atom... I mean completely easy to produce.

Sure, its very simple to construct amino acids in a lab where you control the conditions and what is and is not present in your experiment. The difference is intelligent input. Following your logic, yes, it is very easy to construct a four side wooden box in a garage... its just a few pieces of wood and some nails. But I still wouldn't claim that four sided wooden boxes are going to arise in nature by chance due to the ease at which I make it. Regardless of how little guided input is required, it IS still required.

 

[chess9]

Trev:

You are beyond hope. Why anyone else would bother discussing these issues with you is beyond me. We have done this a thousand times on this web site and it is an utterly hopeless exercise. Right wing religious nuts will continue to believe their fables and deny the facts.

Nothing you have posted is worth the time it took me to read it.

-Robert

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: chess9
Trev:

You are beyond hope. Why anyone else would bother discussing these issues with you is beyond me. We have done this a thousand times on this web site and it is an utterly hopeless exercise. Right wing religious nuts will continue to believe their fables and deny the facts.

Nothing you have posted is worth the time it took me to read it.

-Robert

Then go away.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: chess9
iateyourmother:

Do you have a scientific reference for this bald assertion?

"EDIT: Furthermore, I actually said that it's already hard enough to make amino acids, but to make cells from amino acids??? Improbable, bordering on impossible."


-Robert

I could find some, but I'm too lazy. Maybe you could find something proving otherwise