-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
A single cell is made up of 250 proteins and they have to line up in a specific order (or design) in order to create just one single cell. Do you know that it is a scientific improbability (or fact) that a single cell can be created by chance or some "big bang". The probability of these proteins lining up they way they need to create a single cell is a trillion by a trillion by a trillion (or improbable). Why don't they teach that scientific fact in school when they speak about evolution and/or the big bang? Hmmmm...........food for thought.
check out Angel Apparel for some cool christian t-shirts
check out Angel Apparel for some cool christian t-shirts
L
As a biology major who worked as a college-level science tutor, I have never felt that science has turned me away from God. In my case, learning about the endless intricacies of life gives a sense of awe to the power of our Creator. And on a side note, I find it tragic that someone educated in the sciences can look at how perfectly the universe works, and can only come to the conclusion that it is all one big accident.
C
I remember reading Asimov's book on DNA. As he was describing how the DNA would "unzip" at the right point to produce the right RNA needed to produce a needed enzyme, I was overcome with awe and wondered how such a great mind could not see the hand of God. Interestingly, as he got older, as many scientists before him, he espoused a sort of scientific pantheism.
Um. . .no, sorry. Wadis are dried up river beds.
Extremely violent rainstorms are a rare but very real occurrence in the Sahara, as they are in many deserts around the world, and can easily form such “dry rivers”. Not enough exposed stone to wear down? Clearly your grasp of the geography of the Sahara desert is a little wanting, Obviously most of the rock has already been worn away at the surface, but remnants of massive rock formations still exist throughout the desert such as the Ahaggar Mountains, the Ayar of Niger, and the Tibesti Mountains. Furthermore, the southward expansion of the Sahara is in a large part driven by wind such as the Harmattan, a west African trade wind that can blow sand from the Sahara as far south as the equator. This is a little unfair since I’ve actually been to the Sahara, but you kind of walked yourself into this one.
Furthermore, by bringing in wadis you are now not only claiming that solar radiation directly creates “dust” but also sand and gravel. All this despite the fact that you can get on a plane, go to Africa, and watch wind and water create all these same materials. Can I go to those same deserts and observe solar radiation creating the same materials at a faster rate? No? I wonder why that is?
Nope, don’t see it. Nor do I see why radiation would be producing dust at such a fantastic rate as opposed to impacts. You are welcome to provide some actual evidence at your leisure.
Obviously volcanic activity on a near-molten earth would far exceed the output of a single modern day volcano.
There wouldn’t need to be anything left to eventually form another atmosphere, as long as gases migrated to the surface gravity would hold them near the surface eventually building an atmosphere.
That certainly seems to be what you are talking about, but in reality the giant impact hypothesis begins by saying that the moon exists, that it has some very similar isotopes to earth, and that it looks like it could have been formed from the same material used to form earth. The development of the second atmosphere is based on a different set of facts, some of which were provided along with research about others, and just so happens to fit together nicely. Most likely because they are both pretty accurate models.
Again, if this occurred the energy released would surely have resulted in a molten earth, in which case iron is not going to deny physics en masse and migrate to the surface. Why do you think earth has an iron core in the first place? Here’s a hint: gravity.
No I’m not, current models have ejected material coming together in possibly as little as ten years.
An large-scale extinction event.
Again, this is Lamarckism, not evolution. Adaptation is driven by purely random variation, the adaptations themselves do not occur as a response to an organism’s environment.
Furthermore, you are grossly over-simplifying things to say that amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives will always out-reproduce amphibians that move from water to land. In some environments, amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives might be better adapted to survive, but in other environments it is advantageous to move, breathe, and hunt on land. This is probably why some amphibians are adapted to live almost exclusively in water, such as the Texas Blind Salamander which sports distinctive red gills, while other amphibians are adapted to live most of their lives on dry land.
Our ability to develop and use technology is a direct result of our brains, which are an adaptation.
If the water is in the form of hydroxl molecules trapped within crystallized rocks I don’t see a problem.
Well that’s simply untrue. On the subject of things like the formation of the moon, homochirality, and weathering I don’t use the Bible because the Bible doesn’t say anything about them; it is a book devoted to laying out the relationship between man and his Creator, not a science book. . .which is kind of the whole point of this conversations.
Additionally, I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe in the resurrection, which as far as miracles go is kind of a big deal. Feel free to review the thread if you need to. Thanks.
Lurker
Extremely violent rainstorms are a rare but very real occurrence in the Sahara, as they are in many deserts around the world, and can easily form such “dry rivers”. Not enough exposed stone to wear down? Clearly your grasp of the geography of the Sahara desert is a little wanting, Obviously most of the rock has already been worn away at the surface, but remnants of massive rock formations still exist throughout the desert such as the Ahaggar Mountains, the Ayar of Niger, and the Tibesti Mountains. Furthermore, the southward expansion of the Sahara is in a large part driven by wind such as the Harmattan, a west African trade wind that can blow sand from the Sahara as far south as the equator. This is a little unfair since I’ve actually been to the Sahara, but you kind of walked yourself into this one.
Furthermore, by bringing in wadis you are now not only claiming that solar radiation directly creates “dust” but also sand and gravel. All this despite the fact that you can get on a plane, go to Africa, and watch wind and water create all these same materials. Can I go to those same deserts and observe solar radiation creating the same materials at a faster rate? No? I wonder why that is?
Nope, don’t see it. Nor do I see why radiation would be producing dust at such a fantastic rate as opposed to impacts. You are welcome to provide some actual evidence at your leisure.
Obviously volcanic activity on a near-molten earth would far exceed the output of a single modern day volcano.
There wouldn’t need to be anything left to eventually form another atmosphere, as long as gases migrated to the surface gravity would hold them near the surface eventually building an atmosphere.
That certainly seems to be what you are talking about, but in reality the giant impact hypothesis begins by saying that the moon exists, that it has some very similar isotopes to earth, and that it looks like it could have been formed from the same material used to form earth. The development of the second atmosphere is based on a different set of facts, some of which were provided along with research about others, and just so happens to fit together nicely. Most likely because they are both pretty accurate models.
Again, if this occurred the energy released would surely have resulted in a molten earth, in which case iron is not going to deny physics en masse and migrate to the surface. Why do you think earth has an iron core in the first place? Here’s a hint: gravity.
No I’m not, current models have ejected material coming together in possibly as little as ten years.
"A giant impact would lead to a ring of very hot debris in orbit around the young Earth. Calculations indicate that the Moon could have formed from that debris in ten years or less! This implies that the Moon would have formed very hot, possibly entirely molten. This scorching initial state is consistent with the idea that the Moon was surrounded by an ocean of magma when it formed. The magma ocean idea has been a central tenet of lunar science for decades, and recent data from the Clementine mission to the Moon finally proved it, as described in "Moonbeams and Elements," an October, 1997 PSRD article. The Moon probably continued to accrete material to it, including some objects up to about half its size. These big impacts could maintain a magma ocean, and scramble any crust that formed. It could also add rock with a composition different from the rest of the Moon, accounting for some unexplained features of the lunar interior. The existence of a magma ocean on the Moon is also prime evidence against the Moon forming by capture. Calculations show that if the Moon were captured, the process would not heat the Moon very much, certainly not so much that it would be mostly molten.”
Solar System Exploration: Science & Technology: Science Features: Origin of the Earth and Moon
I guess that it’s a bum deal that the experimental evidence disagrees with you then. Honestly I don’t know what else to say seeing as there is substantial evidence showing a functional-based preference for homochirality. You are more than welcome to continue to expound on why you think it shouldn’t have happened, but there seem to be some very good explanations on why it happened as it did that you’re ignoring.Solar System Exploration: Science & Technology: Science Features: Origin of the Earth and Moon
An large-scale extinction event.
Again, this is Lamarckism, not evolution. Adaptation is driven by purely random variation, the adaptations themselves do not occur as a response to an organism’s environment.
Furthermore, you are grossly over-simplifying things to say that amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives will always out-reproduce amphibians that move from water to land. In some environments, amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives might be better adapted to survive, but in other environments it is advantageous to move, breathe, and hunt on land. This is probably why some amphibians are adapted to live almost exclusively in water, such as the Texas Blind Salamander which sports distinctive red gills, while other amphibians are adapted to live most of their lives on dry land.
Our ability to develop and use technology is a direct result of our brains, which are an adaptation.
If the water is in the form of hydroxl molecules trapped within crystallized rocks I don’t see a problem.
Well that’s simply untrue. On the subject of things like the formation of the moon, homochirality, and weathering I don’t use the Bible because the Bible doesn’t say anything about them; it is a book devoted to laying out the relationship between man and his Creator, not a science book. . .which is kind of the whole point of this conversations.
Additionally, I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe in the resurrection, which as far as miracles go is kind of a big deal. Feel free to review the thread if you need to. Thanks.
Lurker
C
Um. . .no, sorry. Wadis are dried up river beds.
I meant Ergs
Obviously not a riverbed. No rock to be seen. Just thousands of square miles of sand.
Extremely violent rainstorms are a rare but very real occurrence in the Sahara, as they are in many deserts around the world, and can easily form such “dry rivers”. Not enough exposed stone to wear down? Clearly your grasp of the geography of the Sahara desert is a little wanting, Obviously most of the rock has already been worn away at the surface, but remnants of massive rock formations still exist throughout the desert such as the Ahaggar Mountains, the Ayar of Niger, and the Tibesti Mountains. Furthermore, the southward expansion of the Sahara is in a large part driven by wind such as the Harmattan, a west African trade wind that can blow sand from the Sahara as far south as the equator. This is a little unfair since I’ve actually been to the Sahara, but you kind of walked yourself into this one.
Furthermore, by bringing in wadis you are now not only claiming that solar radiation directly creates “dust” but also sand and gravel. All this despite the fact that you can get on a plane, go to Africa, and watch wind and water create all these same materials. Can I go to those same deserts and observe solar radiation creating the same materials at a faster rate? No? I wonder why that is?
Perhaps that is because many of the more destructive radiations are blocked by the combination of the Ozone and the earths's magnetic field.
Nope, don’t see it. Nor do I see why radiation would be producing dust at such a fantastic rate as opposed to impacts. You are welcome to provide some actual evidence at your leisure.
You have huge smooth surfaces (you can see them with your own eyes) which still have significant dust. You have giant calderas with walls that are crumbling even though there is no weather on the moon.
Obviously volcanic activity on a near-molten earth would far exceed the output of a single modern day volcano.
"Obviously." You are assuming facts not in evidence. The stike that you are talking about would expose the very core of the planet. This would be unlike any volcano we have, releasing no gas and relieving so much volcanic pressure to insure that there would be very little, if any volcanic pressure.
There wouldn’t need to be anything left to eventually form another atmosphere, as long as gases migrated to the surface gravity would hold them near the surface eventually building an atmosphere.
The loss of the ozone layer alone would insure the cook off of any water. The disruption of the orbit and rotation and the lessening of the magnetic field would make it highly unlikely that we would ever see a substantial atmosphere. Look at Mars, It's vulcanism far exceed ours, but the lithosphere is much poorer in oxygen.
That certainly seems to be what you are talking about, but in reality the giant impact hypothesis begins by saying that the moon exists, that it has some very similar isotopes to earth, and that it looks like it could have been formed from the same material used to form earth. The development of the second atmosphere is based on a different set of facts, some of which were provided along with research about others, and just so happens to fit together nicely. Most likely because they are both pretty accurate models.
Again, the connection is that the model of the origin of the moon fuels the model of the formation of the atmosphere.
Again, if this occurred the energy released would surely have resulted in a molten earth, in which case iron is not going to deny physics en masse and migrate to the surface. Why do you think earth has an iron core in the first place? Here’s a hint: gravity.
Well, since gravity has to do with mass not weight, I would say that is it because of the inertia caused by the spinning of the earth.
No I’m not, current models have ejected material coming together in possibly as little as ten years.
I love this....Ten years!
I guess that it’s a bum deal that the experimental evidence disagrees with you then. Honestly I don’t know what else to say seeing as there is substantial evidence showing a functional-based preference for homochirality. You are more than welcome to continue to expound on why you think it shouldn’t have happened, but there seem to be some very good explanations on why it happened as it did that you’re ignoring.
I think you are drinking deeply of that kool-aid.
"But scientists who ought to know,
Assure us that it must be so...
Oh! Let us never doubt
What nobody is sure about."
An large-scale extinction event.
Evolution is the science of biological change over time. The large-scale extinction event isn't evolution. The extinct species didn't change, they died. Show me one example of change from complex to simple according to evolution. The a priori of increasing complexity is a driving force of macro-evolution.
Again, this is Lamarckism, not evolution. Adaptation is driven by purely random variation, the adaptations themselves do not occur as a response to an organism’s environment.
I am not proposing that the adaptation occured because of the environmental change. I am proposing that the adaptation of amphibian to fish would be more likely to survive that the change from amphibian to reptile.
Furthermore, you are grossly over-simplifying things to say that amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives will always out-reproduce amphibians that move from water to land. In some environments, amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives might be better adapted to survive, but in other environments it is advantageous to move, breathe, and hunt on land. This is probably why some amphibians are adapted to live almost exclusively in water, such as the Texas Blind Salamander which sports distinctive red gills, while other amphibians are adapted to live most of their lives on dry land.
Since the first generation of amphibian would lay there eggs in the water and the evolved generation of reptile babies would then drown in the water, I do think it is more likely. You responded exactly the way you had to, by proposing the chance occurance of both the evolutionary leap and the environmental accidence.
Our ability to develop and use technology is a direct result of our brains, which are an adaptation.
Now you jump into the hot water. We survived by developing technology. So our inability to adapt to the environment physiologically was fortuitously joined to the evolution of a techno-savy brain.
If the water is in the form of hydroxl molecules trapped within crystallized rocks I don’t see a problem.
First, the recent find is of frozen water in the surface. Second, Hydoxyl is not water. It has one oxygen and one hydrogen and is a free radical combining with just about anything.
Well that’s simply untrue. On the subject of things like the formation of the moon, homochirality, and weathering I don’t use the Bible because the Bible doesn’t say anything about them; it is a book devoted to laying out the relationship between man and his Creator, not a science book. . .which is kind of the whole point of this conversations.
Yet through all this process from the formation of the moon to the reformation of the atmosphere to abiogesis to macroevolution, not once in your thinking does God have a role. It is unguided and by chance and probability. If the story of creation is a story of God's relationship with man, where is God in your view of the origin of the universe?
Additionally, I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe in the resurrection, which as far as miracles go is kind of a big deal. Feel free to review the thread if you need to. Thanks.
Lurker
I meant Ergs
Obviously not a riverbed. No rock to be seen. Just thousands of square miles of sand.
Extremely violent rainstorms are a rare but very real occurrence in the Sahara, as they are in many deserts around the world, and can easily form such “dry rivers”. Not enough exposed stone to wear down? Clearly your grasp of the geography of the Sahara desert is a little wanting, Obviously most of the rock has already been worn away at the surface, but remnants of massive rock formations still exist throughout the desert such as the Ahaggar Mountains, the Ayar of Niger, and the Tibesti Mountains. Furthermore, the southward expansion of the Sahara is in a large part driven by wind such as the Harmattan, a west African trade wind that can blow sand from the Sahara as far south as the equator. This is a little unfair since I’ve actually been to the Sahara, but you kind of walked yourself into this one.
Furthermore, by bringing in wadis you are now not only claiming that solar radiation directly creates “dust” but also sand and gravel. All this despite the fact that you can get on a plane, go to Africa, and watch wind and water create all these same materials. Can I go to those same deserts and observe solar radiation creating the same materials at a faster rate? No? I wonder why that is?
Perhaps that is because many of the more destructive radiations are blocked by the combination of the Ozone and the earths's magnetic field.
Nope, don’t see it. Nor do I see why radiation would be producing dust at such a fantastic rate as opposed to impacts. You are welcome to provide some actual evidence at your leisure.
You have huge smooth surfaces (you can see them with your own eyes) which still have significant dust. You have giant calderas with walls that are crumbling even though there is no weather on the moon.
Obviously volcanic activity on a near-molten earth would far exceed the output of a single modern day volcano.
"Obviously." You are assuming facts not in evidence. The stike that you are talking about would expose the very core of the planet. This would be unlike any volcano we have, releasing no gas and relieving so much volcanic pressure to insure that there would be very little, if any volcanic pressure.
There wouldn’t need to be anything left to eventually form another atmosphere, as long as gases migrated to the surface gravity would hold them near the surface eventually building an atmosphere.
The loss of the ozone layer alone would insure the cook off of any water. The disruption of the orbit and rotation and the lessening of the magnetic field would make it highly unlikely that we would ever see a substantial atmosphere. Look at Mars, It's vulcanism far exceed ours, but the lithosphere is much poorer in oxygen.
That certainly seems to be what you are talking about, but in reality the giant impact hypothesis begins by saying that the moon exists, that it has some very similar isotopes to earth, and that it looks like it could have been formed from the same material used to form earth. The development of the second atmosphere is based on a different set of facts, some of which were provided along with research about others, and just so happens to fit together nicely. Most likely because they are both pretty accurate models.
Again, the connection is that the model of the origin of the moon fuels the model of the formation of the atmosphere.
Again, if this occurred the energy released would surely have resulted in a molten earth, in which case iron is not going to deny physics en masse and migrate to the surface. Why do you think earth has an iron core in the first place? Here’s a hint: gravity.
Well, since gravity has to do with mass not weight, I would say that is it because of the inertia caused by the spinning of the earth.
No I’m not, current models have ejected material coming together in possibly as little as ten years.
I love this....Ten years!
"A giant impact would lead to a ring of very hot debris in orbit around the young Earth. Calculations indicate that the Moon could have formed from that debris in ten years or less! This implies that the Moon would have formed very hot, possibly entirely molten. This scorching initial state is consistent with the idea that the Moon was surrounded by an ocean of magma when it formed. The magma ocean idea has been a central tenet of lunar science for decades, and recent data from the Clementine mission to the Moon finally proved it, as described in "Moonbeams and Elements," an October, 1997 PSRD article. The Moon probably continued to accrete material to it, including some objects up to about half its size. These big impacts could maintain a magma ocean, and scramble any crust that formed. It could also add rock with a composition different from the rest of the Moon, accounting for some unexplained features of the lunar interior. The existence of a magma ocean on the Moon is also prime evidence against the Moon forming by capture. Calculations show that if the Moon were captured, the process would not heat the Moon very much, certainly not so much that it would be mostly molten.”
Solar System Exploration: Science & Technology: Science Features: Origin of the Earth and Moon
Solar System Exploration: Science & Technology: Science Features: Origin of the Earth and Moon
I guess that it’s a bum deal that the experimental evidence disagrees with you then. Honestly I don’t know what else to say seeing as there is substantial evidence showing a functional-based preference for homochirality. You are more than welcome to continue to expound on why you think it shouldn’t have happened, but there seem to be some very good explanations on why it happened as it did that you’re ignoring.
I think you are drinking deeply of that kool-aid.
"But scientists who ought to know,
Assure us that it must be so...
Oh! Let us never doubt
What nobody is sure about."
An large-scale extinction event.
Evolution is the science of biological change over time. The large-scale extinction event isn't evolution. The extinct species didn't change, they died. Show me one example of change from complex to simple according to evolution. The a priori of increasing complexity is a driving force of macro-evolution.
Again, this is Lamarckism, not evolution. Adaptation is driven by purely random variation, the adaptations themselves do not occur as a response to an organism’s environment.
I am not proposing that the adaptation occured because of the environmental change. I am proposing that the adaptation of amphibian to fish would be more likely to survive that the change from amphibian to reptile.
Furthermore, you are grossly over-simplifying things to say that amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives will always out-reproduce amphibians that move from water to land. In some environments, amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives might be better adapted to survive, but in other environments it is advantageous to move, breathe, and hunt on land. This is probably why some amphibians are adapted to live almost exclusively in water, such as the Texas Blind Salamander which sports distinctive red gills, while other amphibians are adapted to live most of their lives on dry land.
Since the first generation of amphibian would lay there eggs in the water and the evolved generation of reptile babies would then drown in the water, I do think it is more likely. You responded exactly the way you had to, by proposing the chance occurance of both the evolutionary leap and the environmental accidence.
Our ability to develop and use technology is a direct result of our brains, which are an adaptation.
Now you jump into the hot water. We survived by developing technology. So our inability to adapt to the environment physiologically was fortuitously joined to the evolution of a techno-savy brain.
If the water is in the form of hydroxl molecules trapped within crystallized rocks I don’t see a problem.
First, the recent find is of frozen water in the surface. Second, Hydoxyl is not water. It has one oxygen and one hydrogen and is a free radical combining with just about anything.
Well that’s simply untrue. On the subject of things like the formation of the moon, homochirality, and weathering I don’t use the Bible because the Bible doesn’t say anything about them; it is a book devoted to laying out the relationship between man and his Creator, not a science book. . .which is kind of the whole point of this conversations.
Yet through all this process from the formation of the moon to the reformation of the atmosphere to abiogesis to macroevolution, not once in your thinking does God have a role. It is unguided and by chance and probability. If the story of creation is a story of God's relationship with man, where is God in your view of the origin of the universe?
Additionally, I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe in the resurrection, which as far as miracles go is kind of a big deal. Feel free to review the thread if you need to. Thanks.
Lurker
C
“Experimental data for a series of central and simple molecules in biosystems show that some amino acids and a simple sugar molecule have a chiral discrimination in favor of homochirality. Models for segregation of racemic mixtures of chiral amphiphiles and lipophiles in aqueous solutions show that the amphiphiles with an active isomerization kinetics can perform a spontaneous break of symmetry during the segregation and self-assembly to homochiral matter. Based on this observation it is argued that biomolecules with a sufficiently strong chiral discrimination could be the origin of homochirality in biological systems.”
By the way, this only presents an arguments for homochirality within a organism, not the absence of "right handed" organisms. Thus all humans have left handed DNA producing left handed proteins.
The problem with this again is a problem of survival. The possibility of abiogenesis and for that matter any macroevolutionary change is more likely if there are multiple instances. What that means is this: there probably had to be alot of pre-life forms changing into protolife forms for the protolife forms to survive. If macroevolution was true, the process left fully half of the life possibilities on the cutting floor with the first cut.
Since there is nothing in any of the models that would have favored "left handed" amino acids over "right handed" amino acids, that is unlikely.
By the way, this only presents an arguments for homochirality within a organism, not the absence of "right handed" organisms. Thus all humans have left handed DNA producing left handed proteins.
The problem with this again is a problem of survival. The possibility of abiogenesis and for that matter any macroevolutionary change is more likely if there are multiple instances. What that means is this: there probably had to be alot of pre-life forms changing into protolife forms for the protolife forms to survive. If macroevolution was true, the process left fully half of the life possibilities on the cutting floor with the first cut.
Since there is nothing in any of the models that would have favored "left handed" amino acids over "right handed" amino acids, that is unlikely.
C
Why does the earth appear old? The question itself begins with a bias of what the world looked like when it was new. But for the sake of argument, I would propose two reasons.
1. Functionality: those things that we see as old have a particular function in the ecosystem. Catfish prefer "old" streams, that is slow amd muddy. So the God who created the catfish, created the stream that was suitable for it.
2. Sustainablility: God put into play the geological and biological mechanisms that would continually renew the earth. Thus we have sandy beaches and a mechanism by which sandy beaches are renewed.
1. Functionality: those things that we see as old have a particular function in the ecosystem. Catfish prefer "old" streams, that is slow amd muddy. So the God who created the catfish, created the stream that was suitable for it.
2. Sustainablility: God put into play the geological and biological mechanisms that would continually renew the earth. Thus we have sandy beaches and a mechanism by which sandy beaches are renewed.
C
On the change of the atmosphere neccesary for the survival of life molecules:
"At that time the 'free' production of organic matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned off and a premium was placed on alternative energy utilization mechanisms. This was a remarkable evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable that any organism survived it."
Carl Sagan, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices.
"At that time the 'free' production of organic matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned off and a premium was placed on alternative energy utilization mechanisms. This was a remarkable evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable that any organism survived it."
Carl Sagan, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices.
That is simply not how science works, irregardless of whether or not you personally feel it should work this way. For example, we know as a fact that many diseases are indeed caused by microorganisms, yet we still refer to this as germ theory.
In science, a theory is ". . . an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers." If you would like to learn more about how terms like "law", "hypothesis", and "theory" are used in science feel free to do so here:
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
Obviously, Adam did not die physically even if we take the account as historically accurate. Personally I don't know if there was a single human being named "Adam" which first sinned or if it is a metaphor for a larger group. The essential point is that human beings at some point were imbued with a "divine nature", that these first true humans began with a perfect relationship with God, and that they chose to disobey God.
That would depend on the debate. In a traditional oral debate he would probably "win" since from what I've seen his better with his rhetoric than I and he doesn't seem to constrain himself to arguments that are actually true. In a debate in this type of format, however, where facts can easily be checked and detailed responses given I think the outcome would be different.
Their "arguments" regularly count on the average person's scientific ignorance, this is why AIG is popular only with laypeople and not professionals in scientific fields.
Lurker
In science, a theory is ". . . an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers." If you would like to learn more about how terms like "law", "hypothesis", and "theory" are used in science feel free to do so here:
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
Obviously, Adam did not die physically even if we take the account as historically accurate. Personally I don't know if there was a single human being named "Adam" which first sinned or if it is a metaphor for a larger group. The essential point is that human beings at some point were imbued with a "divine nature", that these first true humans began with a perfect relationship with God, and that they chose to disobey God.
That would depend on the debate. In a traditional oral debate he would probably "win" since from what I've seen his better with his rhetoric than I and he doesn't seem to constrain himself to arguments that are actually true. In a debate in this type of format, however, where facts can easily be checked and detailed responses given I think the outcome would be different.
Their "arguments" regularly count on the average person's scientific ignorance, this is why AIG is popular only with laypeople and not professionals in scientific fields.
Lurker
You’re still wrong. Ergs are windblown formations,
Feel free to point out a specific caldera with “crumbling” walls that shows evidence of super-fast magic radiation transforming rock into dust any time.
The fact that the entire planet was molten would probably also have boiled away any water. The current “glancing blow” giant impact hypothesis clearly preserves rotation on an axis that would later by stabilized by the presence of the moon. Orbit could be thrown off, but the sun’s massive gravity well would have stabilized it again regardless.
Think about a molten earth composed of different materials, which are going to sink to the center of gravity faster; materials that are very dense or materials that are relatively light? If the earth was molten dense materials such as iron would be pulled towards the center of gravity (the earth’s core) faster than less dense materials. They would not have defied physics en masse and lingered on the surface.
You do realize that this is synonymous with saying that even though the evidence doesn’t support your position and that professional scientists who have spent years researching and studying these issues overwhelmingly disagree with your position, you are going to ignore all that simply because it is your position. I’ve heard the same line of reasoning from people who claim vaccines cause autism, and I’m equally underwhelmed.
Evolution is a process by which living things adapt to their environment, a violent change in that environment will cause many organisms to go extinct precisely because they cannot adapt to it quickly enough and will thus result in a net loss of complexity.
If, however, you want a more specific example pretty much any parasite will do where an organism has “lost” the ability to synthesize some metabolite because it can acquire it from a host.
Except that is not at all how the actual ToE works. Populations blend together, they don’t jump immediately from amphibian to reptile. Reptiles didn’t evolve from modern day salamanders, they evolved from now extinct groups of amphibians that had lots of characteristics that we would now call “reptilian”, including that they spent more and more of their lives on land, such as the Anthracosauria.
Human beings are well adapted for some environments even without all but the most basic of stone age tools. The technological advancements of the last 10,000 years of human history weren’t made possible by any physical difference in our brains but are, instead, the product of the development of language, writing, animal domestication, and agriculture which were, in turn, greatly affected by environment. These advancements have allowed human beings to expand the environments in which they can survive on an unprecedented scale.
In my view, God created the universe with a set of cosmological constants that made the evolution of stars, planets, atmospheres, life, and intelligent life not only possible but also essentially inevitable. In essence, instead of making a car that broke down constantly and always needed to be fixed, He built a car that ran smoothly and without ever needing a mechanic. Now our relationship with God, that is certainly a different story.
Lurker
Almost all major ergs are located downwind from river beds in areas that are too dry to support extensive vegetative cover and are thus subject to long-continued wind erosion. Sand from these abundant sources migrates downwind and builds up into very large dunes where its movement is halted or slowed by topographic barriers to windflow or by convergence of windflow. Entire ergs and dune fields tend to migrate downwind as far as hundreds of kilometers from their sources of sand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg_%28landform%29
Furthermore, not only are Ergs very much not formed via radiation but even after the raw materials are formed through weathering they take a really long time to form.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg_%28landform%29
Such accumulation requires long periods of time. At least one million years are required to build ergs with very large dunes, such as those on the Arabian Peninsula, in North Africa, and in central Asia.[5]
Okay. . .are you altogether sure you remember why you brought this up in the first place? You were arguing that massive sand deserts were formed via radiation precisely because you need them to form faster than they actually do. If the Ozone and the earth’s magnetic field are preventing radiation from magically turning tock into sediment how did radiation actually turn all this rock into sediment as you propose?
Feel free to point out a specific caldera with “crumbling” walls that shows evidence of super-fast magic radiation transforming rock into dust any time.
The fact that the entire planet was molten would probably also have boiled away any water. The current “glancing blow” giant impact hypothesis clearly preserves rotation on an axis that would later by stabilized by the presence of the moon. Orbit could be thrown off, but the sun’s massive gravity well would have stabilized it again regardless.
Think about a molten earth composed of different materials, which are going to sink to the center of gravity faster; materials that are very dense or materials that are relatively light? If the earth was molten dense materials such as iron would be pulled towards the center of gravity (the earth’s core) faster than less dense materials. They would not have defied physics en masse and lingered on the surface.
You do realize that this is synonymous with saying that even though the evidence doesn’t support your position and that professional scientists who have spent years researching and studying these issues overwhelmingly disagree with your position, you are going to ignore all that simply because it is your position. I’ve heard the same line of reasoning from people who claim vaccines cause autism, and I’m equally underwhelmed.
Evolution is a process by which living things adapt to their environment, a violent change in that environment will cause many organisms to go extinct precisely because they cannot adapt to it quickly enough and will thus result in a net loss of complexity.
If, however, you want a more specific example pretty much any parasite will do where an organism has “lost” the ability to synthesize some metabolite because it can acquire it from a host.
Except that is not at all how the actual ToE works. Populations blend together, they don’t jump immediately from amphibian to reptile. Reptiles didn’t evolve from modern day salamanders, they evolved from now extinct groups of amphibians that had lots of characteristics that we would now call “reptilian”, including that they spent more and more of their lives on land, such as the Anthracosauria.
Human beings are well adapted for some environments even without all but the most basic of stone age tools. The technological advancements of the last 10,000 years of human history weren’t made possible by any physical difference in our brains but are, instead, the product of the development of language, writing, animal domestication, and agriculture which were, in turn, greatly affected by environment. These advancements have allowed human beings to expand the environments in which they can survive on an unprecedented scale.
On September 24, 2009 the scientific journal Science reported that India's Chandrayaan-1 satellite, NASA's Cassini spacecraft and the Deep Impact probe have each detected the presence of water by evidence of hydroxyl fragments on the moon. As reported by Richard Kerr, "A spectrometer (the Moon Mineralogy Mapper, aka "M3"), detected an infrared absorption at a wavelength of 3.0 micrometers that only water or hydroxyl–a hydrogen and an oxygen bound together–could have created."[1]
NASA reported on November 13, 2009 that the LCROSS probe revealed an ultraviolet emission spectrum consistent with hydroxyl presence.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl
As for the frozen water at the surface, seeing as it’s been found near the poles in regions that are permanently shadowed I would say that not ever being exposed to direct sunlight seems like a good explanation.NASA reported on November 13, 2009 that the LCROSS probe revealed an ultraviolet emission spectrum consistent with hydroxyl presence.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl
In my view, God created the universe with a set of cosmological constants that made the evolution of stars, planets, atmospheres, life, and intelligent life not only possible but also essentially inevitable. In essence, instead of making a car that broke down constantly and always needed to be fixed, He built a car that ran smoothly and without ever needing a mechanic. Now our relationship with God, that is certainly a different story.
Lurker
J
If the theory of evolution is 100% correct, it does not discredit the idea of God, but it does discredit the idea of an Adam and Eve, and then there would be no fall of man. Thus, discrediting the bible as a whole. Trying to infuse the theory of evolution entirely, that everything came from primordial soup, and changed on its own indepedently, into new KINDS through chance, is simply holding on to the edge of a cliff.
C
You’re still wrong. Ergs are windblown formations,
Don't you find it incredulous that a dry river bed would be the source of enough sand to produce an erg that is, in the case of the Rub' al Khali, 250,000 square miles with sand dunes as high as 1,080 feet high.
Okay. . .are you altogether sure you remember why you brought this up in the first place? You were arguing that massive sand deserts were formed via radiation precisely because you need them to form faster than they actually do. If the Ozone and the earth’s magnetic field are preventing radiation from magically turning tock into sediment how did radiation actually turn all this rock into sediment as you propose?
I bought it up as an illustration of the power of radiation to break molecular bonds. I believe that the sand deserts are part of a healthy ecosystem and thus were created at the beginning. I also believe that God originally intended the earth to be eternal, thus the system which would make sand and unmake it.
Feel free to point out a specific caldera with “crumbling” walls that shows evidence of super-fast magic radiation transforming rock into dust any time.
Ptolemaeus: The crater has a low, irregular outer rim that is heavily worn and impacted with multiple smaller craters.
The fact that the entire planet was molten would probably also have boiled away any water. The current “glancing blow” giant impact hypothesis clearly preserves rotation on an axis that would later by stabilized by the presence of the moon. Orbit could be thrown off, but the sun’s massive gravity well would have stabilized it again regardless.
The moon's circumferance is 1/4 that of earth, hardly a splinter that could be broken off with a glancing blow. Try a little experiment. Take a large rock and a sledge hammer. Try to hit the rock with the sledgehammer using only a glancing blow. Try to hit it hard enough to break of a piece that is 1/4 the circumferance. Such a hit by a meteor would so degrade the orbit as to make it impossible to recover. This meteor strike would not just break off a piece of the crust, It would break off the entire crust.
Think about a molten earth composed of different materials, which are going to sink to the center of gravity faster; materials that are very dense or materials that are relatively light? If the earth was molten dense materials such as iron would be pulled towards the center of gravity (the earth’s core) faster than less dense materials. They would not have defied physics en masse and lingered on the surface.
Climb to the top of the Empire State Building. Drop off a ball of rubber and a ball of steel. Which is affected most by gravity, which hits first? Iron might have sunken quicker than Carbon, but it wouldn't be because of gravity. Density might allow it to pass through other materials more easily while it is molten, but gravity would not pull it faster. The existance of iron, in sizable quantities, disproves your theory that there would be no geological sign remaining of such a deep impact.
You do realize that this is synonymous with saying that even though the evidence doesn’t support your position and that professional scientists who have spent years researching and studying these issues overwhelmingly disagree with your position, you are going to ignore all that simply because it is your position. I’ve heard the same line of reasoning from people who claim vaccines cause autism, and I’m equally underwhelmed.
No, I am saying that if a "scientist" says something, you will accept it without scrutiny. You just stated that the moon was formed by natural means in ten days!!!
Evolution is a process by which living things adapt to their environment, a violent change in that environment will cause many organisms to go extinct precisely because they cannot adapt to it quickly enough and will thus result in a net loss of complexity.
In the extinction of a species, the species does not evolve to a simpler form. They die. Evolution presumes change from simplicity to complexity and thus never argues for such a change.
If, however, you want a more specific example pretty much any parasite will do where an organism has “lost” the ability to synthesize some metabolite because it can acquire it from a host.
So, you are saying that evolution believes that parasites evoved to not be able to synthesize some metabolite, thus forcing them to become a parasite? Can you give me an example of a metabolyte that a particular parasite can no longer synthesize?
Except that is not at all how the actual ToE works. Populations blend together, they don’t jump immediately from amphibian to reptile. Reptiles didn’t evolve from modern day salamanders, they evolved from now extinct groups of amphibians that had lots of characteristics that we would now call “reptilian”, including that they spent more and more of their lives on land, such as the Anthracosauria.
The point is, that evolving downward is just as likely and is most often more survivable tha evolving upward.
Human beings are well adapted for some environments even without all but the most basic of stone age tools. The technological advancements of the last 10,000 years of human history weren’t made possible by any physical difference in our brains but are, instead, the product of the development of language, writing, animal domestication, and agriculture which were, in turn, greatly affected by environment. These advancements have allowed human beings to expand the environments in which they can survive on an unprecedented scale.
And where would that place be? Where can human beings survive without tools? We do not graze, and are poorly equipted to hunt without tools. We do not compete well for "volunteer" food. We are not fast or strong. We do not reproduce fast enough. How did we survive before we were clever?
As for the frozen water at the surface, seeing as it’s been found near the poles in regions that are permanently shadowed I would say that not ever being exposed to direct sunlight seems like a good explanation.
Exactly. But microwaves pierce solid material. Even shaded by the crater, eventually the microwaves will disperse the water into space. Not to mention the effects of the UV range of EM radiation.
In my view, God created the universe with a set of cosmological constants that made the evolution of stars, planets, atmospheres, life, and intelligent life not only possible but also essentially inevitable. In essence, instead of making a car that broke down constantly and always needed to be fixed, He built a car that ran smoothly and without ever needing a mechanic. Now our relationship with God, that is certainly a different story.
You view of the origin of the universe is exactly the same as a deist. Do you believe that this "perfect car" idea also extends to society and psychology?
Lurker
Almost all major ergs are located downwind from river beds in areas that are too dry to support extensive vegetative cover and are thus subject to long-continued wind erosion. Sand from these abundant sources migrates downwind and builds up into very large dunes where its movement is halted or slowed by topographic barriers to windflow or by convergence of windflow. Entire ergs and dune fields tend to migrate downwind as far as hundreds of kilometers from their sources of sand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg_%28landform%29
Furthermore, not only are Ergs very much not formed via radiation but even after the raw materials are formed through weathering they take a really long time to form.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg_%28landform%29
Don't you find it incredulous that a dry river bed would be the source of enough sand to produce an erg that is, in the case of the Rub' al Khali, 250,000 square miles with sand dunes as high as 1,080 feet high.
Such accumulation requires long periods of time. At least one million years are required to build ergs with very large dunes, such as those on the Arabian Peninsula, in North Africa, and in central Asia.[5]
That is assuming that you started with no sand.
Okay. . .are you altogether sure you remember why you brought this up in the first place? You were arguing that massive sand deserts were formed via radiation precisely because you need them to form faster than they actually do. If the Ozone and the earth’s magnetic field are preventing radiation from magically turning tock into sediment how did radiation actually turn all this rock into sediment as you propose?
I bought it up as an illustration of the power of radiation to break molecular bonds. I believe that the sand deserts are part of a healthy ecosystem and thus were created at the beginning. I also believe that God originally intended the earth to be eternal, thus the system which would make sand and unmake it.
Feel free to point out a specific caldera with “crumbling” walls that shows evidence of super-fast magic radiation transforming rock into dust any time.
Ptolemaeus: The crater has a low, irregular outer rim that is heavily worn and impacted with multiple smaller craters.
The fact that the entire planet was molten would probably also have boiled away any water. The current “glancing blow” giant impact hypothesis clearly preserves rotation on an axis that would later by stabilized by the presence of the moon. Orbit could be thrown off, but the sun’s massive gravity well would have stabilized it again regardless.
The moon's circumferance is 1/4 that of earth, hardly a splinter that could be broken off with a glancing blow. Try a little experiment. Take a large rock and a sledge hammer. Try to hit the rock with the sledgehammer using only a glancing blow. Try to hit it hard enough to break of a piece that is 1/4 the circumferance. Such a hit by a meteor would so degrade the orbit as to make it impossible to recover. This meteor strike would not just break off a piece of the crust, It would break off the entire crust.
Think about a molten earth composed of different materials, which are going to sink to the center of gravity faster; materials that are very dense or materials that are relatively light? If the earth was molten dense materials such as iron would be pulled towards the center of gravity (the earth’s core) faster than less dense materials. They would not have defied physics en masse and lingered on the surface.
Climb to the top of the Empire State Building. Drop off a ball of rubber and a ball of steel. Which is affected most by gravity, which hits first? Iron might have sunken quicker than Carbon, but it wouldn't be because of gravity. Density might allow it to pass through other materials more easily while it is molten, but gravity would not pull it faster. The existance of iron, in sizable quantities, disproves your theory that there would be no geological sign remaining of such a deep impact.
You do realize that this is synonymous with saying that even though the evidence doesn’t support your position and that professional scientists who have spent years researching and studying these issues overwhelmingly disagree with your position, you are going to ignore all that simply because it is your position. I’ve heard the same line of reasoning from people who claim vaccines cause autism, and I’m equally underwhelmed.
No, I am saying that if a "scientist" says something, you will accept it without scrutiny. You just stated that the moon was formed by natural means in ten days!!!
Evolution is a process by which living things adapt to their environment, a violent change in that environment will cause many organisms to go extinct precisely because they cannot adapt to it quickly enough and will thus result in a net loss of complexity.
In the extinction of a species, the species does not evolve to a simpler form. They die. Evolution presumes change from simplicity to complexity and thus never argues for such a change.
If, however, you want a more specific example pretty much any parasite will do where an organism has “lost” the ability to synthesize some metabolite because it can acquire it from a host.
So, you are saying that evolution believes that parasites evoved to not be able to synthesize some metabolite, thus forcing them to become a parasite? Can you give me an example of a metabolyte that a particular parasite can no longer synthesize?
Except that is not at all how the actual ToE works. Populations blend together, they don’t jump immediately from amphibian to reptile. Reptiles didn’t evolve from modern day salamanders, they evolved from now extinct groups of amphibians that had lots of characteristics that we would now call “reptilian”, including that they spent more and more of their lives on land, such as the Anthracosauria.
The point is, that evolving downward is just as likely and is most often more survivable tha evolving upward.
Human beings are well adapted for some environments even without all but the most basic of stone age tools. The technological advancements of the last 10,000 years of human history weren’t made possible by any physical difference in our brains but are, instead, the product of the development of language, writing, animal domestication, and agriculture which were, in turn, greatly affected by environment. These advancements have allowed human beings to expand the environments in which they can survive on an unprecedented scale.
And where would that place be? Where can human beings survive without tools? We do not graze, and are poorly equipted to hunt without tools. We do not compete well for "volunteer" food. We are not fast or strong. We do not reproduce fast enough. How did we survive before we were clever?
On September 24, 2009 the scientific journal Science reported that India's Chandrayaan-1 satellite, NASA's Cassini spacecraft and the Deep Impact probe have each detected the presence of water by evidence of hydroxyl fragments on the moon. As reported by Richard Kerr, "A spectrometer (the Moon Mineralogy Mapper, aka "M3"), detected an infrared absorption at a wavelength of 3.0 micrometers that only water or hydroxyl–a hydrogen and an oxygen bound together–could have created."[1]
NASA reported on November 13, 2009 that the LCROSS probe revealed an ultraviolet emission spectrum consistent with hydroxyl presence.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl
Hydroxyl is not water. It is like answering a question about lead in the water, by discussing the salinity of the water.NASA reported on November 13, 2009 that the LCROSS probe revealed an ultraviolet emission spectrum consistent with hydroxyl presence.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl
As for the frozen water at the surface, seeing as it’s been found near the poles in regions that are permanently shadowed I would say that not ever being exposed to direct sunlight seems like a good explanation.
Exactly. But microwaves pierce solid material. Even shaded by the crater, eventually the microwaves will disperse the water into space. Not to mention the effects of the UV range of EM radiation.
In my view, God created the universe with a set of cosmological constants that made the evolution of stars, planets, atmospheres, life, and intelligent life not only possible but also essentially inevitable. In essence, instead of making a car that broke down constantly and always needed to be fixed, He built a car that ran smoothly and without ever needing a mechanic. Now our relationship with God, that is certainly a different story.
You view of the origin of the universe is exactly the same as a deist. Do you believe that this "perfect car" idea also extends to society and psychology?
Lurker
First, is what you refered to, Lamarkism, that changes in environment produce changes in biology. The problem is, this doesn't work. No matter how many times you freeze a lizard, it doesn't as a result grow fur.
Second, is genetic mutation. The problem is that mutations are almost always harmful, and when not are at least not beneficial. In order to have a successful mutation by evolutionary standards, one must have a ordinarily harmful mutation coupled with an environmental accident. In other words, the amphibian who lays reptile eggs must accidentally lay them on the land. DNA also has mechanisms for self repair. And, particuarly in the "higher" species, you would need more than one instance. The biggest problem is that genetic mutation isn't just a cause, but a result. Since outside causes of mutations are horrendously distructive to life, evolutionists look to inward causes, believing that genetic change is the normal effect of time to genetic material. This change must occur very slowly, but that brings the problem of the lack of transitional forms.
The final possibility, which is rejected by virtually all evolutionist, is the theory that all of the genetic information needed for complex organisms are encoded in simple organisms.
The point is that evolution is far from providing any true answers as to the origin of the species.