Evolution vs. Creation

[THUMPER]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>Yet another argument from ignorance, we do in fact exist as all life does.
Life cannot be proven to have been created , despite your best efforts we can only agree we have no idea how we are here.
You can offer zero evidence that there was indeed some creator.
There exist zero evidence aside from your belief there was one.

This means in your ignorance you assume there was a creator.
I merely point out the fact we exist, and we exist because for some reason, but the reason is not known by you or I.

You presume to project a belief of that reason, and you can only support your belief with your imagination.
I make no presumption and tell you where the buck stops.
That really gets under your skin, I have no understanding why you cannot accept that you in fact do not know. But you project your image of fantasy anyway.

"Life cannot be proven to have been created"

Fact: Abiogenesis cannot be proven
You presume to project a belief of that reason, and you can only support your belief with your imagination.
I make no presumption and tell you where the buck stops.
That really gets under your skin, I have no understanding why you cannot accept that you in fact do not know. But you project your image of fantasy anyway.

(The Mirror)

[Subduction Zone]

Thumper, I ignored most of your copy and paste since it started idiotically. Of course it would have to end even more idiotically. Any time you see some Cretinist site trying to use the SLOT as "evidence" you should run away. As I said earlier when KJV posted a moronic SLOT argument, those have all bee busted so completely that they make evolutionists laugh.

I can assure you that you have no idea what entropy is. All entropy is is a measure of what percentage of existing entropy is not available for work. The higher the degree of entropy the less energy there is that is available for work. That is all there is to it. It is a very simple idea. It does not say that locally life cannot get more complex. That is a good thing because all of us started as single cells in our mothers' wombs. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics worked in the way that most creatards think it works we could not grow from that single cell. That is why there arguments are laughable stupid. The mere presence of the person making the argument busts the argument.

[MIDutch]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
I was tested to have an IQ in the 130's. I guess that's how they define gifted but it's all subjective. I'm not rich at all, not even too well schooled. Our culture seems to reward other abilities than intelligence.

Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc..

Our culture seems to reward being able to LIE to the gullible butts in the pews extremely well.

[Subduction Zone]

THUMPER wrote:

<quoted text>
"Yes, be definition since there was no life on the Earth at one point and then later there was life then there was some sort of abiogenesis event"
"Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Jerry Bergman, Phd
I edited out all of the nonsense where he forgot to disprove abiogenesis and nothing was left over."
"you believe in abiogenesis too, you just call it Genesis"
Wrong!
"Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through NATURAL processes"
Subduction Zone is in the Twilight Zone

That is the common definition of abiogenesis, if you base the definition upon the etymology of the word you have the definition I used. Life appearing from a state of nonlife. It could either be naturalistic or magic. I go with naturalistic. And I'm in the Twilight zone <smirk>

[15th Dalai Lama]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at what you believe in.
"Directing Clays as Proposed Vehicles for Oceanic Abiogenesis
Realising the inherent impossibility of the simple version of their theory, evolutionists have moved on to more exotic versions of abiogenesis. One of these routes is to rely upon certain types of organophilic clays which are proposed to have served as "directors" for the reactions needed to produce simple biologic molecules, first proposed by the Scottish chemist Cairns-Smith. Organophilic clays are suggested as promoters of early chemical evolution for several reasons. It has been discovered that amino acids and other organic molecules will adhere to certain types of clays. Further, many of these clays can encourage and direct polymerisation of amino acids5. The extremely small particle size of clays results in a much greater effective surface area (in relation to a comparable mass of regular mud or rock) upon which these reactions can take place. It has been found that these clays partially exclude water from within their macroscopic "structure", and hence, the polymerisation advances without as serious of a Le Chatelier effect working against it. Also, the crystalline structure of the individual clay particles has a simple organised structure, which aids in directing the reactions, and are thought by many evolutionists to have allowed the clays to "input" the original organised information which eventually developed into the life-information coding we see in present biology. Cairns-Smith summarises the pertinent difficulties with traditional oceanic abiogenesis and the proposed solutions provided by organophilic clays in his volume on the subject released in 19826.
From these discoveries, evolutionists have already made the wholly unsubstantiated leap of assuming that these provide strong support for abiogenesis and "help to solve the question of the origin of life". It's obvious! The amino acids were directed by these clays in their polymerisation, and that is where life originated!
A typical claim runs as such,
"Cycles of wetting and drying produced by the ocean tides cause stress in the clay that translated into energy. These cycles can link molecules of amino acids together by transferring energy .... The ions in clay act as catalysts to speed up chemical reactions ... when in the presence of clays some organic molecules can also perform functions like enzymes"
Realising that the original "spark to bark" theories were too simplistic and did not provide any sort of substrate to encourage polymerisation in an oceanic environment (needed to overcome the Le Chatelier's pressure against amino acid condensation caused by the local overabundance of water), the idea of clays providing the necessary energy and the necessary efficient direction of peptide polymerisation was advanced and has been ran full steam ahead. Throw in the prerequisite "millions and millions of years" to overcome the added difficulty of the miniscule concentrations of these amino acids in something as large as an ocean (and thus the extremely low probability of even two of these amino acids meeting up, much less enough to make a full-fledged protein), and you have a theory which the evolutionists are in love with."
http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogene...

Don't you dare tell me what I believe, you retarded dipshít.

Now you know something I believe.

[MIDutch]

THUMPER wrote:

<quoted text>
"Life cannot be proven to have been created"
Fact: Abiogenesis cannot be proven
You presume to project a belief of that reason, and you can only support your belief with your imagination.
I make no presumption and tell you where the buck stops.
That really gets under your skin, I have no understanding why you cannot accept that you in fact do not know. But you project your image of fantasy anyway.
(The Mirror)

Most of the steps for abiogenesis have already been proven out. It may very well be achieved within the next couple of decades.

What are you going to be saying then?

BTW SCIENCE has only been working on demonstrating abiogenesis for a few decades, but I'm betting that abiogenesis will be fully demonstrated before your Jesus comes back. What's it been now? Almost 2000 years that you guys have been waiting for him?

[bohart]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
What is "life"?
Did the people who first successfully clone an organism create new life? Surely not molecule by molecule, but certainly neither the cell nor the nucleus were life on their own. So what's your test?

Ask the researchers at Harvard what it is as they fumble with trying to create it.

[MIDutch]

Scientist creates lifelike cells out of metal
Researcher says he has created living cells made of metal instead of carbon — and they may be evolving.

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innova...

Scientists trying to create artificial life generally work under the assumption that life must be carbon-based, but what if a living thing could be made from another element?

One British researcher may have proven that theory, potentially rewriting the book of life. Lee Cronin of the University of Glasgow has created lifelike cells from metal — a feat few believed feasible. The discovery opens the door to the possibility that there may be life forms in the universe not based on carbon, reports New Scientist.

Even more remarkable, Cronin has hinted that the metal-based cells may be replicating themselves and evolving.

"I am 100 percent positive that we can get evolution to work outside organic biology," he said.

The high-functioning "cells" that Cronin has built are constructed from large polyoxometalates derived from a range of metal atoms, like tungsten. He gets them to assemble in bubbly spheres by mixing them in a specialized saline solution, and calls the resultant cell-like structures "inorganic chemical cells," or iCHELLs.

The metallic bubbles are certainly cell-like, but are they actually alive? Cronin has made a compelling case for the comparison by constructing the iCHELLS with a number of features that make them function much as real cells do. For instance, by modifying the outer oxide structure of the bubbles so that they are porous, he has essentially built iCHELLs with membranes capable of selectively allowing chemicals in and out according to size, much as what happens with the walls of real cells.

Cronin's team has also created bubbles inside of bubbles, which opens the door to the possibility of developing specialized "organelles." Even more compelling, some of the iCHELLs are being equipped with the ability to photosynthesize. The process is still rudimentary, but by linking some oxide molecules to light sensitive dyes, the team has constructed a membrane that splits water into hydrogen ions, electrons and oxygen when illuminated — which is how photosynthesis begins in real cells.

Of course, the most compelling lifelike quality of the iCHELLs so far is their ability to evolve. Although they aren't equipped with anything remotely resembling DNA, and therefore can't replicate themselves in the same way that real cells do, Cronin has nevertheless managed to create some polyoxometalates that can use each other as templates to self-replicate. Furthermore, he is currently embarked on a seven-month experiment to see if iCHELLs placed in different environments will evolve.

The early results have been encouraging. "I think we have just shown the first droplets that can evolve," Cronin hinted.

Though the idea of a strange new metal-based form of life rapidly evolving in a lab somewhere on Earth may sound ominous, the finding could forever change how life is defined. It also greatly improves the odds of life existing elsewhere in the universe, since life forms could potentially be built from any number of different elements.

The possibilities are exciting to imagine, even if Cronin's iCHELLs eventually fall short of full-blown living cells. His research may have already blown the door off previous paradigms about the conditions necessary for life to form.

[It aint necessarily so]

THUMPER wrote:

"It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials;

Only sometimes. Other times, they do the opposite. The sun, like everything else, is made of chemicals. it is not breaking apart into simpler materials.

THUMPER wrote:

Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design).

How would a design help? And we can increase order by allowing energy to leave a substance, as when steam freezes. Finally, the sun provides a large amount of energy.

THUMPER wrote:

However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder.

Yes, which is why living things require a continual source of energy, or they die and decompose.

THUMPER wrote:

The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.

Wrong. The whole universe was a uniform cloud of plasma once. Now, much of its matter has organized into galaxies of stars and their satellites.

THUMPER wrote:

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite.

The overwhelming number of qualified scientists say otherwise.

[bohart]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
If I knew this I would have posted the link myself.
Thanks for admitting that you are a liar by not posting the requested link.

Hey lying puddle gooist, it was posted by Drew some time ago, origins. harvard .edu, Jack Szostak.

[Aura Mytha]

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
"We can only agree that we have no idea how we are here"! you said that!
Your ass is backing up so much I can hear you beeping. You and your ilk have constantly talked about abiogenesis as a naturalistic origin of life, needing no God ,no creator. One of the main tenants of puddle gooism is that life started on it's own , do you now renounce one of your churches tenants, claiming ignorance, or will you repent and return to the fold of the life giving goo?

I have backed nowhere , I have repeatedly stated that it is not provable in either assumption , therefore it is unknown.
I tell you the probability of natural origin. but you assert that you know of creation. a blatant lie. I state that where unnatural or natural the event *is* abiogenesis life from non living matter.
You dispute this in your error.

[Aura Mytha]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes sir you're gifted,
That's what they call everyone on the short bus.
You ride the short bus, while I ride the black limousine.

I didn't say I was riding on anything, perhaps you ride in the black limousine. But what does that have to do with anything? Truthfully I drive myself not just ride. Certainly not on any bus you imagine. But since you ride the black limousine,
maybe you can tell us what that has to do with the fact stated?

[Drew Smith]

HTS wrote:

None of the "predictions" listed in the talkorigins article are valid.
1. Homologies are equally predictive of intelligent design.

No, it isn't, since an intelligent designer (certainly an omniscient one) is free to make each design unique. No need for homology.

HTS wrote:

2. Antibiotic resistence in bacteria is not evolution.

That wasn't what the prediction said. The prediction said that any organism in a fast-changing environment would have a higher mutation rate. And that *is* evolution, since evolution is a change over time in the frequency of alleles in a population.(I'm beginning to believe that you have no idea what evolution is.)

HTS wrote:

3. "predator-prey" dynamics is microevolution.

Which is still evolution, and predicted by evolutionary theory.

HTS wrote:

4. phylogenetic analysis is simply plugging in a proposed evolutionary mechanism into a pre-defined paradigm.

No, phylogenetic analysis was the way in which Mayr's prediction was confirmed.

HTS wrote:

5. The fossil record represents a failed prediction of Darwinism.

No, the fossil record represents successful confirmation of evolution.

HTS wrote:

6. phyologenetic trees... the entire system is an elaborate house of cards based on evolutionary presuppositions.

Prove it.

HTS wrote:

7. Insect wings from gills... the example given is nothing more than an extension of the argument of homology.

No, the example given is a successful prediction regarding what other features a particular species would have.

HTS wrote:

If you want to seriously look at a prediction of DArwinism...

You mean a prediction of evolution? Already provided in the given link and you failed to refute them.

[Drew Smith]

HTS wrote:

I take the time to refute each and every claim

You didn't "refute" any of them.

[Subduction Zone]

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey lying puddle gooist, it was posted by Drew some time ago, origins. harvard .edu, Jack Szostak.

blohart can't but help to give evidence that he is a liar.

Maybe I am missing something here. Does anybody else see a link here?

[Drew Smith]

And if it were impossible for a population of single-celled organisms to evolve into a population of multicellular organisms, then it would be impossible for a fertilized egg (a single-celled organism) to become an adult organism (a multicellular organism). Since the latter is not impossible, then the former is also not impossible.

KJV wrote:

"then it would be impossible for a fertilized egg"
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that you made an absurd claim about single-celled organism, and I refuted your claim by providing the example of a fertilized egg (which is a single-celled organism).

KJV wrote:

By the way What grade are you in now?

Long past the grade where I was taught that engaging in childish insults in a debate is a fast way of letting everyone know that you've lost the debate.

[Drew Smith]

Is a virus alive?

bohart wrote:

Is a fire alive ? Does the chemical reactions when combined in my drain cleaner constitute life?

You didn't answer my question. Answer mine, and then I'll answer yours.

[Aura Mytha]

THUMPER wrote:

<quoted text>
"Life cannot be proven to have been created"
Fact: Abiogenesis cannot be proven
You presume to project a belief of that reason, and you can only support your belief with your imagination.
I make no presumption and tell you where the buck stops.
That really gets under your skin, I have no understanding why you cannot accept that you in fact do not know. But you project your image of fantasy anyway.
(The Mirror)

I fail to understand how your repetition justifies your thoughts when your premise is only projecting something I did not say.

Fact: Abiogenesis can be proven ,*life exists*
from nothing that lived it sprang forth.
What ever the method the conclusion is the same.
There is no refute to this truth.

Repeated......
Whether created by design or by naturalistic origin
life went through abiogenesis.
This by it's existence is proven.

[Aura Mytha]

MIDutch wrote:

Scientist creates lifelike cells out of metal
Researcher says he has created living cells made of metal instead of carbon — and they may be evolving.
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innova...
Scientists trying to create artificial life generally work under the assumption that life must be carbon-based, but what if a living thing could be made from another element?
One British researcher may have proven that theory, potentially rewriting the book of life. Lee Cronin of the University of Glasgow has created lifelike cells from metal — a feat few believed feasible. The discovery opens the door to the possibility that there may be life forms in the universe not based on carbon, reports New Scientist.
Even more remarkable, Cronin has hinted that the metal-based cells may be replicating themselves and evolving.
"I am 100 percent positive that we can get evolution to work outside organic biology," he said.
The high-functioning "cells" that Cronin has built are constructed from large polyoxometalates derived from a range of metal atoms, like tungsten. He gets them to assemble in bubbly spheres by mixing them in a specialized saline solution, and calls the resultant cell-like structures "inorganic chemical cells," or iCHELLs.
The metallic bubbles are certainly cell-like, but are they actually alive? Cronin has made a compelling case for the comparison by constructing the iCHELLS with a number of features that make them function much as real cells do. For instance, by modifying the outer oxide structure of the bubbles so that they are porous, he has essentially built iCHELLs with membranes capable of selectively allowing chemicals in and out according to size, much as what happens with the walls of real cells.
Cronin's team has also created bubbles inside of bubbles, which opens the door to the possibility of developing specialized "organelles." Even more compelling, some of the iCHELLs are being equipped with the ability to photosynthesize. The process is still rudimentary, but by linking some oxide molecules to light sensitive dyes, the team has constructed a membrane that splits water into hydrogen ions, electrons and oxygen when illuminated — which is how photosynthesis begins in real cells.
Of course, the most compelling lifelike quality of the iCHELLs so far is their ability to evolve. Although they aren't equipped with anything remotely resembling DNA, and therefore can't replicate themselves in the same way that real cells do, Cronin has nevertheless managed to create some polyoxometalates that can use each other as templates to self-replicate. Furthermore, he is currently embarked on a seven-month experiment to see if iCHELLs placed in different environments will evolve.
The early results have been encouraging. "I think we have just shown the first droplets that can evolve," Cronin hinted.
Though the idea of a strange new metal-based form of life rapidly evolving in a lab somewhere on Earth may sound ominous, the finding could forever change how life is defined. It also greatly improves the odds of life existing elsewhere in the universe, since life forms could potentially be built from any number of different elements.
The possibilities are exciting to imagine, even if Cronin's iCHELLs eventually fall short of full-blown living cells. His research may have already blown the door off previous paradigms about the conditions necessary for life to form.

That is mind boggling.

[Subduction Zone]

Thumper makes the mistake of relying purely on a dictionary definition of abiogenesis. He is not bright enough to parse the meaning from the words roots.