does anybody care?

Originally Posted by: stacknyHahahahaha, now youre confusing 2 things. God and science, in the sense that youre using it, dont mesh. You cant scientifically explain how God created everything. Physics doesnt apply. However, after God made everything, then physics and science can be applied. Creation can not be scientifically explained.

You say it wouldve eventually happened: First of all, the first thing you need to address is where did the materials needed for life come from? Theyve never been found in meteorites. Second of all, by what forms of energy did they use to form DNA? Sure as heck wasnt sunlight with UV Rays without the Ozone, or we'd have a delicious fry on our hands. If there was the Ozone, then everything undergoes Oxidation and become simpler substances. Third of all, you need a living cell to carry out the functions of DNA and replicate. This is where the whole Law of Biogenisis kicks in. Life has never been found to come from non-life. It just doesnt add up.

so, on the few meteorites that we've examined, there hasn't been any building blocks of life. and that suddenly negates that there could be any on any meteorite? also, didn't pony say that we are still unsure as to whether life can or cannot come from non-life?

also, doesn't oxidation refer to growth? as in, you are born near-perfect and as you age you degenerate. not having to do with evolution which is becoming a more complex through generations of reproduction.

and also, didn't pony address the UV rays and ozone thing? saying that if a life form devoloped in the primordial soup, that the UV rays couldn't penetrate that. and that these early life forms gave off oxygen as a by product, thus creating an ozone and an inhabitable environment for other beings to evolve from these simpler ones.

Originally Posted by: stacknyHahahahaha, now youre confusing 2 things. God and science, in the sense that youre using it, dont mesh. You cant scientifically explain how God created everything. Physics doesnt apply. However, after God made everything, then physics and science can be applied. Creation can not be scientifically explained.

What if it can? I'm not saying God didn't do it, but what if he used means that abide by the rules that still govern our universe today? Why isn't that possible?

God's creation of the universe is just a spiritual perception and interpretation... then theres a science way where it is based on logic and facts... i personally believe more in the scientific theory of the creation of life...

just my 2 cents

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsso, on the few meteorites that we've examined, there hasn't been any building blocks of life. and that suddenly negates that there could be any on any meteorite? also, didn't pony say that we are still unsure as to whether life can or cannot come from non-life?[/QUOTE]

Dude, listen to yourself. FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!! More than myself! Evolution is supposively based on "observations." "Would if a meteorite had the materials essential for life? We've never observed this in nature, but maybe that happened." F-A-I-T-H. Except, this is faith on nothing but a stupid idea to explain an otherwise basisless theory.

And Pony's dang right we're unsure whether life can or cannot come from non-life. Has abiogenisis ever happened? Has life ever been synthesized in a lab? Nope. More silly assumptions that require more faith than the belief in God.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrs
also, doesn't oxidation refer to growth? as in, you are born near-perfect and as you age you degenerate. not having to do with evolution which is becoming a more complex through generations of reproduction.

No, in fact, I have no idea what youre talking about. Rusting is an example of Oxidation. I dont really know the ins and outs of it, but basically, Oxygen combines easily with things, and it will break them down.

[QUOTE=6strngs_2hmbkrs]
and also, didn't pony address the UV rays and ozone thing? saying that if a life form devoloped in the primordial soup, that the UV rays couldn't penetrate that. and that these early life forms gave off oxygen as a by product, thus creating an ozone and an inhabitable environment for other beings to evolve from these simpler ones.

Idk where Pony got his facts on this one, but UV rays, especially UV rays that didnt have to penetrate an OZone layer are strong. Wouldve burnt anything to a crisp.

Originally Posted by: stacknyNo, in fact, I have no idea what youre talking about. Rusting is an example of Oxidation. I dont really know the ins and outs of it, but basically, Oxygen combines easily with things, and it will break them down.

ok.. so let's say living things are like this metal.. ok, you take living beings, and they "rust" or break down due to oxidation.. but then they have a kid. the kid isn't born already "rusted". he becomes that way after birth, but then his kids also come out rust free, and their kids, and so on. and eventually, generations down the line, the kids coming out have grown a pair of legs..

hope that analogy was understandable..

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsok.. so let's say living things are like this metal.. ok, you take living beings, and they "rust" or break down due to oxidation.. but then they have a kid. the kid isn't born already "rusted". he becomes that way after birth, but then his kids also come out rust free, and their kids, and so on. and eventually, generations down the line, the kids coming out have grown a pair of legs..

hope that analogy was understandable..

Thats not the way it works. As Ive said about 30 times, no organism has ever been known to form new DNA material. Its always a loss or variation of what is already there. According to any observations ever made, its not going to get more complex.

I was watching a show by nasa earlier today. Apperatnly there are amino acids in comets, the building blocks of dna. So a comet could have crashed into earth and synthesized......

DNA lesions cause cell killing and mutations if they are not adequately repaired. Exposure of cells to UV light radiation results in formation of the two most common lesions, the cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD)1 and the 6-4 pyrimidine-pyrimidone photoproduct (6-4PP) at adjacent pyrimidines (1). These lesions inhibit DNA replication and transcription and are normally removed from the genome by nucleotide excision repair (NER) in most organisms, including humans (2). By contrast to a cis-syn CPD, which has only a modest effect on the DNA structure, a 6-4PP induces a large structural distortion and is repaired more rapidly than a CPD by NER

And that says totally opposite of what youre saying Pony. Besides, can it be true that these single celled organisms couldve respired enough to make an Ozone layer after they arose from the primordial soup? I aint buying it. Agree to disagree I guess.

And once again, agree to disagree on the Thermodynamics. Even since the Earth isnt a closed system, the energy being put in is gonna cause more harm than good in Abiogenisis.

Evolution really isnt based on observations, but meer assumptions and "would if's" to explain an otherwise basisless theory. Have we ever seen abiogenisis? Nope. Have we ever performed abiogenis in suitable conditions for life, let alone in this primordial soup? Not yet. Til we do so, its basisless, and even then, its still never occured in nature.

Heres another quote on the early atmosphere:

The atmospheric conditions proposed by Oparin, Haldane and Urey were radically different from what exists today. Because oxygen destroys the chemical building blocks of life, they speculated that the early earth had an oxygen-free atmosphere. However, in the last few decades, evidence has surfaced that has convinced most atmospheric scientists that the early atmosphere contained abundant oxygen. In the 1970’s Apollo 16 astronauts discovered that water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen gas in the upper atmosphere when it is bombarded by ultraviolet radiation. This process, called photo dissociation, is an efficient process which would have resulted in the production of large quantities of oxygen in a relatively short time. Studies by the astronauts revealed that this process is probably a major source of oxygen in our current atmosphere.The assumption of an oxygen-free atmosphere has also been rejected on theoretical grounds. The ozone layer around planet earth consists of a thin but critical blanket of oxygen gas in the upper atmosphere. This layer of oxygen gas blocks deadly levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without oxygen in the early atmosphere, there could have been no ozone layer over the early earth. Without an ozone layer, all life on the surface of planet earth would face certain death from exposure to intense ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, the chemical building blocks of proteins, RNA and DNA, would be quickly annihilated because ultraviolet radiation destroys their chemical bonds. It doesn’t matter if these newly formed building blocks are in the atmosphere, on dry ground, or under water.

So evolutionists have a major dilemma. The chemical building blocks of life would be destroyed if oxygen was present, and they would be destroyed if it wasn’t! This "catch 22" has been noted by evolutionist and molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have then is a sort of ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t we have none either." Even if the building blocks of life could survive the effects of intense ultraviolet radiation and form life spontaneously, the survival of any subsequent life forms would be impossible in the presence of such heavy ultraviolet light. Ozone must be present to protect any surface life from the deadly effects of ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Finally, the assumption that there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere is not borne out by the geologic evidence. Geologists have discovered evidence of abundant oxygen content in the oldest known rocks on earth. Again, Michael Denton: "Ominously, for believers in the traditional organic soup scenario, there is no clear geochemical evidence to exclude the possibility that oxygen was present in the Earth’s atmosphere soon after the formation of its crust."

All of this evidence supports the fact that there was abundant oxygen on the early earth. However, with or without oxygen, evolution is in a no-win situation. Spontaneous generation could not have occurred either with oxygen—or without it!

Originally Posted by: stacknyEvolution really isnt based on observations, but meer assumptions and "would if's" to explain an otherwise basisless theory. Have we ever seen abiogenisis? Nope. Have we ever performed abiogenis in suitable conditions for life, let alone in this primordial soup? Not yet. Til we do so, its basisless, and even then, its still never occured in nature.

Have we ever seen God?

Originally Posted by: earthman buckHave we ever seen God?

Did I say we had? Is that the debate here? The debate is whether or not Evolution can make sense scientifically. I dont think it can. God explains an origin for life, while Evolution has not.

Originally Posted by: stacknyDid I say we had? Is that the debate here? The debate is whether or not Evolution can make sense scientifically. I dont think it can. God explains an origin for life, while Evolution has not.

Last time I checked in, the debate was still God vs. evolution. Then again, that was several pages ago. Sorry to stop the flow of everything.

Now, then. Evolution describes the origin of life every bit as much as religion. There are some pretty major flaws in both.

Pony, Im done, and not because youve stumped me or something. This is getting redundant. Abiogenisis has never happened. Mutations have never added to the genetic material. Intermediates have not been found. Evolution does not make sense. Im not in freekin denial here or something, if it made any sense at all, regardless of my religion, Id let you know. It really doesnt.

This simply is not true. They are not assumptions; they are hypothesis that have been tried from every angle, and have proven to be true. By and large, the only objectors are people who believe that science is an affront to their religion. How is it "otherwise baseless?" I don't understand. Look at the arguments you're presenting now as opposed to the ones you initially put forth: "Borel's Law" doesn't exist and the mathematical equation that is used under its name is incomplete (and again, irrelevant), Thermodynamics don't apply, mutations CAN increase genetic information just as easily as they can detract from it, there is life before the "Cambrian Explosion," and plenty of it, there are transitional fossils, and quotes by Darwin himself are taken out of context and ignore the very essence of science... I'm sorry, but evolution does make sense, whether or not you believe in God. It's just plain ignorant disregard.

That right there is the most ignorantly written, if I dare to even call it ignorance because that would imply you havent read a single thing Ive wrote, thing this entire debate has seen. Pretty much everything in that quote is false and based on observations and tests that have not been conducted or proved.

Anyways Im done. I wont come back to this thread for any reason at all, so you can have the last word if you want it.

If anyone has any questions or comments or just wanna tell me Im a liar or you love me, drop me a pm.

I think that one of our first ever religious debates was before your time stack, but if you read this thread, particularly pages 2 and 3 (I have my profile set up to display 40 posts per page... so that's posts between #41 and 120) it might help explain some things, particularly the posts by Dr_simon.. here is just one excerpt from that debate

Originally Posted by: Dr_simonOk so Im not after upsetting anyone so please don't take this as personally.

However....

Can you prove the moon is not made out of green cheese ? How do you know, have you been there ?

How do you know the earth is not flat, have you ever seen the edge ?

How do you know the Earth orbits the Sun ? Have you seen it ?

People have been incarcerated (Galileo Galilei 1564—1642) or even killed as heretics for saying less !

Im not sure I understand what an "absolute fact" is, something is either a fact or it is not.

Absolute is also not a word I would attribute to a concept like "truth" either as one mans "freedom fighter" is another mans "terrorist". Or to use a less abrasive example, the question "Is a table a table if you use it as a foot stool ? Or is it then a foot stool ?" begs the question was the person who called the table a table telling the truth ? Truth is (IMHO) relative (que OBI Kanobi jokes).

However evolution can be observed on may levels and it is occurring every day. Look at the acquisition of bacterial antibiotic resistance (i.e. MRSA) or the change in color of moths as a result of living in an industrial climate or the radial evolution of the pentadactile limb.

Evolution can also be modeled using computers. Here time is speeded up allowing the viewer to watch a process that would normally occur over a very long time happen quickly which makes it more dramatic and noticeable.

Have a look at a couple of (IMHO) very well thought out books. One by Douglas Adams called "The Salmon of Doubt" and the other by a guy called Richard Dawkins called "The Selfish Gene".

Both are well written and in "non-scientific" english.

I'll also say... man, it's pathetic how ignorant and un-educated I was back then. even though it was only a year ago.. I was stepping all over my own feet in that debate. yeesh!

Originally Posted by: stacknyGod explains an origin for life, while Evolution has not.

Isn't evolutionary theory about the origin of species, as opposed to the origin of life?

just on that old post...Dr Simon, those books are amazing.

Salmon of Doubt (well just Douglas Adams in general) is one of the funniest things I have ever read (my personaly favourite being the episode with the cookies and newspaper at the Cambridge train station)...hehe, what an amazing author.

as For the Richard Dawkins, I needed to read that very slowly, just to take it all in...

I studied like a fiend in university and never really touched my guitar. I finsihed University with Honors and spent more hours then i could count studying. I ve been out of school for a year now and still have no job. I m tyring to get back into med school or law school... Life is pretty frustrating right now. All my friends go out and i cant go cuz i owe 30 grand which i had to borrow. Im older and getting older and not nowing the future really scares me, i mean i can end up being successful or end up being a failure...were all two steps from down. But your so young, dont throw in the towel before you even get a chance to fight. The cheesy but true fact is that you should treat things as challenges, not as obsticles becuase obsticales can get overwhelming... Remember, no matter how cold a winter, theres always a spring time ahead.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsI don't mean to keep the debate going, but this struck me as odd. you use the laws of thermodynamics:

to try to disprove evolution. but wouldn't God making the earth out of nothing also defy the first law of thermodynamics? You have tried to explain how God uses science to perform the things he does in the past. So why would he do some things using science to achieve them, and others he just does out of the blue?

also, sure, the chances of life happening may be 1 in 10 to the 250th power, but if life were given an infinite number of chances, then eventually it had to happen. I mean, over the course of billions, trillions, maybe zillions of years, it had to happen at least once. And also, maybe we weren't the first try, and it took several attempts before life was given the perfect settings to exist. but it's definately a possibility. winning the lottery is improbable, yet possible, and it's not like nobody has ever won the lottery. if I were to go buy a lottery ticket today, I probably wouldn't win. but if I bought a lottery ticket once a day for a billion years, I would probably win it at least once.

It seems to defy the definition of "random" to say that, given an extremely high number of attempts, something with an extremely low probability of occuring will occur. Just because you try a million times to win a 1 in a million odds lottery does not mean that you will win. Rolling a six-sided dice six times will not guarantee your rolling a six at least once.

The accuracy of probability is apparant in the long run. If you roll a fair dice several million times the odds of rolling any given number will very likely be 1/6. Almost any event with a probability greater than 0, given the age and size of the universe, is realistic. However, a realistic possibility is no guarantee of anything.

In other words, the Eggman is right but 62's reasoning is understandable.

Originally Posted by: HammurabiThe accuracy of probability is apparant in the long run. If you roll a fair dice several million times the odds of rolling any given number will very likely be 1/6. Almost any event with a probability greater than 0, given the age and size of the universe, is realistic. However, a realistic possibility is no guarantee of anything.

In other words, the Eggman is right but 62's reasoning is understandable.

They won't "very likely" be one in six, they WILL be one in six.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneWhat if it's a 12 sided die :) ?

then your chances are 2 in 24 ;)