backtop


Print 195 comment(s) - last by JKflipflop98.. on Oct 4 at 11:43 PM


Could life on earth owe its origins to an icy environment?
At last we have a full science-based theory on how life on Earth could have originated

In follow-up work to Miller and Urey's groundbreaking study look at the synthesis of organic compounds in a primordial environment, it was shown that RNA monomeric bases could form under conditions similar to those of a prehistoric Earth.  More recent work has shown how such individual bases, floating in a water environment, could link together into chains.

But none of that explains how the life made the jump from RNA to DNA and how it added a protective and sustaining soup of organic compounds along the way.  The answer may lie in a little known concept -- RNA can act as an enzyme.

It is now generally regarded in most of the biochemistry community as sufficiently proven that RNA acts as the enzyme to make the proteins in our body (the so called "ribozyme").  Thus it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to think that RNA enzymes, despite their lesser catalytic prowess, could slowly generate sugars, proteins, phospholipids and other key macromolecules.  In fact, a number of RNA enzymes that generate various organic molecule types have been discovered -- including enzymes to accomplish self-replication of the enzymes themselves.

A critical question that remained unanswered, though, was how the ancient RNA enzymes could survive.  RNA naturally undergoes hydrolysis reactions in water that can break its chains.  While occurring at a low rate, the large number of the phosphodiester linkages in a long RNA chain make it virtually inevitable that and RNA molecule would break apart in days, if not months.  So how did our potential RNA ancestors escape destruction?

Now researchers at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the United Kingdom think they have cracked that puzzle.  By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation.  At these cooler temperatures the energy barrier was presumably too high for uncatalyzed hydrolysis of the phosphodiester linkages to occur -- thus safeguarding the RNA.  But with sufficient ions (added via dissolving commonly occurring salts like magnesium-halogen salts in water), the RNA enzyme could lower the energy barrier of the desirable reactions and survive and self-replicate.

Thus the origin of life on Earth might not have been in a deep-sea vent or open ocean, but in a cold muddy puddle in the icy north or south, which contained a mix of water and organic byproducts of freed carbon from the Earth's crust.

The study's lead author Philipp Holliger explains, "It’s like the tortoise and the hare problem.  The tortoise is slower, but it keeps on going, rather than falling apart. One thing that was available at the beginning of the Earth was time."

Over time this life form could have built up an arsenal of useful chemicals -- evolution at its most basic microscopic form.  The most critical developments would have been the creation of a protective phospholipid bilayer, the creation of protein enzymes to offer faster catalysis, and last, but not least, the switch to the more chemically stable DNA.  Once a self-replicating RNA-lifeform gained these adaptations, it would at last have been ready to venture into warmer climates and begin to survive and reproduce, capturing the sun's power to fix energy in carbon-based molecules.

From there a long evolutionary road lay ahead, eventually reaching man and our zoological peers in the modern world.

So is the theory true?  We may never know.  But it appears that science has at last provided a somewhat plausible explanation as to how life could have made the leap from carbon compounds to a complex living system.

The new study is published in the September 21 edition of the journal 
Nature Communications.  It builds upon this previous 2004 study, published in Astrobiology, which suggests that RNA enzymes could have functioned in an icy environment.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 12:41:15 PM , Rating: 1
Someone please answer this question: What in this article is testable and observable?




RE: ...
By techiesAllegro on 9/22/2010 1:04:07 PM , Rating: 5
Here no?

..."By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation"...


RE: ...
By nafhan on 9/22/2010 1:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
1. Whether or not this has been tested or observed doesn't really matter in the context of the article. It's pretty clear that this is someone's idea of how it could have happened.
2. I'd say all of it could and may be tested at some point. Observation will, of course, be dependent on test results.


RE: ...
By phattyboombatty on 9/22/2010 2:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is the entire meat of the article:
quote:
By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation. At these cooler temperatures the energy barrier was presumably too high for uncatalyzed hydrolysis of the phosphodiester linkages to occur -- thus safeguarding the RNA. But with sufficient ions (added via dissolving commonly occurring salts like magnesium-halogen salts in water), the RNA enzyme could lower the energy barrier of the desirable reactions and survive and self-replicate.

Everything else was just a story to put that bit into context.


RE: ...
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh...reason is so refreshing!


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 4:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
There have been a large number of answers to your objections. Your response to those objections has been "Your answer is worthless because it disagrees with my religion"

Sorry, but until science gets around to studying your religion there isn't a connection.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Phoque on 9/23/2010 8:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Where are the observable facts, references and scientific findings for all that is described in the Bible, Coran, Torah and other religious books?

I think it's fair to say there is more intellectual rigor in our scientific findings today.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Phoque on 9/26/2010 8:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Opinion: A river carved out the canyon over millions and millions of years. You can easily confuse the facts with the opinions; something that plagues this forum much too often.


In this case, your idea that this forum confuses facts for opinions has nothing to do with the forum itself. The canyon is regarded by the scientific community as having been carved out by the Colorado river ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_canyon ).

The scientific community have plenty of evidences to draw such a conclusion, not based on personal interests or beliefs ( hence: not an opinion ). Religious people only have their religious book to back their point of view.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 9/26/2010 7:50:22 PM , Rating: 1
Let me get this right ... You believe the following things:

1. Science is without fault
2. If a certain percentage of scientists agree on a theory, that automatically makes it true
3. Religion has no chance in have a basis in fact

You are so biased its scary. Why Is your opinion is more valuable than everyone else around you? You can't seem to understand that opinions are the same.

I thought we were all created to be equal. I guess you don't hold the same values; Good luck in life if you are going to follow that philosophy lol

So don't you EVER accuse someone of being closed minded.


RE: ...
By Kim Leo on 9/23/2010 7:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
Uhm Yes you were answered by techiesAllegro.

quote:
..."By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation"...


I would like to see your answer to this, the reason why you get downrated is because of your childish behaviour, but please, answer the post from techiesAllegro.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2010 10:04:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would like to see your answer to this

He did not offer ONE SINGLE piece of tangible, observable, testable science. NOT ONE PIECE. If you want to extrapolate that abiogenesis is proven once a scientist freezes some RNA then calls it a day, then by all means have a blast.

I asked for tangible proof and no-one provided any. Abiogenesis has a million different theories and experiments, yet it have NEVER BEEN OBSERVED! You can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that you are daydreaming instead of following the natural world (which is only what true science is involved with).


RE: ...
By Redwin on 9/23/2010 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
but.. you didn't say "what in this article can testably prove Abiogensis".. If you had I would readily agree that nothing did, this is a tiny piece of that particular puzzle and it may not be an important or even relevant one.

Instead you said specifically "What in this article is testable and observable?"

They put RNA into a cold environment and observed it to continue to function, whereas previously science did not know it could do this. That's a test, backed up by observation, which we would call "science." That's also the only testable and observable thing in the article, as several people here pointed out to you; because that's what you asked for.

You're right in that it says very little about abiogenesis, and proves nothing whatsoever about it; but to say there is nothing "testable and observable" in the article is simply untrue. The low temperature functioning of RNA was tested, and observed to be happening.


RE: ...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2010 12:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thus the origin of life on Earth might not have been in a deep-sea vent or open ocean, but in a cold muddy puddle in the icy north or south, which contained a mix of water and organic byproducts of freed carbon from the Earth's crust.

quote:
Over time this life form could have built up an arsenal of useful chemicals -- evolution at its most basic microscopic form. The most critical developments would have been the creation of a protective phospholipid bilayer,...

Did you read the article? The entire study is set out to provide "proof" for abiogenesis. That the big picture of this whole article. If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to say.

You act as if I was asking "what experiment did they carry out" when in actuality I was asking, "AFTER the experiments, did they obtain observable results for abiogenesis?". the answer is a resounding NO. They did not. I think I might know the difference between an experiment and the results and conclusions. Stop trying to undermine me, you look like a fool in the process.


RE: ...
By Redwin on 9/23/2010 1:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well if what you really wanted to ask was:
quote:
"AFTER the experiments, did they obtain observable results for abiogenesis?"

Then the answer is, no, of course not. The one single testable fact produced by this study about RNA performance at cold temperatures is nowhere near enough to prove or even really change the likelihood of abiogenesis as a theory.

My point is you didn't say that in your original post. Your post, in its exact entirely was:
quote:
Someone please answer this question: What in this article is testable and observable?

That was the question people were responding to. I am defending their (and my) responses to that question as being: RNA works better than we thought at cold temperatures.

If you're not arguing that they DID observably prove that RNA works at cold temperatures, and I'm not arguing that that small observed fact in no way makes a proof for abiogenesis, then I would submit to you we aren't really arguing about anything at all, except maybe the fact that you asked one question and then replied to the answers you got as if you'd asked a completely different one.


Not mutually exclusive viewpoints
By trisct on 9/22/2010 2:42:30 PM , Rating: 5
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but the modern arguments about the two views are. The problem is that some people aren't intelligent enough to take into account the fact that the relevant parts of the Bible (source of most creationist argument) are completely abstract, and meant to be that way.

People who think the world was made and populated in 6 days are just sheep without enough imagination to wonder about how it happened and how it was written down. I believe in God, but I don't think the creation story is anything but a myth. It was written down after a fevered vision, and it was a drastically simplified account of reality. Who says a "day" was anything less than a billion years in that context? Time, to any worthy deity, means nothing. Maybe the universe was created, but it wasn't done in a day, or a week. It was done over cosmic lengths of time, and mostly in a way that we CAN start to understand. How was an ancient goatherd going to grasp evolution or cosmology? They didn't. They just wrote down some approximation that made sense to them. Understanding the process through the scientific method doesn't detract from it, and it isn't an attack on religion. We're just figuring out what tools were actually being used. So, whether it was done by a divine being, or whether it all just randomly happened, the process itself didn't really care.




RE: Not mutually exclusive viewpoints
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not mutually exclusive viewpoints
By Iaiken on 9/22/2010 3:27:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you read Genesis, you will see where "a period of time" simply does not work. The time lapse between the sun and plant life would be millions/billions of years. So either the bible is dead wrong or plants lived without the sun for millions of years. I think the Bible is right...


Or you can accept that the earth is drastically older than man or that god was smart enough to put radioactive materials there in their various states of decay for us to find and puzzle over.

Especially when we then go on to create some of these materials ourselves so that we know what their initial states are and can then calculate out how long it takes for them to reach those various states.

Occam's razor demands that the bible is dead wrong in this respect as to do otherwise is to throw out piles upon piles of evidence in favor of blind adherence to text.

I think his sheep comment is a rather accurate assessment...


RE: Not mutually exclusive viewpoints
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 4:37:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Occam's razor demands that the bible is dead wrong in this respect as to do otherwise is to throw out piles upon piles of evidence in favor of blind adherence to text.


You do know that Occam's razor is just a guideline, not an infallible rule that even scientists use, right?

And only dumb Creationists believe in a young earth. Most do not.


RE: Not mutually exclusive viewpoints
By Iaiken on 9/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not mutually exclusive viewpoints
By Paj on 9/24/2010 9:10:49 AM , Rating: 1
The speed of light was much faster back then, duh.


RE: Not mutually exclusive viewpoints
By gamerk2 on 9/22/2010 3:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's nice how you apply your opinion of the bible as undeniable fact. If you want to pick and choose which parts of the bible to take as "valid" then you go right ahead, it's your divine right to do so. However, there are definately abstract and anecdotal parts of the bible; It's up to YOUR interpretation as to which is meant to be taken literally. I literally believer every word of the Bible, and I take some of that on faith since some parts can neither be proven or dis-proven.
quote:


Man and Woman created together, or man created first?
Two by two, or 7 clean 2 unclean?
Moses or Arron?

There were at least TWO seperate Old Testamates prior to King David unifing Isriel; scholars have gone so far as to seperate the two books based on writing style. Hence why every major Old Testamate story prior to David is told twice, each a totally different way. When the Bibles were unified, it looks like nothing was removed, even the inconsistencies.

Likewise, the Church (who gave them the power to speak for God, anyways? Oh right, they did) has had a long history of adding/removing chapters from the Bible as seen fit by them in order to secure their own power. Try digging up some older versions and see some of the chapters that have been removed...

Farther, how about some of the translation choices throughout the Bible? "Virgin" isn't anywhere in the New Testamate; "Young Woman" is. But, every midevil European knows that EVERY young woman is a Virgin, yes? Boy, make that minor change, and the New Testamate gets a whole new meaning.

So yeah, I don't see the Bible as anywhere close to being a reliable source of information.


RE: Not mutually exclusive viewpoints
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 4:15:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Man and Woman created together, or man created first?

Go back and read Genesis. The so called "second" creation is only a recall of where it was described earlier in the book. Right out the gate you spew another tired talking point.


By sgw2n5 on 9/22/2010 4:40:33 PM , Rating: 1
THE DEVIL PLANTED RADIOISOTOPES TO UNDERMINE THE JEEEEEBUS!!!


By amagriva on 9/22/2010 3:48:51 PM , Rating: 1
Quote Quadrility:
Wow; you are a complete bigot. Congrats.

MUAHAHHHAHH HAHH HHAHHAH HAHHMAA HHA HAH! YOU CALL HIM BIGOT!!!


By Hieyeck on 9/23/2010 9:15:29 AM , Rating: 1
A reasonable religious? Get out. Your quest for reason is not welcome here. I will be marching to keep fear alive!

</sarcasm>

If only my GF's mother were as reasonable as you, what a bible thumper she is. I hated it when I had to point out 1 Corinthians 14:34


By Uchimoriya on 9/24/2010 12:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
Any contents from the Bible is just story telling and unproven fables. It is completely irrelevant to modern science thus not be included into this topic discussion. Sorry.
So people, please stay on topic!!!!!


Hold on now
By geddarkstorm on 9/22/2010 3:22:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
At last we have a full science-based theory on how life on Earth could have originated


Err.. I hate to burst bubbles, but no, that is not true in the slightest! Where does this research suggest the production of building blocks, needed inorganic resources, and energy comes from in icy conditions? Where does it suggest how DNA, proteins, and an enclosing membrane then arose; all while in these icy conditions? How would most required and essential biological reactions needed to produce live even occur at such low temperatures? Thermal dynamics sorta disagrees! All this research has shown is that if you put a premade ribozyme that can self replicate in an icy condition with all its premade building blocks and other cofactors, it can still function at a slow rate without naturally breaking down. Rather, I would thing our bodies are a more realistic possibility, where production rate simply has to exceed natural degradation rate. There is a lot of work to be done and this is just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

For one thing, how do you propose ribose be produced in an icy environment? It isn't made in the Miller and Urey reactions (i.e. by electricity), but requires large amounts of formaldahyde (0.15M at least) and HEAT, even with the best of potential catalysts. On top of that, the catalysts and reaction conditions needed to produce ribose abiotically actually destroy that ribose very rapidly (before a nitrogenous base and phosphate can be put on it to make a nucleic acid, and long before that can polymerize into RNA). This is a known standing issue. After that, how will you get to produce deoxyribose? It takes a great deal of funky chemistry and energy to do that in our bodies. Energy is another problem: RNA is not an energy producer, and it takes great lengths of us manipulating things to get even the most basic alcohol oxidation events through RNA. And how would you generate all the proteins, building blocks, and other cofactors needed when encased in ice? The abiotic reactions needed to make them (or the RNA building blocks) aren't going to be occurring in an icy environment! All this research has shown is that RNA can function in an icy environment - THAT'S IT. In fact, it doesn't even explain how selection would possibly work to amplify RNA molecules that do ANYTHING ELSE THAN self replicate; as only self replication by definition will amplify and selection is only concerned with that in nature.

Moreover, ribozymes are generally only capable of a limited array of chemical reactions. This is why proteins are the primary everything in our bodies. Ribozymes are mainly limited to little acid-base tricks (though one carbon-carbon bond forming Diels-Alder reaction has been seen by using artificial HUMAN selection and conditions, nothing natural). Even the ribosome itself is simply ALIGNING the amino acids and coordinating with water in such a way to produce an environment favorable for the reaction -- it isn't itself participating chemically (see http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v13/n5/full/nsm... ).

Then you have problems of producing a membrane and harvesting energy. In icy conditions, the RNA molecules themselves may be protected, but you aren't going to be generating much energy nor setting up a membrane. Membranes disorganize and rupture in icy conditions, which is why freeze-thawing is a typical way to lyse cells. Never mind where would one find lipids in ice?

As nor would a pocket of water contained in ice stay that way over all time, climate varies too much day to day; it WILL freeze-thaw repeatedly. No big deal for RNA/DNA, but highly destructive to cofactors, proteins, and especially lipids.

This theory does not in any way, shape, or form constitute a full or plausible theory; in fact it isn't a theory of where life could come from in ice, just that RNA isn't totally dead in icy conditions. In fact, the hydrothermal vent theory has a lot less holes and more plausibility, despite all the chemical problems! In actuality, the clay theory is the most interesting one to me. Also, an RNA world is just ONE of the competing theories: others start with metabolism first using metal systems, for instance.




RE: Hold on now
By gamerk2 on 9/22/2010 3:41:58 PM , Rating: 3
Undersea vents have a LOT of potential for energy and heat; its imporant to remember Photosynthesis did not occur until MUCH later, so its entirly possible we're talking about a much more stable deep sea environment.

Nevermind its possible that Amino-Acids, and NOT RNA, is the basic building blocks. A lot still isn't known in this area. Nevermind that no one can really agree on the exact climate of Earth in the period where life is believed to have begun (which itself is up for some debate).

On a Macro scale, the theory has legs, but a lot of the things you touched on need farther study to prove or disprove the theory.


RE: Hold on now
By TheDoc9 on 9/22/2010 5:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with ya'.


RE: Hold on now
By rbuszka on 9/22/2010 6:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
^^^ This post wins.

Finally, someone with some semblance of expertise is willing to comment on this freak-show; I was beginning to think these posts would just be from the naturalism cheerleaders ("Yay, we don't suck?") and religious debaters (not gonna be solved in a discussion thread, srry).


Jason Mick is an journalistic amateur
By wgbutler on 9/23/2010 8:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
So many points to make, so little time:

1) This is supposed to be a TECH blog, not a soapbox for Mick to use to push his anti-religion bigotry.

2) There is nothing "groundbreaking" about the Urey-Miller experiment. The lab environment was nothing at all like the environment that existed on the early Earth and the results were unimpressive in any event.

Here is one link among many that demonstrate the various problems with Urey-Miller:

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view...

quote:

One textbook, edited by Soper (“Biological Science 1 and 2”; 3rd edition; Cambridge University Press) summarises the situation well (p. 883):

Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

This conclusion is echoed by those who have spent many years researching in this field of biochemistry. Dr D E Hull wrote,

The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation.

Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.

Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote,

You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.


3) The "primordial soup" theory is now is the trash bin of scientific theories. See this link for additional information:

http://scienceblog.com/29647/new-research-rejects-...

quote:

"Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life," said senior author, William Martin, an evolutionary biologist from the Insitute of Botany III in Düsseldorf. "Butsoup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life."


This research team states that the primordial soup theory is impossible and promotes deep sea vents as the necessary venue for abiogenesis, which incidentally, directly contradicts the study that Jason Mick is promoting!

If Mick is going to hijack this tech site to promote his atheistic views, he should become more well informed on the issues.

Go ahead and try to respond to me, Mick, if you dare!




By JKflipflop98 on 10/4/2010 11:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAH I can't believe people as dumb as this make it past infancy. Seriously.


Am I The Only One...
By The Insolent One on 9/22/2010 5:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
who noticed the photo?

The Iceman.

Lol...that's an awesome choice.




Jason Mick Comment
By The Insolent One on 9/22/2010 5:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick probably receives more scathing comments on this site than anyone else.

"You screwed up another one Mick."
"Try again Mick."
"LOLFAIL Mick."

I would say based on the amount of comments on this and other threads, Mick is absolutely brilliant. You see, even though you tell him how wrong he is, and you disagree with everything he might put forth his opinion on, you're still putting money in his wallet. That's right, he gets you to come back to this site over and over and your eyeballs equate to cash money.

So as you enjoy basking in the glow of your $200k education and the years of professional experience on whatever topic you feel compelled to comment on, if you're here, Mick has already ROFLPWN'ed you.




This bok is worth a read
By Tony Swash on 9/23/2010 11:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
This book covers, amongst other things, the origin of DNA and gene replication. A very interesting book I highly recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Ascending-Great-Inventi...




About Religion
By Phoque on 9/23/2010 8:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
All I have to say about some of the religious-related posts here is ( these are my spiritual dogmas, I am not religious, but deeply spiritual ):

1) God exists, only its nature is the subject of debates.

2) Everybody or nobody can speak in the name of God.

3) When one person speak in the name of God, he is just stating his mortal and human interpretation/vision and it is as worthy as another ( perhaps not as popular ).

4) When you kill in the name of God, you are not being religious, you are just being a terrorist.

5) If you think you have an exlusive communication line with God, you need anti-psychotics.




Val Kilmer
By JonnyDough on 9/24/2010 1:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
Before he was a bad B rate movie actor...

Am I the only one who loves this picture of "ICE"? Awesome idea/find for a pic.




not theory
By General Disturbance on 9/22/2010 2:47:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At last we have a full science-based theory on how life on Earth could have originated


It's not theory, it's speculation. Important difference.

Idiots.




here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: here we go again...
By darkweasel on 9/22/2010 12:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
lol. That's right, god is always the answer. No point in doing any science at all, am I right?


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: here we go again...
By dani31 on 9/22/2010 12:46:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'm getting tired of people demanding that science and God be mutually exclusive; because they don't have to be.


Strange because that is precisely what you did in the first post.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: here we go again...
By quiksilvr on 9/22/2010 3:32:04 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, it is exactly what you did. Who said they were trying to erase God? There was nothing definitive in the article stating that without a shadow of a doubt it was purely science and nothing else, but you turned this comment thread into a science vs God debate, something that you supposedly claimed didn't want to do (mutually exclusive I believe was the term used, or are my reading skills failing me as well?).


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 3:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, most scientists believe in the philosophy of materialism. It's their religion. They believe everything had to happen without God because they can't see him.

Creationists believe that everything has to happen via God because they say so, but then take the creation account literally, such as to think that the earth is only 6k years old when it isn't.

Both are wrong, and both are dogmatic about their beliefs in how they shape their conclusions.

You may think the people who say "God did it are crazy," but imagine being around/before the time of Louis Pasteur where they proved abiogenesis happened because microbes just came out of nowhere. And before that, flies coming out of rotting meat proved it happened.

People have been claiming abiogenesis started life since forever. Each and every scientific discovery makes it harder and harder to believe, and this article is just another article that says, "Well, maybe it happened this way."

On arstechnica.com, they had a paper about how a meteorite hitting the earth was the source for the material for lipids.

From the above article:

quote:
Once a self-replicating RNA-lifeform gained these adaptations, it would at last have been ready to venture into warmer climates and begin to survive and reproduce, capturing the sun's power to fix energy in carbon-based molecules.


What? Now this molecule has to venture to warmer climates, but abiogenesis claims that to even get to this point, the sun had to deliver the energy to begin with.

Look, we have these things called viruses, which have DNA in them, and THEY can't reproduce without a host. What makes me think these have any other chance to do so? Both are considered non living organisms to boot.

Miller's experiments didn't prove either that we even have the 20 necessary amino acids to begin with, and while work has been done to find out how this happened, there are too many things that had to go right in order for this to happen. It's like I have to drive from Miami FL to California without hitting a red light.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/22/2010 4:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
The existence of viral parasites does not disprove the existence of self sufficient viruses.

There are also multicellular parasites that cannot survive or reproduce without a host. The existence of parasites that have evolved to reproduce only with the assistance of another organism does not prove the nonexistence of the host organisms that do can survive on their own.


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 4:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The existence of viral parasites does not disprove the existence of self sufficient viruses. There are also multicellular parasites that cannot survive or reproduce without a host. The existence of parasites that have evolved to reproduce only with the assistance of another organism does not prove the nonexistence of the host organisms that do can survive on their own.


Perhaps you don't understand that bacteria that requires a host to survive is less, not more evolved than the lowest bacteria known to survive on its own.

Scientists claim "Well the first life forms were simpler," when we already have those simpler lifeforms that cannot live without the more advanced lifeforms, aka scientific empirical evidence that proves otherwise. And we gauge their advancements based on their DNA.


RE: here we go again...
By Iaiken on 9/22/2010 4:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps you don't understand that bacteria that requires a host to survive is less, not more evolved than the lowest bacteria known to survive on its own.


Nice opinion, but I can hardly agree.

Even at the bacterial level, the "lesser" evolved organism as you put it, might not be able to survive in the extremely hostile environment that is the host. Meanwhile the bacterium that has adapted to live there doesn't simply eek out an existence, but often thrives there.

The life of a bacteria is a lot more complex than you make it out to be.


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 4:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Since you both don't understand what "host" in this case means, it means the bacteria does NOT have the native ability to take in food by itself, nor in the case of a virus does it have the ability to reproduce by itself. It requires a MORE ADVANCED life form to do its work for it.

quote:
Even at the bacterial level, the "lesser" evolved organism as you put it, might not be able to survive in the extremely hostile environment that is the host. Meanwhile the bacterium that has adapted to live there doesn't simply eek out an existence, but often thrives there.


Instead of posting typical hypothetical nonsense, post something based on science, not wishful thinking.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/22/2010 5:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
Bacteria are perfectly capable of taking in food without assistance. They may however adapt to the different food supplies in various environments. Humans tend not to last long at 30,000 feet above sea level or 10 feet underwater. Those environments are considered "hostile" by humans, though other life forms find them quite congenial.

Viruses in the dormant state are non-life. Once the virus has parasitized a host, the virus+host is a living organism that is capable of reproducing. (okay maybe not in the case of the virus that infects another virus until the pair then infect a cellular host) Though technically a non-living chemical compound a virus is a component of a living creature that "comes to life" when the virus is present in the host cell.

Virii are either non-living life or they are the ultimate parasite, being stripped down to just the components necessary to convert a host into the lifeform that reproduces the virus. No host==no virus. The host came first, viral ancestors evolved to their present form in the presence of the host...there is even a virus that infects a viral host...Now all we need is a virus that infects the virus that infects a virus...

Eventually one will evolve, the nature of evolution is that anywhere there is an unused environment there will be an organism evolving to live there. Of course that is just an untested hypothesis :)


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 5:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bacteria are perfectly capable of taking in food without assistance.


We aren't talking about bacteria in the year 2010, but the first organism that went from non living to living.

Come on people, this is abiogenesis we are talking about.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 6:30:31 PM , Rating: 1
I hope this was purely sarcasm...


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/22/2010 5:15:22 PM , Rating: 1
Correction a parasite that requires a host is MORE evolved.

The earliest ancestor organism could survive on its own. Once in the host, evolution disposed of unneeded functions.

An example is the human need for vitamin C. The human body has MOST of the sequence needed to make vitamin C internally, but one key step is broken by a genetic change. Humans with this break no longer spend energy making C, instead they eat plants and animals that still make their own. Without that external source humans die of scurvy.

By your definition humans are a lower life form as they cannot survive without a host that supplies vitamin C :P


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 5:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The earliest ancestor organism could survive on its own. Once in the host, evolution disposed of unneeded functions.


How do you know that? Evidence or just speculation? Before it could reach this stage, it wasn't living.

But your question again brings up the same tired old story: a complete fully functioning first lifeform requires quite a bit of genetic material to eat, expend energy, reproduce, etc. Scientists lower the bar by saying the first life form was less complex, but anything less complex can't survive.

You and others haven't explained why RNA even can replicate itself into something more than itself.

quote:
An example is the human need for vitamin C. The human body has MOST of the sequence needed to make vitamin C internally, but one key step is broken by a genetic change. Humans with this break no longer spend energy making C, instead they eat plants and animals that still make their own. Without that external source humans die of scurvy. By your definition humans are a lower life form as they cannot survive without a host that supplies vitamin C :P


That's after the fact.

We are talking about a time when NO life existed. Focus on that point, not on creating smoke screens.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/22/2010 9:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
First there would likely have been a period when "life" consisted of self catalyzing chemical reactions.

Anything that made a particular cycle "better"...meaning that it was more efficient in local conditions would be more likely to continue. If it could continue working in changed conditions even better.

At some point these "improvements" would have crossed the line between a reactive chemical soup and life. That point is the "origin" of life. Living things after all are simply structures that contain and maintain chemical reactions...everything else about "life" just contributes to this function :P

As for why the ancestral organism could survive without the host. Uhm assuming any Creation mechanism other than total instant population of the environment, there was a parasite that occupied the new host for the first time in history...either it came from somewhere else or it came about by spontaneous creation.

Given the way the world actually works, I am betting against spontaneous creation of a new organism.

Instead I am betting on evolution modifying an existing life form based on a change in normal environment when a population took up the parasitic lifestyle in a new host.

The research into prehistoric lifeforms and research on present day lifeforms tends to support modification as more likely than spontaneous creation of a complex lifeform (even as simple a one as a virus)

A very simple self replicating chemical that later develops an enclosing membrane requires nothing more than the chemical soup that is already known to develop when there is no intervention by lifeforms. Given that this would have occurred at a time when there were no lifeforms, this simple organism had no competition.

After saying all that in response to your objection. None of this or of your objection applies to anything in the article these comments are assumed to be replying to :)

You may also notice that nowhere do I assume that God does not play billiards. Nothing in this version of the theory precludes the possibility that the whole process was directed by a Supreme Being who may (or may not) be Jehovah the God of Abraham, Vishnu, Ahura or any of the other Great Gods credited with the creation of the universe.


RE: here we go again...
By Iaiken on 9/23/2010 9:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's after the fact. We are talking about a time when NO life existed. Focus on that point, not on creating smoke screens.


Is that you Irony?

None of us were talking about Abiogenesis in this line of discussion until you suddenly tried to sidetrack it.

Why? Because even this new evidence in support of it, isn't enough to prove it. I understand this, apparently you either don't or you just like to argue till your blue in the face.

There is no reason to stop looking for the puzzle pieces that make up the big picture just because you say so. :P

Thus you are trying to disprove other talking points by pointing at Abiogenesis and saying "but you need this in the first place for all that to happen!" YOU were the one that brought complex organisms into the discussion and then try to invalidate them as a talking point.

And that, gentlemen, is irony for ya...

quote:
You and others haven't explained why RNA even can replicate itself into something more than itself.


This can be explained by evolution as well, we know that DNA mutations happen even in a protected cell environment. To say that it similar mutations cannot happen to RNA in an unprotected environment is simply absurd.


RE: here we go again...
By ninjaquick on 9/24/2010 2:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why the heck do people have this misconception that Faith in God as a religion is somehow an attack on Science, and vice-versa. I say I should not do science to prove religion for the simple fact that there is no real need to and it is just bad science. Just as such I won't use religion to try and disprove science.
I only trust science as long as it is reproducible. If I cannot do this then it is no more a science than a blind faith in what others say. Physics is great because I can easily prove things, Chemistry likewise. Biology of the living and recently deceased is great because I can easily prove it all. But Evolution and abiogenesis is all conjecture and opinions since no hard evidence or proven methods can reproduce what is said to have happened.

If someone sets out to use Science to disprove religion then they will, because their views and results will be biased. Good science is being willing to admit to having the wrong hypothesis. All these attempts to prove the origin of life are stubborn efforts to not have to admit that there is no scientific and logical way life could just happen.

My believing that God did it is just as likely as the mathematical probability of RNA being synthesized and then somehow forming DNA and then somehow all the rest of the highly sensitive chemical reactions that are needed for lifelike compounds.

Funny how it takes just as much faith and religiosity to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God.

I don't say science is bad, I support it wholeheartedly. But Evolution is not science. It is a school of thought and a very incomplete theory. What's silly is how Genetics is somehow used as proof of evolution, when in fact, if you look at everything that Genetics (with the exclusion of Evolutionary extrapolation and dependencies) entails you will realize that Genetics disproves evolution very soundly.


RE: here we go again...
By gamerk2 on 9/22/2010 12:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
As far as the field of Abiogenesis goes, yes, they are. The study of the Creation of Life is fundamentally athiestic, for somewhat obvious reasons.

You came on quick on this one; feeling a little paranoid today? This is a [supposedly] SCIENCE site, so saying "God did it" doesn't fly here.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: here we go again...
By gamerk2 on 9/22/2010 1:09:31 PM , Rating: 1
Excuse me, but have you read the actual report yet?

Oh, wait. Thats right; you've already determined evolution to be false (ignoring any and all evidence provided) while continuing to cling to "Canopy Theory" (ignoring any and all evidence provided). Therefore, this study has no basis in fact, and everyone who even mentions it is pushing evolution.

Sorry, you do NOT go on a science site and pull religious BS, just like scientists don't go on religious websites and trash religion. I for one am getting really tired of aruging religion to you, instead of having a debate on teh study itself.


RE: here we go again...
By Keeir on 9/22/2010 1:13:17 PM , Rating: 3
errr

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Seems like the article covers 1-7. Retesting really should be done by other scientists

Just because you don't like 6. doesn't mean that the scientific method wasn't followed.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: here we go again...
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 1:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
The observable data was the functionality and sustainability of the ribozymes contained within the chilled water pockets.

You are criticizing an article that encompasses data gathered from many individual experiments and organizes them into a theory for not being a primary literature research publication in and of itself...and that makes no sense.

This article is, in essence, a review publication including a new piece of proven fact that was previously lacking.

If you don't agree that the disparate pieces paint this picture, that's fine...the point is that a large portion of the scientific community sees this as a possibility, and thus it is a valid THEORY.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 1:58:28 PM , Rating: 1
Your definition of "proven fact" is vastly different from reality. If so, then please SHOW ME AN OBSERVED EXAMPLE OF ABIOGENESIS. <--- my point of this whole discussion. None of this is science; it's nothing more than baseless attempts at proving an unprovable theory: aka "voodoo science".


RE: here we go again...
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
I never said they proved abiogenesis...

I said they proved ribozymes could function and remain viable in a cold environment.

DT is (loosely) a science website. It really is mostly focused on electronics technology. It is not in any way, shape or form a hard science publication and should not be held by anyone to such standards.

Abiogenesis is a THEORY (have a mentioned previously that is a theory?) that is popular and is shaped around a number of actual peer-reviewed publications. NONE of the peer-reviewed publications claim or attempt to prove abiogenesis. They simply prove (and they DO prove with hard facts) that COMPONENTS of the theory are workable.

As an extant theory that deals with scientific facts and above all may be interesting to DT readers, this article is well within the scope of what DT should publish.

If you only want to read things you agree with...well...


RE: here we go again...
By solarrocker on 9/22/2010 4:30:39 PM , Rating: 3
Religion then on itself is same as your "Voodoo Science"

Like you said yourself "Give me an observed example of God".


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: here we go again...
By Skywalker123 on 9/22/2010 11:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but it is extremely funny!


RE: here we go again...
By Calindar on 9/22/2010 6:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Religion then on itself is same as your "Voodoo Science" Like you said yourself "Give me an observed example of God".


\win


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 7:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's pathethic that you view this as "win" and "lose". Grow up.


RE: here we go again...
By Helbore on 9/22/2010 1:19:17 PM , Rating: 5
Wait, what?

An article proposing a hypothesis for abiogenesis is "voodoo science," simply because it is not a fully tested theory with predictions and peer-reviewed, repeatable evidence gained from detailed experimentation. Yet you are pushing the notion that "goddidit," based on the most untestable, unpredictable, unpeer-reviewable (is that a word?) reasoning around - namely, an old book says so and you can't prove otherwise.

Methinks someone has a severe case of the double-standards.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: here we go again...
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 1:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
This article, Quadrillity, is NOT a peer-reviewed publication. It is a non-technical piece about an extant theory that a newly published journal article helps support...

Also, how does faith play a role in this argument at all? I am a practicing Christian and also a geneticist. That does not affect my ability to read this article and assess objectively whether it makes any sense.

For future reference: you will never, EVER, find a peer-reviewed publication on this site. That's not what DT does. Please don't be a troll by holding it to those standards.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: here we go again...
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
You are criticizing scientific THEORY for not being scientific LAW.

Theories are just ideas that are based on pieces of fact, and which change and are frequently debunked over time as new facts are revealed.

There is no observed case of abiogenesis here, and no one claims there is one. So what are you yelling about?


RE: here we go again...
By phattyboombatty on 9/22/2010 2:26:26 PM , Rating: 3
You are failing to distinguish the actual scientific study that was the basis of the article from the wrapping that Jason Mick applied.

The science (with actual real experiments!) involved identifying a certain set of conditions in which RNA could function and survive in water. That's it. Your beef seems to be with people taking that bit of knowledge and plugging it into a theory of abiogensis.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 2:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it appears that science has at last provided a somewhat plausible explanation as to how life could have made the leap from carbon compounds to a complex living system.


I really don't know more clear it could be that abiogenesis is being pushed...


RE: here we go again...
By JonB on 9/24/2010 8:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't know more clear it could be that creationism is being pushed...


RE: here we go again...
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/22/2010 4:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
They are not stating that they have "proven" abiogenesis so your question is moot.

They are saying that they have discovered conditions where RNA CAN operate as an unprotected enzyme outside the laboratory without degrading. Noted also is that certain RNAs are self replicating.

Another research project may include this as PART of the supporting evidence that a THEORY of abiogenesis is based on.

Science calls everything a theory. The reason is that future research will be directed at finding errors and refining the parts that work to better understand why they work.

The computer you are using to comment was created this way. The design evolved with people using existing design theories to theorize better designs.

The scientific method has a proven track record. There may be a better method, but that is the goal of work on theories of research techniques :P The pure religion method put Copernicus in prison for speculating about the motion of planets. As he observed at the time...

I can easily conceive, most Holy Father, that as soon as some people learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the Earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected.
--Nicolaus Copernicus

As far as his opinion of the scientific method
I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgment of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavour to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God.
--Nicolaus Copernicus


RE: here we go again...
By Helbore on 9/22/2010 6:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I know EXACTLY what you are arguing against. You are jumping on anything that could potentially be one day used to prove that organic life can be naturally derived from inorganic matter.

YYou talk about the scientific method, but you seem to be completely oblivious of the scientific method when rubbishing this study. Science doesn't start with a fully-formed theory with lots of repeatable, peer-reviewed trials and experiments. THat's where it ends up. It starts with scientists looking at evidence around them and postulating hypotheses based on this. They perform experiments, state their findings and expand those into possibilities for other scientists to mull over, test, research and possibly even tear apart.

Yet here you are attacking this for not having all the answers right off the bat. Why, I wonder? Could it be that there is a deep-rooted fear in you that if scientists continue to pursue these avenues of invesigation, they may actually, one day, come back with repeatable, testable evidence that proves god isn't necessary for life to exist?

Your whole argument is bunk and underlines a horrible misunderstanding of the scientific process. So horrible, in fact, that I can't believe you actually don't understand this flaw logically. It's classic compartmentalisation and whilst you can't see that (and never will), its plain as day to anyone else reading your posts with a dispassionate perspective.

You're not attacking this article due to poor science, you're attacking it because it threatens one of the last "necessities" for god to exist.

But still, how you can call something crap and BS for not being scientiic, yet then claim there is any truth in the Bible is insane. The Bible contains not one jot of science. I bet you don't also call that crap and BS.

Oh, I get it that you are trying to prove that "evolution science" and "abiogenesis" are just religions like Christianity (your wrong in every way, but I get that's what you're trying to prove). But you're trying to prove it by saying that by not being science, its a bunch of BS that requires faith to believe in. I guess you just called all religion a bunch of crap and BS by association, then.

I guess I agree with some of what you are saying then.


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 4:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet you are pushing the notion that "goddidit," based on the most untestable, unpredictable, unpeer-reviewable (is that a word?) reasoning around - namely, an old book says so and you can't prove otherwise.


Sure you can. Prove that abiogenesis happened. The problem here is that no experiment will ever satisfy or falsify those who believe in materialism that it could have not happened by "chance". People like Dawkins will say "You didn't try this," or, "we still have x^10000 theories to go!"

Some chose to believe that something, not nothing, made life because they see the evidence of design down to the cell.

Others say there is no design because they have that prior commitment to materialism.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/22/2010 5:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Please avoid airplanes in the future as they do not exist. This is proven by the fact that they were not created by God :P


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 5:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please avoid airplanes in the future as they do not exist. This is proven by the fact that they were not created by God :P


Either you are joking or very non sequitur.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 6:33:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Some chose to believe that something, not nothing, made life because they see the evidence of design down to the cell.

Others say there is no design because they have that prior commitment to materialism.


THANK YOU! I was looking for those words but just couldn't find the right way to say it.


RE: here we go again...
By inaphasia on 9/22/2010 1:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't "pushing" anything...

"We may never know" means:
a) We may never know
b) Could prove to be right
c) Could prove to be wrong

The beauty of c) being that should it be proven wrong (or a better theory comes along), this one will be completely abandoned.

It's not a voodoo science article. Rather, it "assumes a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself".


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 1:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not a voodoo science article. Rather, it "assumes a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself".

I challenge you to go any mainstream textbook and see how much evolution is forced down the throat of whoever is reading it. The current organic-bio book that I am reading even goes as far to add "support for evolution" at the end of EVERY SINGLE section whether its completely out of context or relating to the subject matter at ALL.

If you can't see the blatant indoctrination that is going on then I don't know what to tell you.


RE: here we go again...
By MozeeToby on 9/22/2010 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's because it is impossible to understand modern biology (micro and macro) without an understanding of evolution. It pervades every discussion about biology the same way that the four basic forces pervade every discussion about physics, the only difference is that there isn't any large religious group arguing against the existence of the basic tenets of physics. You can't discuss modern biology without discussing evolution because modern biology is defined by evolution.


RE: here we go again...
By inaphasia on 9/22/2010 2:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Then I could challenge you to go to any library to briefly check up on American history and see what role (if any) religion has played in the birth of the nation.... But then we would be dancing around in circles.

It's ironic that you should choose the word "indoctrination". My whole point was that theories (just like those textbooks you mentioned) can and will change overnight, when a better one comes along.


RE: here we go again...
By eskimospy on 9/22/2010 4:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
The foundation for all of modern biology is evolution, so of course they mention it all the time. If you're reading this textbook, how do you not know that?

It would be like getting angry at computer tech articles for mentioning electricity so much.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 4:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The foundation for all of modern biology is evolution, so of course they mention it all the time. If you're reading this textbook, how do you not know that?

wtf are you asking? haha. I think you misunderstood the point of that post.


RE: here we go again...
By Calindar on 9/22/2010 7:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
They are "forcing it down your throat" because it is so significant and important to the study of biology. Do you get angry when math books "force" algebra down your throat?

It is taught because it is the only theory that explains and is supported by every single piece of biological evidence we have to date, with no evidence contradicting it. If or when indisputable evidence does appear that contradicts evolution, the theory will need to be altered to accommodate such evidence, or the theory will be thrown out completely if the evidence is so contradicting that no such an alteration can be made.

Now I'll wait for you to throw a standard "example" of how evolution is wrong, and I know that "example" is going to do more in showing how little you understand evolution than it will in disproving evolution.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 7:28:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They are "forcing it down your throat" because it is so significant and important to the study of biology.

My claims are that anything beyond micro-evolution is unobservable. Having said that, we can argue the point all day long, but biology existed before evolution did.
quote:

It is taught because it is the only theory that explains and is supported by every single piece of biological evidence we have to date, with no evidence contradicting it.

Again with the evidence argument! ENOUGH ALREADY! EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE. Just because a lot of people believe the evidence is in support of evol. doesn't make them any more right than I am.

quote:
or the theory will be thrown out completely if the evidence is so contradicting that no such an alteration can be made.

Now you're just talking straight out of your ass lol. you KNOW that will never happen. Especially with the cases of fraud and cover-ups that are plagued by this stupid theory. When evidence doesn't support the theory, it is simply thrown out or CHANGED to fit the theory.

quote:
Now I'll wait for you to throw a standard "example" of how evolution is wrong, and I know that "example" is going to do more in showing how little you understand evolution than it will in disproving evolution.

Go talk to yourself in a corner somewhere; I'm not going to waste my time if you are going to be a self centered jerk-off.


RE: here we go again...
By Calindar on 9/22/2010 8:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again with the evidence argument! ENOUGH ALREADY! EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE. Just because a lot of people believe the evidence is in support of evol. doesn't make them any more right than I am.


No, evidence isn't subjective. Yes, it does make them more right then you. You have no evidence to support your beliefs, they have all of the evidence. Until you can provide evidence that more accurately and realistically supports your beliefs over their theories, they are right and you are wrong. It is really that simple.

quote:
Now you're just talking straight out of your ass lol. you KNOW that will never happen. Especially with the cases of fraud and cover-ups that are plagued by this stupid theory. When evidence doesn't support the theory, it is simply thrown out or CHANGED to fit the theory.

At this point, you may be correct. There is such an overwhelming, unquestionable amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, that any evidence that completely contradicted evolution have to at first be viewed as an anomaly, with a much better explanation than it contradicting evolution. If the contradicting evidence came in such great abundance that it proved to be more than a simple anomaly, then yes, the theory would have to be thrown out. That however is unlikely, as no such evidence has been found yet.

Frauds and cover-ups plaguing this theory? Are you talking about the cover up by the head scientist for that group of scientists that were sexual abusing children? Or am I thinking of a different cover up?

Fraud is inevitable in any field. The fact that you know about the fraud means that it has been exposed and disregarded, which in all of the evolutionary fraud cases I can think of, it has been exposed, and the related information has been disregarded by nearly everyone... Except of course the creationist simpletons, who continually bring it up as if it somehow changes anything.

quote:
Go talk to yourself in a corner somewhere; I'm not going to waste my time if you are going to be a self centered jerk-off.


No. You are wasting everyone's time with your constant attacks on any scientific article that contradicts your religious beliefs.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 10:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, evidence isn't subjective. Yes, it does make them more right then you. You have no evidence to support your beliefs, they have all of the evidence.

There you have it; so saith the all mighty Calindar: the god and master of all knowledge.

Since you refuse to accept that all evidence is OPINIONATED and that opinions aren't created equal, then this entire discussions is over before it began. If you act like this out in the real world (for the love of God I hope that you do not) I can be rest assured that everyone around you despises your narcissistic smug attitude. Good luck in life...


RE: here we go again...
By Calindar on 9/23/2010 12:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
When you're out of arguments, start calling names... Classic.


RE: here we go again...
By Iaiken on 9/23/2010 10:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since you refuse to accept that all evidence is OPINIONATED


I am standing upright in a smooth tiled room and drop a ball from shoulder height.

Our so-called opinionated evidence tells me that it's going to fall towards the surface that I am standing on.

Through experimentation we are now able to calculate exactly how long it will take to reach the surface, at what speed and how much energy will be involved in the impact.

It is the GOAL of biology to reach a similar level of understanding of the underpinnings of life.

There you go again with the names again, I thought your Christian parents would have raised you better than that.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2010 10:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! Your scenario is observable and testable. Abiogenesis has never been observed. So what's your point in comparing apples to oranges?

I'm done with this; some of you are refusing to compare things that are justifiable.


RE: here we go again...
By Iaiken on 9/23/2010 11:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what's your point in comparing apples to oranges?


I can't think you are really THAT dense so you must be avoiding my point deliberately.

The point is that science is working towards the ability to observe it, test the theory.

IF it happened in nature, we should be able to recreate it with the right tools, technology and conditions.

What you fail to grasp is that there is nothing wrong with working towards this even if it ultimately means numerous failures. There is no way of knowing where the investigation will lead or what ancillary technologies will result from it to the benefit of mankind.

Is the possibility that they may be right frighten you that much that you feel the need to rail against it? What if they succeed in your lifetime, will it change your deep rooted beliefs? Probably not. So I ask you, what is the point of fighting it when it won't make a difference to YOU either way in the end? Are you afraid you might follow in the footsteps of Captain Robert FitzRoy because you just didn't fight hard enough to stop it? Seriously, what are you after?


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2010 11:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point is that science is working towards the ability to observe it, test the theory.
IF it happened in nature, we should be able to recreate it with the right tools, technology and conditions.


You seem to be confusing the simple fact that too many out there are SET OUT to "prove" a theory instead of just test, observe, and record results. Almost every single scientist today starts off day one already biased and convinced that evolution is already proven and unfailing. If you can not understand the level of biased in the subject area then I don't know what to say.

quote:
Seriously, what are you after?

I am a Christian; salt of the earth. I am here to preserve, and irritate. :)


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 11:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seem to be confusing the simple fact that too many out there are SET OUT to "prove" a theory instead of just test, observe, and record results


That is normal procedure. You are confusing the scientific method of proposing an idea and testing it with the religious method of proposing an answer and justifying it.

A good example of the scientific method is the famous Michaelson-Morley experiment. The experimenters believed that the speed of light is not a fixed constant. They devised an experiment that would demonstrate the accuracy of this theory.

They performed the experiment and they are now in the history books for proving that the speed of light IS a constant. That is, the theory they were testing was wrong and they are famous for proving they were mistaken :)

You will remember that the Pope threw Copernicus in jail for publishing a book in which he stated that the accepted religious truth might be incorrect.

Two completely different approaches to the same problem. Propose a theory, develop a test and (science) test the theory/(religion) silence those who question the Truth.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/24/2010 8:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They performed the experiment and they are now in the history books for proving that the speed of light IS a constant. That is, the theory they were testing was wrong and they are famous for proving they were mistaken :)

Um, actually the speed of light has been show to NOT be a unfailing constant, FYI.

If you set out to find evidence to fit a predestined theory or though process, then you are already biased. My point is that biases plague evolutionary sciences so much that it's impossible to tell if someone is doing quality research. They have already determined in their mind that the theory is "scientific law" and will NOT deviate from that train of thought. So yes, they treat it just like I treat my faith; unchanging.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/24/2010 12:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you find that information? The constant c which represents the speed of light in equations is considered an invariant. Yes astronomical studies are finding evidence that some constants have changed over the life of the Universe, but lightspeed is not one of them. Observations tend to support the current mainstream belief.

Yes that is the speed of light in a vacuum & when traveling through a medium that slows it down, then light does travel at speeds lower than the speed of light in a vacuum. That is actually the source of Cerenkov radiation...a light that is emitted by particles traveling faster than light in water.

Other experimenters have actually slowed light down to human walking speeds :D These experiments may give us a new and improved optical technology.

None of that changes the value of 'c'. It just means that by reading nature instead of the Bible to learn more about light, we now have more information than Copernicus did when he was put in jail for saying the Priests might have gotten it wrong :)

Of course if you would publish your findings in a peer reviewed publication you would overturn all those "false" beliefs about the speed of light and possibly provide the answers to many of the mysteries science is studying today. A note in DailyTech giving a brief outline of your findings would be appreciated. For the peer reviewed article of course you will also need to detail both your theory and method of proof...You do have to remember that "The Bible says so" will usually not be accepted by non-Christian scientists when they are testing your conclusions to see if the physics of the real world agrees with you.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/25/2010 1:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The Bible says so" will usually not be accepted by non-Christian scientists when they are testing your conclusions to see if the physics of the real world agrees with you.

I'm sick of BS like this. I refuse to fuel your trolling; Good day.


RE: here we go again...
By AntiV6 on 9/23/2010 1:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
Crocoduck would look down on you... For shame, you no good dirty stinkin' scientist supporter!

Also, bananas are proof that evolution is wrong, and spontaneous creation is right. So do peanut butter producers... If life were to spontaneously pop up in their sealed and sterilized products wouldn't cell. Another thing, Darwin's "theory" of evolution can be changed and altered easily to fit with scripture. All you have to do is edit the book and give your own introduction.

Guess who I am! :P


RE: here we go again...
By Iaiken on 9/23/2010 10:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So do peanut butter producers... If life were to spontaneously pop up in their sealed and sterilized products wouldn't cell.


I don't care who you are... THAT'S funny.


RE: here we go again...
By MozeeToby on 9/22/2010 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Believing in God does not inherently mean believing in a God that reached down to earth, molded mud into a human shape, and breathed life into it. Stop trying to convince everyone that the only religion in the world is the one you believe in.


RE: here we go again...
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:04:36 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, you're quite mistaken on that point. Abiogenesis as a theory only conflicts with the views of those who demand a strict, literal interpretation of their religious text.

The overwhelming majority of people out there are moderate, level-headed individuals who are able to reconcile science and religion into a single worldview.

The people who can't do this are, "for somewhat obvious reasons," also the people who scream the loudest in public forums regarding how science and belief cannot mix.

I label them all trolls, who's with me?


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: here we go again...
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
Me? I'm not level-headed. If I was level-headed I wouldn't be on this forum swinging my metaphorical c*ck around for no good reason.

Arrogant? Everyone on this forum is arrogant, we all assume everyone else here gives a rip what we have to say.

And in terms of opinions...I think lots of people have correct opinions. Yours, I take issue with.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 4:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
also the people who scream the loudest in public forums regarding how science and belief cannot mix. [end quoted quote]

Direct me to where I did this please. Otherwise you are making untrue assumptions.

You have done so repeatedly in your comments under this article. You merely need to review your own posts for examples.

If you need that clarified. Demanding that scientific research be discounted because your preacher diasgrees and strongly defending that position, all in a public forum is a good example.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2010 9:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have done so repeatedly in your comments under this article. You merely need to review your own posts for examples.

I said direct me; and you could not provide anything.
quote:
Demanding that scientific research be discounted because your preacher diasgrees

? .... You are just another assuming and accusatory person that can only bleat out talking points and spiteful statements. Anything and everything that I say will be misrepresented and/or completely ignored.
quote:
and strongly defending that position, all in a public forum is a good example.

Oh heaven forbid that I question science! OMG he doubts the validity of a theory! WITCH! BURN HIM! LoL y'all so viciously defend this dead theory and go out of your way to make an ass of yourselves in the process.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 7:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
also the people who scream the loudest in public forums regarding how science and belief cannot mix. [end quoted quote]

Direct me to where I did this please. Otherwise you are making untrue assumptions.

Wow!!!

That is a much better example of what you were asking me to direct you to then most of the ones I did direct you to :D


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/24/2010 7:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
That's an example of how science and God cannot mix? You are an idiot...


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/24/2010 9:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for not being clearer. That is an excellent example of how you refuse to allow science to have any place in your life aside from making use of the things created by those not holding your beliefs :)

Science and religion have no problem mixing ... the problem arises with Fundamentalists who insist science is wrong if there is even a hint of evidence that the preacher might be mistaken. There is a little of this on the science side, but it is usually limited to people questioning the existence of God due to the lack of experimental evidence (in their opinion) to support such a being.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/25/2010 1:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is an excellent example of how you refuse to allow science to have any place in your life aside from making use of the things created by those not holding your beliefs :)

You are an arrogant asshat for claiming to know how I live my life. Get off your your high horse.
quote:
the problem arises with Fundamentalists who insist science is wrong if there is even a hint of evidence that the preacher might be mistaken.

Again, you are just making assumptions about me that you couldn't possibly know. Just because I absolutely refuse to buy into the evolutionary and abiogenesis load of total crap, you get pissed off and start charging me of not believing in the power of science. Science has it's place in the world, but it should know its limitations.

What you fail to realize is that YOU are defending this voodoo science just like I defend my religion!! From the outside looking in, it looks like you are a kettle calling a pot black.

quote:
...people questioning the existence of God due to the lack of experimental evidence (in their opinion) to support such a being.

Exactly! Opinions are opinions! It doesn't matter AT ALL if they are scientific or non-scientific opinions. You are no better than mine. Get used to it.


RE: here we go again...
By Redwin on 9/22/2010 1:02:15 PM , Rating: 5
At the risk of inviting tons of angry replies:

This depends a little on your definitions. When people discuss god and science, they are typically talking about a "God of the Gaps". ie - whatever humans encounter that they can't understand (gaps in knowledge) tends to get explained by the action of God, or some similar mystical force. Once science progresses to the point where we have the factual explanation for whatever as confusing us, that god tends to fall away.

We didn't understanding lightning, so we used Zeus or Thor to explain it, etc. Now we know its static electricity in the atmosphere, so nobody goes around praying to Zeus to stave off lightning (well, at least not many people...)

The only mysteries the average person still thinks about are "how did the universe start" "how did life begin" and "what happens after we die". (There are lots more things science has yet to understand.. unification theory, etc, but your average joe is not gunna go about explaining quantum super-position through religious discourse)

So, by saying science will never get rid of god, people assume you're saying we will never overcome the last gaps in our knowledge.. that we will never have a full explanation of those few remaining mysteries.

I kind of disagree.

Physics understands more and more about the origin of the universe all the time. The James Web space telescope and the LHC are both going to contribute even more to this in the near future. Research like that discussed here is filling in more and more of the gaps related to the origins of organic life as well. As for what happens when you die... well, this one is gunna be hard to "prove" to anyone, but the preponderance of evidence is that your brain activity stops, you lose consciousness for the final time, and you never wake up; you more or less you wind up in the exact same state you were in before you were born. You were in that state for approximately 14 billion years from the beginning of time until your birth, so you should actually be pretty used to it, and are unlikely to be overly bothered by being dead. :)

Anyway, it's at least as reasonable to assume science will finish explaining these things eventually as it is to continue assuming a god did it; especially considering historical precedent has come down on the side of science replacing religion and not vice-versa, pretty much 100% of the time.


RE: here we go again...
By techiesAllegro on 9/22/2010 1:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nice explanation. Spot on.

Although, not sure that science can replace god, since science explains the observable and quantifiable and religion, should be a path for spiritual enlightenment, which science doesn't really delve into.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 1:15:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We didn't understanding lightning, so we used Zeus or Thor to explain it

This one sentence leads me to believe that you have never studied mythology, but are merely regurgitating one of the tired talking points from atheists and evolutionists. Mythology was a collection of stories for ENTERTAINMENT. At the time they were written, they were intended to be ENTERTAINMENT. There were some religious ideas tossed around, but they were quite rare. So much for that theory...

quote:
As for what happens when you die... well, this one is gunna be hard to "prove" to anyone,

No-one is claiming to "know" and have "proof" for what happens when you die (on the very principal that it does not involve the natural,observable world). I have my opinion and you have yours; but at the end of the day I would rather have faith that God has plans for us instead of having an evolution view of everything.

If evolution is true, then you are here to breed and then die. So death is the motivation in evolution; no need for emotions ie. love.


RE: here we go again...
By gamerk2 on 9/22/2010 1:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
The problem we have with you, is you always go on about the Scientific method, when you yourself refuse to follow it; you demand more evidence, but when we provide evidience against YOUR belifs, its somehow not valid.

Sorry, but I (and I suspect many others here) are sick and tired of you derailing these threads.

Also:

quote:
This one sentence leads me to believe that you have never studied mythology, but are merely regurgitating one of the tired talking points from atheists and evolutionists. Mythology was a collection of stories for ENTERTAINMENT. At the time they were written, they were intended to be ENTERTAINMENT. There were some religious ideas tossed around, but they were quite rare. So much for that theory...


I now make that same claim about Christianity: Entertainment wrapped around allegory. Of course, I'm sure you'll take some offense to that, becuase THOSE stories are of course true, because you BELIEVE them.

Sorry, I don't buy hypocracy.


RE: here we go again...
By rbuszka on 9/22/2010 1:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you'd prefer to buy a college education instead?


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 1:33:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem we have with you, is you always go on about the Scientific method, when you yourself refuse to follow it; you demand more evidence, but when we provide evidience against YOUR belifs, its somehow not valid.


You somehow have it in your head that evidence isn't OPINIONATED. NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, EVIDENCE IS ALWAYS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. There is no exceptions to that rule; unless you somehow believe that your opinion is better than everyone else.

I seem to be the only one here trying to separate my opinion with well known facts and good science. And yet again, I readily admit to having faith in what I believe; and it seems like you are getting all bent out of shape because you can't understand what having faith in something means.

I have given countless pages of rebuttals to the aforementioned "evidence against my beliefs". And every single time it always ends up the same way: Someone thinking that their opinion is somehow superior to mine.

The whole point is that its dishonest to call this crap science.

quote:
I now make that same claim about Christianity: Entertainment wrapped around allegory. Of course, I'm sure you'll take some offense to that, becuase THOSE stories are of course true, because you BELIEVE them. Sorry, I don't buy hypocracy.


You have a very thick skull and absolutely refuse to read my words for what they actually are.


RE: here we go again...
By gamerk2 on 9/22/2010 2:13:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I have given countless pages of rebuttals to the aforementioned "evidence against my beliefs". And every single time it always ends up the same way: Someone thinking that their opinion is somehow superior to mine.


Sorry, we mearly point out your theories are more leaky then swiss cheese. We present evidence prooving this (as per the scientific method you declare the holy grail up until the point it disagrees with you), then you ignore the evidence we present because it disagrees with your "belief".

You are the only one here that seems to be ignoring good scientific methods; the rest of us want to debate actual science, and not the religious talk you keep trying to bring in teh discussion. Every thread here that even mentions evolution gets derailed by you, and I for one have had enough of it. Either debate the theory presented in the article and put religion to the side, or get out.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 3:05:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
then you ignore the evidence we present because it disagrees with your "belief".


AGAIN I WILL SAY: I HAVE REBUTTED EVERY SINGLE COUNTER TO THE "EVIDENCE" AND IT ALWAYS ENDS UP BEING THAT MY OPINION IS WRONG. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO KEEP UP SPEED WHEN I SAY THIS.

I love how your opinion of what you "believe I might be thinking" translates into what is really going on. I'm sick and tire of your wrong assumptions about me, so just drop it. You refuse to say anything but, "nuh-uh!".

quote:
Either debate the theory presented in the article and put religion to the side, or get out.

I AM DEBATING THE VALIDITY OF THE THEORY YOU ####### MORON!


RE: here we go again...
By gamerk2 on 9/22/2010 3:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
No, you are arguing that Evolution is automatically false, and therfore there is nothing to debate.

Secondly, you have yet to counter to any reasonable level half the points we've made in teh past agaisnt your theories:

-)"Canopy Theory" is fundamentally broken
-)You ignore any and all historical evidence pre-10000 years ago (I believe your exact words were "Not Accurate", yet you failed to explain HOW)
-)You fail to explain how you reach population levels as early as 8,000 years ago if you take humanity as a whole beginning only 10,000 years ago
-)The Bible gives no mechanism for a population on North/South America prior to Eureopeans arriving in the 15th/16th centuries.
-)You outright ignore any inconsistencies we point out from within the Bible (Least of not which being some of the choices made in translation; Try correctly replacing "Virgin" with "Young Woman" throughout the New Testamate and see how big a difference some good old midevil re-wording does)
Et Cetera

I could go on and on and on about specific points again, but theres no reason. All you do is claim non of the evidence is valid, and run away, protecting yourself and your "theories" in the process. If thats what you mean by Rebuttal, then yes, you've done exactly that in the past.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 3:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, you are arguing that Evolution is automatically false, and therfore there is nothing to debate.

WHERE DO I SAY THESE THINGS? Your baseless accusations are laughable.

quote:
I could go on and on and on about specific points again, but theres no reason. ... If thats what you mean by Rebuttal, then yes, you've done exactly that in the past.

Are you 13 years old or what? I said a few comments back that this will go nowhere because you refuse to do anything but:

1) claim to know what I am thinking
2) make empty statements that have already been covered in previous debates
3) think that it looks like you have won by proving statements such as, " All you do is claim non of the evidence is valid, and run away, protecting yourself and your "theories"... "

You are impossible to have an organized debate with, so just drop it. In those previously discussed articles that you mentioned, I fully defended every single point. For those that want to go back and read the 30,000+ words in each article: be my guest. I am not going walk backwards just because you can't accept that ALL PEOPLE have opinions. That's the real problem here. You believe that your opinion is the only valid one.


RE: here we go again...
By gamerk2 on 9/22/2010 3:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) make empty statements that have already been covered in previous debates


Thats debatable, considering any evidence that was put forward was rejected by you as out of hand. Historical records too old to be reliable as evidence, Radiocarbon dating not accurate enough, "Canopy Theory", and the like. Sorry, but you do not have the right to flat out ignore all of modern science, then complain about lack of evidence in our scientific theories.

Don't like it? Go elsewhere.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 3:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
radio-carbon dating proves absolutely nothing when it comes to dating material. We have discussed this endlessly. I'll say YET AGAIN: for anyone who wants to read that discussion, go look it up for yourself. I gave at least 5 or 6 major points about radio-dating that completely crippled it's validity. Obviously that pissed you off, because you believe radio-dating is some kind of unfailing fool proof method, when in reality it is fundamentally flawed and takes faith to believe that it works.


RE: here we go again...
By Calindar on 9/22/2010 7:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
radio-carbon dating proves absolutely nothing when it comes to dating material. We have discussed this endlessly. I'll say YET AGAIN: for anyone who wants to read that discussion, go look it up for yourself. I gave at least 5 or 6 major points about radio-dating that completely crippled it's validity. Obviously that pissed you off, because you believe radio-dating is some kind of unfailing fool proof method, when in reality it is fundamentally flawed and takes faith to believe that it works.


What exactly constitutes a "discussion" in your eyes? You repeating the same mis-informed rubbish over and over again, and then recalling past instances of you saying the rubbish as if it somehow changes the fact that what you were (and still are) saying was completely wrong, baseless, and mis-informed to begin with? All along completely ignoring everyone else telling you how wrong you were the first time you said it?

Of course radio-carbon dating isn't a fool proof method, it has a well established and understood limitation on the time frame in which it is accurate. That is why it is only used to date things that have other evidence supporting that the thing in question's relative age falls into carbon dating's accuracy range.

There are a large number of other dating methods used to accurately estimate ages that fall outside of the range of accurate carbon dating.

But again, don't let facts get in the way of your religious delusions.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 10:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is why it is only used to date things that have other evidence supporting that the thing in question's relative age falls into carbon dating's accuracy range.

So that's when rock layer dating comes in to play huh? Where we date the rock layer by the index fossil; and the index fossil by the rock layer.

You refuse to appreciate any other opinion than yours, so this topic is over.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 7:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
There are also direct methods of dating such as tree rings that have been used to calibrate carbon dating :)

Carbon dating has been shown to be accurate within an error range. Most people do this routinely when they say something like "It's 10 miles to the next town" instead of "its 9 miles 1602 feet 3 inches to the center of the intersection at town hall in the next town measured from where you are standing now".

Accurately estimated measurements are quite useful :)


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2010 11:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are also direct methods of dating such as tree rings that have been used to calibrate carbon dating :)

Tree rings have never been spot on accurate. Several rings can form in one rainy season, so that blows that right out of the water...

quote:
Carbon dating has been shown to be accurate within an error range.

It never has, and never will be for the simple fact that it works off of too many equilibrium assumptions. It requires you to take of faith that:

1. The earth has always had the same amount of radio-isotopes present in the atmosphere
2. It has to be in a closed system (never happens in the real world)

There are many more reasons that are more fully elaborated on if you do the research, but just those two right there are so devastating to the theory that its absurd to even consider it to be an accurate measurement of dating.

Try again...


RE: here we go again...
By Iaiken on 9/22/2010 4:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AGAIN I WILL SAY: I HAVE REBUTTED EVERY SINGLE COUNTER TO THE "EVIDENCE" AND IT ALWAYS ENDS UP BEING THAT MY OPINION IS WRONG. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO KEEP UP SPEED WHEN I SAY THIS.


Whoah there quad, don't get your panties in a twist.

First, none of your rebuttals were directly attributed to the source material that the article is based off.

The source material showed that RNA can function and replicate safely in in a chilled liquid environment.

How can you dispute and rebut that?

It makes NO claims to prove the theory you are arguing against, but rather builds on other evidence that supports said theory.

What you are essentially doing is saying, the theory they are building evidence for is false, so they should stop looking.

THAT is the very mark of both ignorance and stupidity.

That you go on to flip out and call names simply demonstrates that you follow the old adage "if you can't beat em, call em names" from your good ol days on the playground.

How about this, when everyone around you is saying "No, you're wrong..." try to at least spend the time to evaluate why. I guarantee you it's not because everyone else is crazy, but you.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 4:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
We were talking about previous articles and previous subjects. Try again lol...


RE: here we go again...
By Iaiken on 9/22/2010 4:52:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Try again lol...


Nah, the fact that you simply dismiss people who call you on your bulls*** is your problem, not mine.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 6:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
Your entire long winded and misguided post was about you involving yourself in our discussion when you clearly had no backdrop of what we were actually talking about.

Unless you read the entire thread (which massed more than 30,000 words) a couple of months back? No, I didn't think so. You were completely off the mark with your accusatory comments.

quote:
the fact that you simply dismiss people who call you on your bulls*** is your problem, not mine.

who is being dismissed?!


RE: here we go again...
By Iaiken on 9/23/2010 11:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, you're talking about the garbled tripe you were spewing all over the place about how radio isotope dating is wrong? I am overly familiar with that magnanimous comedy of logic errors.

Answer me this, why is it that the results of radio carbon dating of religious tomes and manuscripts never disputed. In fact, it is somehow MORE accurate than when science uses it for other purposes in that same time range. Specifically, RCD provides a range (usually in centuries) that an object was created and yet with these tomes and manuscripts, the age results are incredibly accurate.

Thus one of two things are happening:

1) Evidence of these tomes ages are being conveniently selected from within that range for propaganda.
2) All of the other scientists using this method are incompetent.

Yet outside of this specific (conveniently valid) use of RCD, the technology is met with endless ridicule and even downright insults.

Many of the radio isotopes we use for dating are specifically chosen BECAUSE we know their half life. How? Scientists can recreate many of these naturally occurring radio isotopes (including C14) in a laboratory and observed their decay. They did so over and over until they could then predict how a sample would behave.

The decay of U-235 presents a problem in that it decays into lead and while different than naturally occurring lead, it is impossible to give accurate results, instead providing a range of 6 Billion plus or minus a hundred million or so. Again, this is jumped all over so let's discard it for arguments sake since you refuse to accept anything that is inexact.

That brings us to the notable Potassium-40 and its half life of a billion years(which we can also create), which decays into a gaseous element Argon-40. Quantities of Ar-40 found in rock samples cannot originate from anything other than the decay of K-40 since infusions of Ar-40 are not possible.

Or you can talk about Isochron the decay of Rubidium to Strontium. This also allows scientists to determine the exact amount of daughter element present in the original rock. How? Well that's because Strontium is found together with three other isotopes in known and thus predictable quantities. This allows them to determine just how much Strontium was actually produced by the decay of Rubidium. Two of the other elements present in this rock will be Iridium and it's daughter isotope of Strontium in a predictable proportion. If both are graphed together you can use correlation to come to a much more accurate time range as contamination is minimized.

Finally, the above four can be found in rock along side K-40 and AR-40, which adds another line to the graph and allows for the further elimination of any contaminations.

The only possible defensive argument to the above is an immaterial one that cannot be proven or disprove. Every time you've bothered to descend into such circular arguments I've simply let you spin to your heart's content.


RE: here we go again...
By Helbore on 9/22/2010 1:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Out of curiousity, but when you say mythology was just entertainment, do you include the Abrahamic religions in that reasoning, too. Or are they different?


RE: here we go again...
By MozeeToby on 9/22/2010 2:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Completely different, after all, Moses parting the Red Sea (and the Egyptian somehow forgetting to write down such a sight) is much more believable than someone that controls lightning. And don't even get me started on those ridiculous pagan traditions of putting presents under an evergreen tree, or rabbits that lay eggs in hidden spots for children to find.


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 4:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Moses parting the Red Sea (and the Egyptian somehow forgetting to write down such a sight) is much more believable than someone that controls lightning.


Quick note: All the Egyptians were killed in the red sea, including Pharaoh. That could explain it, and the simple fact that no one wants to document their failures. Would you?


RE: here we go again...
By MozeeToby on 9/22/2010 5:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
And no one bothered to write down that a crapton of the empire's army as well as the ruler got killed in what can only be described as an attack by a God. That isn't a failure, that's a world shattering event, conclusive evidence that there is a God and you've pissed him off royally. It's certainly not the kind of thing that a culture is going to forget in a few decades by agreeing not to talk about it. Not to mention that no one ever wrote down any of the plagues, or even that they had Jewish slaves in the first place?


RE: here we go again...
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 5:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not 100% sure on the slaves part, but before Exodus, Joseph was an administrator for Egypt during a famine. That I believe is mentioned in their history.

Besides this, Babylon, Assyria and others' history does coincide with what the bible says when dealing with those nations.

quote:
That isn't a failure, that's a world shattering event, conclusive evidence that there is a God and you've pissed him off royally. It's certainly not the kind of thing that a culture is going to forget in a few decades by agreeing not to talk about it.


Funny you should bring that point up. The flood according to the bible happened on what our calendar is about Oct 31/Nov 1. To this very day, all major groups of people celebrate this as either the day of the dead or losing their ancestors to death.

Coincidence? You decide.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 6:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention (worldwide) flood legends in every single major (and most minor) civilizations.

People see what they want to see when looking at evidence; The real argument here is that some think theirs is somehow more valid than others.


RE: here we go again...
By Calindar on 9/22/2010 7:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention there are Big Foot legends in most civilizations. Must be true too.

quote:
People see what they want to see when looking at evidence; The real argument here is that some think theirs is somehow more valid than others.

Correction, RELIGIOUS people see what they want to see in evidence. Scientist postulate the best hypothesis that is supported by all of the evidence, and then test that hypothesis to conclude whether it is accurate or inaccurate.

Scientists start with evidence and draw their conclusions based off that evidence. Religions start with conclusions and cherry pick evidence to prove their beliefs. Evidence only comes down to opinion when a hypothesis or theory is young. Opinion has little sway over evidence as the amount of evidence grows, because with large amounts of evidence, the evidence begins to over lap, and the scientific method weeds out the opinions that aren't supported by all of the evidence, leaving only the one that is.


RE: here we go again...
By Helbore on 9/24/2010 12:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
Worldwide? You're seriously trying to convince us that ancient civilisations actually had the resources to tell if a worldwide (as opposed to large local) flood occured! Think about it logically for a second. They didn't even know of every major continent. They didn't even cover a continent with a single civilisation. They had poor communication between civilisations. How could they know if there was a world wide flood?

So all we're left with it lots of cultures that have myths involving large floods. Well what a shock, there's been lots of floods in the world! They're still happening, don't ya know.

Hardly proof that the entire planet got drowned in water, is it?


RE: here we go again...
By trisct on 9/22/2010 2:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Pointless to argue with anyone who's claiming "faith". That's the whole point, you believe in it no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. So when a discussion touches on any article of faith, you just have to agree to disagree and go your separate ways.

The problem is, a lot of organized "faith"s also hold true that they need to convert everyone else... so we all get to put up with this hyperbole pretending to be intelligent debate.


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 3:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you believe in it no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.

So evidence is only evidence unless it fits what YOU believe to be true?

Let me ask you this: Do you think evidence(of any type) is subjective?

quote:
The problem is, a lot of organized "faith"s also hold true that they need to convert everyone else... so we all get to put up with this hyperbole pretending to be intelligent debate.

More like me speaking out for against what a lot of people are claiming as facts. The simple truth is that the basis of this crap article is unobservable and biased.


RE: here we go again...
By Skywalker123 on 9/22/2010 11:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
You know absolutely nothing about mythology.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 4:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
You should look up the definition of mythology. A Mythology is the collected works explaining a religion. In common usage mythology is everyone else's religious writings and the mythology of one's own religion is Revealed Truth presented in Sacred Texts.

From a Hindu's point of view the Bible is a collected volume of Christian myths. Of course a Christian would disagree and say that the Bible is Revealed Truth and it is actually the Vedea that is a collection of myths :P

Both are correct of course :P


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 4:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If evolution is true, then you are here to breed and then die. So death is the motivation in evolution; no need for emotions ie. love.

Death is not the motivation in evolution. The motivation (as you put it) is successful reproduction. As soon as the organism dies without reproducing it has 'failed' according to the rules of evolution and other lineages which continue to reproduce replace it.

So called micro-evolution is constantly inserting changes into the population. When the change improves reproduction it spreads. When the change causes less reproduction it tends to disappear. Most changes are neutral and so tend to spread slowly or not at all unless the environment changes to make the change in the individual 'good' or 'bad'.

This is how macro-evolution manages to make drastic changes over thousands of generations.

Emotions, including love, allow more reproductive success. This results in the evolution process treating these emotions as 'good'. Suicide is 'bad'...the dead don't reproduce or assist their young in reproduction.

Having children is 'good'. Assisting your descendants so that they produce lots of children is also 'good'. This behavior is positively selected by the blind force called 'natural selection' that judges success solely on the ability to reproduce.


RE: here we go again...
By KrayLoN on 9/22/2010 2:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
First I just want to start of saying I believe in the Christian/Jewish God Jehovah. I also believe anything proven by science (How can you not believe something proven). What I don't get is why it has to be God vs Science. I believe science explains things that God did that is not explained in the Bible. I like to use the example of a baker and his cake. Just because we know what ingredients were used, how the ingredients chemically reacted, when the cake was made, or the environment it was made in does not mean necessarily that the cake made itself or that there was no baker. I believe God used the very same chemical process explained by Science to create life. We may not have all the anwers but that doesn't mean science is wrong and God doesn't exist. I think both are necessary. There are too many variable and conditions that had to be met for life to be created and sustained on this planet for it to have just happend on its own. I think I would have a greater chance of being hit with lightening 10000 times (just pulling that out of my u know what for perspective's sake) than for life to just have sprouted on its own...even if it happend over millions of years. At the same time its hard to deny the advancments in Science.

As a Scientist who does not believe in God, you may ask "If there is a God, why didn't he explain everything in great detail so it would be easier to believe him?" Well why would someone with the power to use science to create life need to explain anything to someone who can't understand what he is talking about? It would be like me explaining to my three year old son how a TV works or how to drive a car. I believe when we are ready God will reveal all to us. Until then we have have science to help us mature and grow to a point where we can understand. I believe as we mature and advance in Science that ultimatelly Science will one day prove the existance of God rather than disprove it.

To those who believe life created itself. Here are some questions I have that I don't believe science can explain. Lets say that science is right and that life did evolve from some puddle of genetic ooze that eventually became an organism of some sort. Why did that organism evolve correctly so that male and female species were formed so that the species could reproduce? Wouldn't it have been easier to evolve into a species that is self reproducing? Why evolve into something that requires a mating process or requires the cooperation of another gender to reproduce? Was it a precongition in the evolution process to know that if a species were created that was self reproducing that it would create a species that would over populate the earth? There are so many more question that I can ask that I am not sure how science would ever be able to explain it... even through experimentation because there is really not a clear way to conduct an experiement. To a certain point, as a scientist you have to have faith too... to believe that the things that can't be explained by science is just an experiment away but until then is theory.

So for me... Science explains the things that God cant and God explains what Science can't.


RE: here we go again...
By snakeInTheGrass on 9/22/2010 3:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's totally logical that large numbers of people would be willing to accept religions - from a societal evolutionary perspective, it provides large numbers of people who will fanatically attack or defend on behalf of the 'god' of that group which would self-select groups with those types of minds. But while the ability to believe in a god may be logical, it doesn't therefore make those beliefs logical.

If you're thinking a 'scientist' would ask why god didn't provide evidence, I think you're already beyond where you should be - there's no reason to ask that question in the first place. Once there's evidence found of intelligent creation, then it becomes a much better time to investigate that - you know, like if we find 'God was here!' in the background radiation patterns of the Big Bang.

Of course, it's said that science explains the how, and faith the why... Though there's no real reason to expect an answer to 'why'. "Why is the sky blue?" might more reasonably be asked "How is the sky blue?" - how would be because of the absorption/re-emission of light. Why? Because God's favorite color is sky blue, of course. (Oh, that would only be the case if someone wrote that down a long time ago, right? ;) ) But really, why blue? Because of the oxygen... why? Because... why? Or because the chemical characteristics of oxygen being favorable for life, so maybe all skies where intelligence could evolve are blue. But why blue? Meaningless. People seem to expect a 'why' answer to exist for the universe as well, which is odd, but even odder is the leap from 'let's try and figure out why' to 'because'. Or maybe it's not odd, because again, the ability of people to ignore reason is most likely beneficial to the success / survival of groups in its own way.

The idea of 'it makes no sense to me that anything at all can exist' still makes more sense than the truly irrational alternatives which do nothing to resolve the issue other than provide comfort in the thought that there is understanding where there isn't. At least until you ask where a creator came from and dodge it with 'eternity'. At that point, let's at least all agree that spontaneous multiverses with basic/infinite different physical laws are more likely than a spontaneous infinite eternal intelligence that loves us. Or that we should work more on understanding and advancing mankind. :)

And no, having sexual reproduction has nothing to do with 'precognition'. You are familiar with the ideas behind natural selection / evolution - and you do know that there are asexual organisms too, right?


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 6:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once there's evidence found of intelligent creation, then it becomes a much better time to investigate that - you know, like if we find 'God was here!' in the background radiation patterns of the Big Bang.

So you don't seem to understand that evidence is subjective... I guess it's only "evidence" if it fits your world view right?

quote:
At least until you ask where a creator came from and dodge it with 'eternity'.

LOL! I love how at least one person asks that question every single time this debate comes up! You act like ANY human can answer that question. I would like to point out that, we as human beings, will NEVER be able to answer ALL of the questions that we have while still here on earth. The endless pursuit of unobtainable and fruitless knowledge is foolish; and many more people need to be aware of that.


RE: here we go again...
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 7:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Just a quick excursion to an old thought problem.
The Universe contains all that exists.
God created the Universe.
God exists
Conclusion: Time and continuity are illusions since God exists inside God's own Creation.

Hmmm ... oki we ignore the broken logic and declare Faith


RE: here we go again...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2010 11:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
God is not bound by the laws of time/space/matter. If he was, I wouldn't worship him, because he obviously wouldn't be the one responsible for the creation that we live in today.

You speak of a weak and powerless God.


RE: here we go again...
By MozeeToby on 9/22/2010 1:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm getting tired of people demanding that science and God be mutually exclusive; because they don't have to be.
I absolutely, completely agree with you, in fact, I couldn't agree more. Here's where you have problems, you can't draw a line in the sand and say "This is religion's area, science isn't allowed here". You insist that science and God are not mutually exclusive, and then you insist even more vehemently that doing research into biogenesis is an attempt to erase God.

Science and God can exist perfectly fine next to each other, Science and a 'God of the Gaps' absolutely cannot. To put it another way, imagine that you're a believer in Thor and this research was about what causes current to flow. "lol. Still trying soooooo hard to erase Thor huh? Sorry, not gonna happen". Just because it's the gap you've decided to believe God lives in doesn't make it any more sensible.


RE: here we go again...
By dani31 on 9/22/2010 12:35:21 PM , Rating: 3
Work, obey, suffer. You'll be a king in the after-life.


RE: here we go again...
By ChugokuOtaku on 9/22/2010 12:55:46 PM , Rating: 1
which god?


RE: here we go again...
By snakeInTheGrass on 9/22/2010 2:30:17 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed, how can you erase nothing.


RE: here we go again...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/23/2010 9:18:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
lol. Still trying soooooo hard to erase God huh? Sorry, not gonna happen


It is not up to us to erase god, it is up to you to make him appear. If any believer had managed that magic trick, there would be no atheists.


Not impressed
By wgbutler on 9/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not impressed
By Skywalker123 on 9/22/2010 11:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow I just can't trust someone who has an imaginary friend!


RE: Not impressed
By wgbutler on 9/23/2010 8:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
Then I guess you put no faith in the works of Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, Pasteur, Richard Smalley, and John Polkinghorne either...


RE: Not impressed
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 7:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nope ... it is actually you who put no faith in their works. All of them invoked "scientific method" to justify the results they are famous for.

They may have said that their discoveries declared the Glory of God, but their published results, theories and newly devised mathematics were not the result of meditation on the nature of God.


RE: Not impressed
By wgbutler on 9/24/2010 7:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Nope ... it is actually you who put no faith in their works. All of them invoked "scientific method" to justify the results they are famous for.

They may have said that their discoveries declared the Glory of God, but their published results, theories and newly devised mathematics were not the result of meditation on the nature of God.


I'm not really sure what your main point is. These people had very strong views about the existence of God and saw no conflict whatsoever with their scientific work.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure that your statement is correct.

For example Newton wrote in the Principia Mathematica that

quote:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One, especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun and from every system light passes into all the other systems; and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" . . . or "Universal Ruler." . . . It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God. . . And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent and powerful Being. . . he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. . . He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. . . In him are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. . . As a blind man has no idea of colors so we have no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God preserves and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not.... Much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things. . . We reverence and adore him as his servants, and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. . . And thus much concerning God, to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.


Kepler was a deeply religious man that

quote:

...wrote occasional papers on theology, but he never claimed to be a theologian. He regarded himself as a layman who was a mathematician, a (natural) philosopher, a historian. And yet, he was probably the scientist who par excellence regarded science and religion as different aspects of an integrated world-not an artificial, academic bifurcation. The goal of science, he believed, is to bring man to God; the principle of his scientific work is praise of God. "We astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature." "God is the beginning and end of scientific research and striving"-the keynote of his thought, the basis of his purpose, the "life-giving soil of his feeling." For him, "geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection of the mind of God. That mankind shows in it is because man is an image of God."


http://www.adherents.com/people/pk/Johannes_Kepler...

Louis Pasteur was a strong Christian who was motivated by his Christian beliefs to challenge the foundations of Darwinism.

quote:

Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life. The genesis of germs in hospital patients were the result of microbes having parents, not a result of spontaneous generation. This revolutionary idea would have application in many areas of medicine. It forms the basis of sterilization, asepsis in surgery, and the germ theory of disease.


We know that he was motivated by his religious beliefs because he wrote

quote:

I shall express my belief that the earth, after having brought forth the first plants and animals at the beginning by order of the Supreme and Omnipotent Creator, has never produced any kinds of plants or animals, either perfect or imperfect; and everything which we know in past or present times that she has produced, came solely from the true seeds of the plants and animals themselves, which thus, through means of their own, preserve their species.


So not only did Pasteur's Christianity motivate him to correct a horrible prediction of Darwinism, it advanced medical science. Furthermore Pasteur later said

quote:

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.


Moving into more modern times, Richard Smalley, winner of the nobel prize in chemistry in 1996 for the discovery of a new form of carbon, made the following statements:

quote:

# Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done....

The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.....

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that [biological] evolution could not have occurred...


So again, it would appear as though your assertion may be incorrect. Thanks for coming.


RE: Not impressed
By Fritzr on 9/24/2010 10:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yep they attributed the majesty and complexity to the Creator. They applied the principles of science to understanding the Creation. Newton stated that God was such that God could not be studied by science. Newton did not allow that belief to stop him from trying to understand the manner in which the marvelous Creation functioned.

You also got me to look up Pasteur. You note that he was deeply religious.
He was also an accomplished scientist with many original discoveries in multiple fields. I suspect that he did this by asking questions and doing experiments to find the answers. Too many of his discoveries falsified religious beliefs for them to have been given to him by his study of the Bible :)

Check his Wikipedia entry for more information on this scientist who was a researcher in multiple fields and a University Professor teaching chemistry.

You rail about established science not paying attention to the upstarts. Well Professor Doctor Pasteur was one of those upstarts with radical ideas.
"Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment" --Louis Pasteur
(referring to his swan-neck flask experiment wherein he proved that fermenting microorganisms would not form in a flask containing fermentable juice until an entry path was created for them)

You picked an excellent list of men who have successfully mixed science with their religious beliefs :)

Perhaps you could follow their excellent examples and begin learning about the manner in which this most excellent Creation operates rather than insisting that such study should be confined to the Holy Texts you consider sacred.


RE: Not impressed
By PaterPelligrino on 9/23/2010 9:14:15 AM , Rating: 2
Here you are again fighting tooth and nail to defeat any threat to your beloved Christian Fundamentalism. You're a man on a mission to protect the most important idea in your life. Knowing beforehand that you will never acknowledge, that you cannot acknowledge, any scientific fact, no matter how well proven, that calls into question the literal truth of the Old Testament - as you yourself have openly admitted in another thread - why should anyone take your opinions seriously? If, in spite of all the evidence, you won't even admit that the earth is billions of years old, why should we expect you to bring an open mind to this RNA thing? I know you like to argue these points, but understand that in our eyes, you have zero credibility.

Quadrillity is also guilty of this.


RE: Not impressed
By wgbutler on 9/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not impressed
By wgbutler on 9/23/2010 9:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
Minor correction to above post. I believe the age of the UNIVERSE to be 13-15 billion years old. The age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, I believe.


RE: Not impressed
By PaterPelligrino on 9/23/2010 10:28:25 AM , Rating: 4
In a previous thread - http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=19440... - we had a long argument where you admitted to believing that the Old Testament is a factually correct account of the the creation of the world - i.e., the OT is literally true. You state that the "Bible is rich in scientific knowledge, in many cases thousands of years ahead of its time." You go on to claim that fossils aren't as old as science claims. You stubbornly deny that any occurrence reported in the Bible is unlikely to have occurred as described. (Haven't you also stated somewhere else that the Noah's Ark episode is also literally true?)

I asked you,

quote:
Tell me, truthfully - what would have to happen for you to admit that Genesis is false."


You replied,

quote:
Good question. Several things could happen that would undermine my worldview. We could find proof that the Universe had always been here. We could get contacted by an advanced alien race. Israel could be wiped off the map. I realize that none of these things are related to evolution per se, but my worldview is falsifiable.


Since it's unlikely that the universe has always existed, the only scientific event in that list is unlikely to come true; the other two don't concern science at all. That's hardly what I would call someone who is open to a change of opinion.

Since most Christians do not hold the OT to be literally true, you are in fact a Fundamentalist. You go on to claim that you were a former atheist who converted because science's explanation of life and the universe didn't make scientific sense. Yet you then go on to embrace wholeheartedly and uncritically any number of much more improbable biblical beliefs that science does contradict. So yes, I doubt your objectivity. And to be frank, I also doubt you sincerity when you attribute your conversion solely to perceived inconsistencies in the underlying science.

It seems that the only threads you contribute to are those that contradict the biblical account of creation. That isn't a coincidence.


RE: Not impressed
By wgbutler on 9/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not impressed
By RaggedClaws on 9/23/2010 11:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
Going back and rereading your statement about fossils, I see that I misunderstood. My apologies.

About the rest, I don't see the point of rehashing this all again.

I'm giving the impression that I have some kind of personal vendetta against you. That's not the case.


RE: Not impressed
By zixin on 9/23/2010 12:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
So which part of God created the world in days match that the Universe have been in existenc for 13.7 billion years?


RE: Not impressed
By ekv on 9/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not impressed
By wgbutler on 9/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not impressed
By Skywalker123 on 9/25/2010 3:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
"The fact remains that I have gone from militant anti-Christian atheism to Christianity. Have you ever had any such of change of worldviews?"

If I became a Christian, I would have myself committed to a mental hospital to find out what happened


RE: Not impressed
By FaceMaster on 9/23/2010 12:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
I can tell this site is American.

God creating himself has no flaws. Science is stupid! You can always zoom in a bit further and say 'there, I don't know how this works, therefore it must be false and God created the world and we have eternal debt and we'll be sent to a place made by a fallen angel who happens to be about the same power as God and all the other angels and Jesus and the Holy Ghost (Don't forget about him! ...or is it a her?) put together.

I'm pretty sure that people used to look up in the sky, and have a mindset of 'wtf? how does this work? bah, cba to find out ffs, let's just say that God made it'.

Science is silly, it's opening itself up to criticism by having strict guidelines of what's 'scientifically proven' and what isn't. Religion is far more sensible, it says what happens and excommunicates anybody who speaks out against it.


RE: Not impressed
By ekv on 9/23/2010 2:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
You are being sarcastic, no?

"God creating himself has no flaws." I don't think anybody is making that claim. God has always existed. That is Biblical, it is logical and consistent.

On the other hand, S. Hawking, one of the most gifted intellects of our age, now claims the universe spontaneously created itself.


RE: Not impressed
By wgbutler on 9/23/2010 3:15:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

I can tell this site is American.


I'm a little confused with your associating this site as American, as though you are trying to fit it into a profile of being a haven for those stupid, pro-Theist Americans who haven't embraced macro-evolution.

As far as I know, this site has never published a pro-Theist article, and Jason Mick routinely posts articles promoting evolution and/or denigrating religion. So I'm really not sure where the "American" accusation comes from?

And if you are instead trying to say that some in the comments section have the audacitiy to disagree with the premise (and hence must be some of those stupid Americans), this can easily be invalidated by counting all the pro-evolution, anti-Christian comments and comparing them to the number of commenters that disagree. The ratio is pretty lopsided, so, again, I'm not sure where you are coming from. And incidentally, the most stupid, asinine and juvenile remarks all come from the atheists (which is fairly typical), so based on that criteria if anything I would conclude that this site is European.

Furthermore, Christianity is growing faster in other parts of the world than in the United States (where it has stagnated and become secularized by the culture) so I wouldn't even associate Christianity as an American phenomenon. Some say that there are more evangelical Christians in China than there are in the United States, and its one of the fastest growing religions there. See this link for some more information:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article59600...

quote:

God creating himself has no flaws


I agree with everything ekv said, but just to add my 2 cents, Christian theology does not say that God created Himself. Rather, it states that God, rather than nothing, is the prime reality.

We know from advances in physics in the 20th century that the Universe is not the prime reality, and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, recently published in 2003, states that in a multiverse all expanding universes condense back to a single finite point in the past, so you can't say that a multiverse (or at least a multiverse where expanding Universes exist, such as our own) is the prime reality either.

So this takes us back to NOTHING being the prime reality, or God. If you want to tell me why my belief that God is the prime reality is absurd, you have to make a good case why NOTHING is a scientifically valid and a better alternative.

I'm waiting.


Organic byproducts
By Botia on 9/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Organic byproducts
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 1:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me this was a poor attempt at a joke...


RE: Organic byproducts
By techiesAllegro on 9/22/2010 1:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! I don't think they realize that organic molecules are spread throughout the universe and are produced through natural chemical reactions.


RE: Organic byproducts
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, he believes organ ic molecules come from ORGANS...or he didn't emphasize enough that it was a joke...


RE: Organic byproducts
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
He clearly quoted "Organic byproducts "

To have organic byproducts you must have organic products. What he was pointing out was completely valid.


RE: Organic byproducts
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To have organic byproducts you must have organic products. What he was pointing out was completely valid.


Simply not so. Any organic molecule produced as a byproduct of another chemical reaction is, by definition, an organic byproduct.

Also, he was stating that you had to have ORGANS to have organic byproducts. Someone really needs to tell bacteria that!


RE: Organic byproducts
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 2:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
then I guess it comes down what definition of "alive" and "organic" you want to believe.


RE: Organic byproducts
By DNAgent on 9/22/2010 2:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
organic = a molecule containing carbon

organic has absolutely nothing to do with "alive."


RE: Organic byproducts
By techiesAllegro on 9/22/2010 2:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific methods are not about "belief", but falsifiable observations and measurements only. You can believe anything you want, but if that belief can be proven false, you may need to start questioning that belief.


RE: Organic byproducts
By spread on 9/22/2010 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
It just means you didn't have enough faith. Believe harder.


RE: Organic byproducts
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2010 3:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nice. It takes a real quality type person to scoff. Big man on campus you are :)


RE: Organic byproducts
By Skywalker123 on 9/23/2010 12:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
Skywalker unleashes his fiercest scoff at Gullibility, takes title of B.O.M.C.


RE: Organic byproducts
By Fritzr on 9/23/2010 4:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
Did you mean B.M.O.C. ?


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki