Dual-coding Genes – Creationists have long argued that evolution is statistically impossible. Now, with the discovery of dual-coding genes in humans, which are even more incredibly unlikely to have occurred by chance, will evolutionists doubt their faith? Will they give ID any credit? Probably not, because they are already in denial about the statistical impossibility of their theory. So even as they admit that “dual coding is nearly impossible by chance,” they continue in denial, responding merely that such designs are “hallmarks of fascinating biology.”
Interestingly, one of the things that convinced me of the dubiousness of evolution was studying overlapping coding regions of the bacteriophage x174 in my advanced biochem class back in college. This phage has one of the smallest genomes, yet can crank out enough proteins to live because it has overlapping coding regions. I asked my professor what the likelihood of that arising by chance was, and even though he was not a believer, he sighed “nearly impossible.” If such a simple and small creature had a genome that was incredibly unlikely, I look at the human, then at the evolutionists, and can not believe the great faith that they have in their unlikely tale.
- Denying Junk DNA
– Creationists have long argued that the idea of junk DNA (and vetigial
organs) are bogus concepts based on evolutionary assumptions. As junk
DNA turns out to be junk science, neo-Darwinists are trying to distance
themselves from their error. But they’re on record. - Junk DNA Demise – Another interesting summary of articles in Wired and the Washington post about how ID (and creationism) predicted the functionality of junk DNA. Only evolutionists are surprised, but when you follow such a bogus theory, “surprises” are around every corner.
- Debunking Dawkins – Naturally, Richard Dawkin’s book The God Delusion was bound to elicit counter arguments, including ones like this one that attack one chapter of his book using simple logical constructs.
- Dinosaur Deaths were Agonizing – A paleontologist takes issue with the classic explanation for the tortured and twisted positions of fossilized dinosaur skeletons. She argues that, as a trained veterinarian, the classic view that the dinosaurs died in water, and currents pushed their bodies into these positions just didn’t make sense to her, and she suspected that the body position of many fossils were classic indicators of something else – that brain damage and asphyxiation are the more likely culprits. This could open up a whole new understanding of the fossil record, and how we interpret it.
- Martian Deluge
– How is it that scientists can believe in a deluge of water on Mars,
which currently has NO water, yet doubt that it could have happened
here? Self-deception based on their world view. - Massive Birdlike Dinosaur – Evolutionists, again surprised by something that their theory had predicted the opposite of, by the find of a large dinosaur that may have been a bird. I say “may have” because they are making all kinds of assumptions, not based on the evidence, but on their own need to fit the fossils into their broken theory. Check out their data-less conclusions. Amazing.
While the dinosaur’s remains didn’t include any feathers, which rarely
fossilize, its close link to more primitive feathered oviraptorosaurs
suggest it very likely did have a feathered tail and arms, the team
said.Creationists have already started responding with logic. :D
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
"Creationists have long argued that evolution is statistically impossible."
Ahh, the 'old tornado in a junkyard' routine.
Arguments, no matter how pretty, do not science make.
Will they give ID any credit?
What do you mean 'ID'?
Define it scientifically please. Or are you just invoking Paley's Watch Redux?
Junk DNA?
Too easy. Try the onion test. :)
Deluge of water on Earth?
(Yes people, the holy crazy monkey has started jumping up and down on a stick again.)
Oookkkay!
When did this 'deluge' actually happen?
Be specific!
Where did the water come from? Where did it go?
Let's talk about a gigantic WOODEN boat that had every 'kind' (???) of animal on board, including dinosaurs.
"Creationists have already started responding with logic."
Arguments, no matter how pretty, do not science make.
Creationist 'logic' leaves you with people who are coy with how old the age of the Earth is.
Evolution is the least of your problems.
P.S.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. NASA (the guys with the rockets) says so.
Honest.
P.P.S.
By the way Aaron, if you're out there, how old do YOU think the Earth is?
Don't be shy. Cough up a number.
A rough guess-timate will do.
Cineaste seems to have some problems accepting reasonable criticisms. Evoluntionary theory has itself evolved so much since its inception, one may wonder why so many seem to be so convinced of its infallability.
Evolution is very great leap of faith. Ultimately, science has to answer the question of creation, but so far has fallen irrefutably flat on its face. Science, in all its suppose grandeur has been utterly unable to create any living thing from something non-living. Admitting the errors of evolutionary theory could lead to science's need to admit its inability to answer the most important of all questions – how did life begin?
Smoke If You Got 'Em
Hi Luke. You've made a common creationist mistake. You've confused abiogenesis with evolution. Watch the video more carefully for details. Hope this helps. Cheers!
Actually, Cin, you've made a classic evolutionist canard – changing definitions as it suits, criticizing creationists for things that you claim evolution answers, then saying that we don't understand evolution.
I understand shell games.
Abiogenesis is a word.
Look it up.
Evolution is a word.
Look it up.
These two words have two different meanings.
Duh!
"I understand shell games."
Of course you do. You play them all the time.
Nix the "Duh" part.
I've had a bad day.
Just read the scientific definitions of the two words, OK?
Luke, you're still confused. The video I posted has nothing to do with abiogenesis. It's about evolution and natural selection. I don't care what you think about abiogenesis because it's irrelevant to my post. If you have something meaningful to say about the video, let's hear it.
I've written an alternative view of the role of some kinds of so-called "junk DNA" at http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-re…. Sneak preview: just because some of it has function doesn't mean it was put there by a designer or creator.
Sneak answer: just because evolutionists came to bogus conclusions about junk DNA doesn't mean their theory is bogus – or does it?
This is just one of the many ways that evolutionary thinking inhibits real science.
Abiogenesis is a word.
Look it up.
Evolution is a word.
Look it up.
These two words have two different meanings.
You should know that when you believe the words of spiritual monists who must blur away all form, distinction, specification and species that their words will be about as specified as the hypothetical goo that they ultimately believe in. So it's only a matter of finding the evidence where they "evolve" new meaning, i.e. lack integrity.
It's interesting how those with the urge to merge hate what they call "quote mining," probably because are still typically caught by it.
Here's a whole article applying "evolutionary theory" to prebiotic conditions:
(Prebiotic co-evolution of self-replication and translation or RNA world?
J Theor Biol. 1991 Aug 21;151(4):531-9)
E.g. "The evolution of directed peptide synthesis is suggested to be based on the ability of the charged prebioectons to attach preferentially to their complementary domains on the proto-mRNA. Two stages of this process are envisioned…."
Given Darwinian reasoning you can cite your own imagination as evidence, so then there "is the crucial evolutionary stage, where a crude genetic code becomes functional."
Imagine that!
Given that you adhere to Darwinian reasoning, if I imagine that you're confused or ignorant about the definition of evolution, can you act as if that's sound evidence that you are? The problem with Darwinian "reasoning" is that it's actually just imagining things without Reason.
Mynym has a special talent for being able to write volumes that say nothing. If you judge wit by brevity, he's witless. His post above basically says, "Hi, I'm a creationist and I can't stand evolutionists."
Actually it says that you can't trust the words of those who want to believe that Mommy Nature ultimately "selects" because words rely on a form of selection, conception, distinction and definition that they ultimately lack the intelligence to grasp. One should only take a Darwinist at their word as if there is a real essence, "meaning" or spirit to it to let them speak against themselves.
At any rate, there's a whole article which applies "evolution" to abiogenesis and prebiotic conditions. There's leading Darwinists who say that "evolution" explains all that is or ever could be, from the motions of planets to the mating habits of worms. Then there are the State funded popularizers of Nature based paganism who sometimes chant evolution about everything, living or not. Not to mention State funded textbooks that include the origin of life under sections on "evolution."
On the other hand there is a small segment of internet types like you who actually have to debate and support mythological narratives of naturalism with logic and empirical evidence. It's fitting that you are disingenuous enough to try to shift the definition of "evolution" after it already has meaning thanks to its evolution/formation in history, naturally enough.
Given that you are taken in by Darwinian "reasoning"/imagining your words may as well still be the goo that they evolved from.
Ah, poor mynym. He can't support his quaint little creation myth so he is reduced to trying to poke holes in evolution. One only has to ask, "How does 'creation science' work scientifically?" and he can only answer, "The Magic Man did it." Men don't come from magic and dirt. Women don't come from ribs. Keep your "Just So Stories" where they belong; in your imagination.
Even Seeker is wrestling with his 'doubts'. In fact, he's wrestling so much that he has trouble even giving out a single guess. Imagine that!
Cedric, nice straw man. You are exhibiting troll-like behaviors.
Actually, as a scientist, I recognize the difference between conjecture and established fact. I recognize that origins science, and age of the universe determination, are both highly speculative due to the time frames we are talking about. It does not sway me that some really smart people believe their own circular reasonings or doubtful assumptions, nor that they are cock sure of their conclusions.
As I have said, because evolution is not just a theory, but a world view, and because I understand how people become psychologically attached and dependent on world views in order to make sense out of their world, I know that such overconfidence is often borne out of the need to believe, not science. Even smart people need a world view, and in fact, need a god to believe in, even if their creator god is the big bang and evolution. Dawkins nailed it when he said that before evolution, it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
So I am open to the idea that it may be an old universe, but I am also enamored with the very good questions and claims of the YEC community. Unlike you, I don't need to cock sure on this point. Does that mean I am having doubts? Of course, where healthy skepticism is needed, I have it. "Wrestling?" Nice projection.
HEY MYNYM
Welcome back, missed you. However, I do want to make one criticism. You have definitely adopted a derisive style. Now, I don't really mind it that much, but your points get lost in it. For instance, it was great that you provided a reference to evolutionists embracing and discussin abiogenesis, but I would rather have seen you discuss that in more detail instead of letting out your usual string of true but off-putting insults.
I mean, I admit it, Cedric is annoying, patronizing, and dogmatic. But we don't have to be. It's a tough discipline, and no one should argue with fools, but I just want to make sure that you communicate well all the stuff you know, esp. your wealth of reference materials. I know it gets tiring having to answer the same canards and arguments, but we have to be patient with their self-deceptions ;)
Seeker,
It's nice to know that you're open and enamoured.
Maybe the Earth is old.
Maybe the Earth is young.
Yet we all know that it can't be both.
I said "Even Seeker is wrestling with his 'doubts'. In fact, he's wrestling so much that he has trouble even giving out a single guess. Imagine that!"
Seeker said"Cedric, nice straw man. You are exhibiting troll-like behaviors."
Ah, so you are NOT wrestling?
No more doubts?
You're ready to give a guess? A rough number?
(silence)
Oh. I see. Perhaps later?
You have a planet-sized problem on your hands.
The scientific world says that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
ALL branches of the physical sciences say so.
For multiple reasons.
The Earth is old. Ancient,in fact.
When you get cute and coy with this basic information, it shows just how far you have gone.
Listen to a scientist on the subject. (10min)
Evolution vs. Creationism: The Age of the Earth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc
Or for those of you who like pictures and a little dramatic effect…
How wrong are Young Earth Creationists? (3min30sec) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDERsZUVn0&mode=related&...
It's the 21st century people.
The Earth is not 6000 years old.
Seeker said"I know it gets tiring having to answer the same canards and arguments…"
This is from the same guy that offers the 'Tornado in a junk yard' and the 'Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution' canards?
Shame on you.
Oh, any chance on you giving us a scientific definition of ID at all? You know, something that a scientist could use to perform an experiment in a laboratory or do research?
So…Mynym.
How old do you think the Earth is?
Say it loud and say it proud.
The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists.
You're citing the small group of charlatans at talk.origins. Textbooks, PBS, peer reviewed articles and the various popularizers of "evolution" say something else. E.g. "Evolution is the framework that makes sense of the whole natural world from the formation of atoms, galaxies, stars and planets, to the AIDS virus, giant redwood trees and our own health and well-being. Dorothy was lucky because the Wizard of Oz was wise. The wizards of the Kansas State Board of Education look foolish in comparison." Dr. Maxine Singer (Washington Post, August 18, 1999)
How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
Saying that the "theory of evolution" has been as beneficial to mankind as umbrellas is ignorant. The working parts of Darwinism typically rely on imagining things about the past, while intelligently designed umbrellas can be observed to work here and now.
Ah, poor mynym. He can't support his quaint little creation myth so he is reduced to trying to poke holes in evolution.
A mind of the synaptic gaps that can't quite admit to the nature of what it likes to call the "God of the gaps" always says such things. Somehow, it feels it has filled all its gaps and the like. That seems to be the way things are for those with the urge to merge. I have no need to poke holes or create gaps in the hypothetical goo of "evolution" that was never distinct and defined in the first place. Where has the theory of evolution been specified in the language of mathematics and then verified empirically in the same way that the theory of gravity has been?
There has to be something there in the first place in order for someone to "poke a hole" in it, otherwise it's like sticking your hand in a mud puddle. I may have some fun sticking my hand in the mud puddle to throw some hypothetical goo around but that doesn't mean I'm silly enough go along with you in believing that it isn't just mud.
One only has to ask, "How does 'creation science' work scientifically?" and he can only answer, "The Magic Man did it."
I don't believe that science can answer all questions about origins or even the majority. In so far as science makes use of methodological naturalism it will be quite blind when it comes to origins. Methodological naturalism as applied to origins will leave you with speculation and bias that's as philosophically sound as leaving an hour glass in a room full of toddlers and then coming back to check the time it has kept while assuming that one must be blind to all evidence of any sort which indicates that toddlers nock over hour glasses, etc.
Men don't come from magic and dirt.
Men rising from dirt is more a feature of mythological narratives of naturalism than almost any other creation myths.
All technology appears as magic to those who don't understand it and actually humans are linked to humus. We're all too human, almost just humus. Dust to dust, it's what's inbetween that counts and takes a measure of itself.
Women don't come from ribs.
The correct translation is split in two, scribbling scribes don't get everything right. It's also interesting that "Adam" means earthling or creature of the earth. In that story the God of gardens gets his hands dirty and the like.
Keep your "Just So Stories" where they belong; in your imagination.
Just so stories aren't thousands of years old, stories saved by scribbling scribes that burned their clothes after trying to save the information down to the last jot and tittle as best they could, etc.
Just so stories are the hypothetical goo that the Darwinian "mind" thinks of when it feels like wallowing around in its own excrement.
So…Mynym.
How old do you think the Earth is?
Say it loud and say it proud.
As a planet that's habitable for Life I'd guess it's thousands of years old based on all lines of evidence, whether science or no. I could speculate more but the question is a red herring, after all.
Ah, so you are NOT wrestling? No more doubts?
You're ready to give a guess? A rough number?
I lean towards the YEC perspective of c. 10000 years. As for wrestling, I don't. I am happy to tentatively commit to the YEC position and let evolutionists foam at the mouth, gesture wildly, and hurl insults ;) Have fun.
You have a planet-sized problem on your hands.
The scientific world says that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. ALL branches of the physical sciences say so. For multiple reasons. The Earth is old. Ancient,in fact.
Well, you and Hugh Ross (the OEC) can go out an have coffee together and commiserate. I think there is good reason to doubt the conclusions of each of those branches of science because (a) they do involve speculation and questionable assumptions, (b) because modern scientists have been duped by their own world view, and (c) I don't give a damn (sorry, that's from a movie). I hope you enjoy that aig link ;). See if you can separate their logic from your disdain for them in general.
This is from the same guy that offers the 'Tornado in a junk yard' and the 'Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution' canards?
Nice try, I don't think I've every mentioned the tornado example, but again, I don't really buy into the red-herring of attacking that specific example. The point is, of course, that evolution is statistically unlikely, if not not impossible.
Like I said, all one has to do to stump mynym is ask how "creation science" works. He's forced to answer, "by magic." This pisses him off. So as expected, he proceeds to call evolution "goo" and prattles on nonsensically. Brilliant! He mentions "excrement" to cap his rant. It's a fitting description of mynym's own style; needlessly verbose, puerile, pointless, and pugilistic. When you come up with some content for how "creation science" works, other than "magic," let us know. Until then, don't be angry at evolutionists just because creationists lack substance.
Mymyn said:
“You’re citing the small group of charlatans at talk.origins.”
Charlatans? Don’t be modest, Mymyn.
Let yourself go.
Tell us what you REALLY think about them.
This is the Internet. They can’t hurt you.
Vent your spleen. :)
But feel free to go ahead and find a different source.
Got the Encyclopedia Britannica handy?
Good.
Look up the Theory of Evolution.
Now do the same thing with Abiogenesis.
Notice anything?
That’s right. They’re different!
Quite different in fact.
Yet just in case you don’t have an encyclopedia around, there’s always Wikipedia.
(Any port in a storm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Evolutionary history of life
Origin of life (subsection)
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution has occurred and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[118] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but disputes over the definition of life makes it unclear at which point a complex set of reactions would became an organism.[119] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity of the last universal common ancestor.[120][121] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[122] and the assembly of simple cells”
Not satisfied?
Well, let’s check out a real, actual university!
Berkeley, in fact.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1
Misconception:
“Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
Response:
Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.”
Happy now?
No?
Then e-mail them now and tell them how wrong they are.
I’m sure they’ll give you the consideration you deserve.
(Be sure to let us know their response!)
Thanks for your Dr. Maxine Singer quote. Beautiful stuff.
Do you object to her use of evolution when she’s talking about stars or galaxies perhaps?
(…Sigh…)
Look, the word evolution can be used in many different ways, OK?
When a biologist uses the word, he or she is using it to mean (surprise, surprise) biological evolution. However, amongst others, there’s…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
Stellar Evolution
“In astronomy, stellar evolution is the sequence of radical changes that a star undergoes during its lifetime (the time in which it emits light and heat). Depending on the size of the star, this period can range from hundreds of thousands to billions of years.
Stellar evolution is not studied by observing the life of a single star—most stellar changes occur too slowly to be detected, even over many centuries. Instead, astrophysicists come to understand how stars evolve by observing numerous stars, each at a different point in its life, and simulating stellar structure with computer models.”
Please note that this still has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Feel free to mention vague sources to the contrary. Perhaps those mysterious textbooks?
WHOH!! STOP EVERYTHING!.
Your argument sounds familiar! :)
The unnamed textbooks, the deliberate confusion about the word ’Evolution’.
Very familiar in fact!!
….(thinking)…..(more thinking)…
Mynym!
Are you using Ken Hovind as your source material?
Please tell me you are not.
Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind’s Age of the Earth. (25min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0
Yes, people. THE Ken Hovind is in da house!
(As a matter of fact, he’s in da ‘big house’.
Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week!)
Seeker,
You came clean about how old you think the Earth is.
You are now officially out of the closet.
Wasn’t so hard, yeah?
10,000 years. There you go.
Perhaps you could do a few scientific articles here to explain why?
Just a thought.
Oh….and um….the ID thingy perhaps?
Too much?
Ok, Ok! No need to get testy.
Mymyn said “As a planet that’s habitable for Life I’d guess it’s thousands of years old based on all lines of evidence, whether science or no. I could speculate more but the question is a red herring, after all.”
The Age of the Earth is a scientific question.
Honest.
It’s like “Why is the sky blue?”
Or “How fast is the speed of light?”
Or “How do you split the atom?”
Or “Does this medicine really work?”
Scientists have been fascinated by the question for a long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Of course, Mynym is content with his personal guesses. Good for him.
Prepared to accept ‘evidence’ even if it’s not scientific.
(Which leads one’s mind to boggle in astonishment as to what he means by ‘evidence’!)
‘Thousands of years’ he speculates.
He claims to be able to speculate more but doesn’t bother to.
Lucky us! ?
All that science talk was wearing me out.
Oh, and for those who are interested.
There’s this odd-ball group of science deniers/Dawinists/goo-to-you-sters who just haven’t heard the latest news that the Earth is only 10,000 years old or thereabouts.
Some obscure group call the U.S Geological Survey? Anybody heard of them?
Yes? No?
Geologic Time. Age of the Earth.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Like I said, all one has to do to stump mynym is ask how "creation science" works. He's forced to answer, "by magic."
It's odd how those who believe in scientism these days use the word magic as a stigma word. All the old charlatans, alchemists and the like were the magicians of their day and the scientists of their day because that's all that "nerds" have when it comes to power, i.e. intelligence or knowledge. Again, all technology appears as magic to those who don't know how it works, yet when you do know how something works that usually makes it intelligable as you understand the intelligence and intelligent design behind it.
This pisses him off.
No it doesn't. You're a creature of talking points ("Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution because I read it on talk.origins or somethin'.") and stigma words ("That's magic!"). You can hardly even think anymore, apparently. What do you mean by magic? A power that we can know nothing of?
So as expected, he proceeds to call evolution "goo" and prattles on nonsensically.
I call evolution hypothetical goo only because those who believe in murmuring the term as if it explains all that is have made the word into a pollution of language. Again, where has the theory of evolution been specified in the language of mathematics like the theory of gravity and then verified empirically?
Brilliant! He mentions "excrement" to cap his rant.
It does seem that those who believe in natural selection come to have brains that may as well be excrement as the mind of the synaptic "gaps" closes by merging all specification. It seems that the Mommy Nature of those with the urge to merge is quite a smothering mother.
When you come up with some content for how "creation science" works, other than "magic," let us know. Until then, don't be angry at evolutionists just because creationists lack substance.
At least creation science is somewhat defined by a text and a narrative that has been around for millenia instead of being defined by stigma words and propagandistic reasoning like: "If I imagine something about the past that I feel is natural and murmur the term evolution then everyone should act as if my imaginings work. And if they can't imagine things with me then they must imagine something which I call natural, otherwise progress and technology will come to an end!" And so on.
Charlatans? Don't be modest, Mymyn.
Of course those who stick by Haeckel's embryos are charlatans, e.g. PZ Myers who writes for talk.origins. Etc. At any rate, I noted an article from a peer reviewed journal applying evolution to abiogenesis because you said: "You've made a common creationist mistake. You've confused abiogenesis with evolution."
Now that you cite a bit of text from a "real university" (as you put it) things are changing and evolving a little. Instead of the talking point given you by the charlatans of talk.origins in which only ignorant creationists would conflate evolution with abiogenesis we read things like: "Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started…these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory."
Creationists never said that abiogenesis was the central focus for evolutionists or that all evolutionists study abiogenesis, etc. It is incredibly disingenuous to say that creationists conflated evolution and abiogenesis as if only a creationist would believe that they have something to do with each other and so on. That's basically a crude bit of propaganda that the propagandists of talk.origins apparently hope people will be taken in by even when there are plenty of peer reviewed articles which show that evolutionists themselves applied and continue to apply "evolution" to the problem of abiogenesis. Even those who are ignorant of science texts can turn on PBS or pick up a highschool textbook to see that evolutionists apply "evolution" to the problem of abiogenesis.
It is ignorant or dishonest to say that biologists don't concern themselves with the origin of life when anyone who has an eleventh grade biology education knows otherwise. E.g. "Other scientists have shown that amino acids will link up when heated in the absence of oxygen gas" (Towle 1991, p. 210). Also, ". . . amino acids tend to link together spontaneously to form short chains" (Miller & Levine 1991, p. 344)
"One process that must have occurred on the earth was the enclosure of nucleic acids in membranes. Once DNA was separated from the environment by some kind of boundary, it would be protected, and might be able to carry out the precise reactions of replication" (Towle 1991, p. 211). "Some of these droplets grow all by themselves, and others even reproduce" (Miller & Levine 1991, p. 344)
Textbooks cited at: http://www.arn.org/docs/mills/gm_originoflifeande…
It's interesting to note that "evolution" explains and predicts pretty much everything depending on how much one wants to imagine things. Some go so far as to imagine an infinite number of universes in order to salvage explanations that feel "natural" to them and so on, although one wonders if so many universes would all be natural.
On the issue of the origin of life it's difficult to know when to stop imagining things because "evolution" doesn't actually predict biologic universals or common descent. I.e. there could just as easily be multiple lines of descent from multiple mud puddles from which fundamentally different types of life emerged if we imagine it so.
On the other hand, there is a text which is thousands of years old which has always specified that the Creator of life is singular and therefore biologic universals based on the remnants of a common designer making different kinds of things is likely. It's likely that if the law of biogenesis and the unity of different kinds of life were not observed then those who hate the Creator would be focusing more on empirical evidence and logical argument and less time imagining stories about the past based on whatever comes "naturally" to them.
"…technology appears as magic to those who don't know how it works…"
Then kindly enlighten us. How does creationism work scientifically? Mynym says: "Da magic man in da sky cweated all dat der is by His big magic." Perhaps he wouldn't use those exact words but you get the gist. Essentially, despite his verbosity, the only sound we ever hear from mynym is the sound of one hand clapping.
Seeker said: “You are right in thinking that if we invalidate abiogenesis, we have not invalidated evolution, since they don’t necessarily stand or fall together.”
Imagine how much work you could have saved me if you had mentioned this before?
All those scientific definitions I had to drag up…
Seeker continues…”The broader theory encompasses…”
Broader theory? What do you mean ‘broader theory’?
Later Seeker continues…“However, since evolutionistic philosophy…”
Evolutionistic philosophy?
Sounds very dull. Perhaps another time?
I appreciate you giving me your personal definition of what ‘evolution’ REALLY means but I’ll stick to the encyclopedias and universities.
Seeker said “In fact, since you like to mockingly ask people what they believe, let me ask you – how do YOU think life on earth, or in the universe got started?”
My answer is this:
I don’t know.
Simple!
I’m curious to find out. I think the experiments that have been done are fascinating and it’s very exciting that the whole new study of hydro-thermals has opened up. NASA is taking very close notice. They reckon it could help us in planetary exploration.
Oh, did I just say NASA?
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g3.html
“Goal 3: Understand how life emerges from cosmic and planetary precursors
Perform observational, experimental and theoretical investigations to understand the general physical and chemical principles underlying the origins of life.
How life begins remains a fundamental unsolved mystery. The origin of life on Earth is likely to represent only one pathway among many along which life can emerge. Thus the universal principles must be understood that underlie not only the origins of life on Earth, but also the possible origins of life elsewhere. These principles will be sought by determining what raw materials of life can be produced by chemical evolution in space and on planets. It should be understood how organic compounds are assembled into more complex molecular systems and the processes by which complex systems evolve those basic properties that are critical to life’s origins. Such properties include capturing energy and nutrients from the environment, and manufacturing copies of key biomolecules. Clues from the biomolecular and fossil records, as well as from diverse microorganisms, should be explored in order to define better the fundamental properties of the living state.”
When they find out something concrete, I’ll be the first in line to read about it.
But if you want to go for a ‘mocking’ question, ask me about the age of the Earth….
Go ahead!
Try and pin me down.
Make me squirm!
Scenario one.
Seeker: So, you evolutionist you, what is the age of the Earth?
Give me a number!
Cedric: 4.5 Billion years.
End of Scenario one.
Now let’s REVERSE the conversation shall we?
Scenario Two.
Cedric: So, you creationist you, what’s the age of the Earth?
Give me a number.
Seeker: Nope. Blah, blah,blah…..
(a little while later)
Cedric: Seeker, how old do you think the Earth is?
Give me a number.
Seeker: …..……
(a little while later)
Cedric: Seeker. How old is the Earth?
Seeker: I think it’s 10,000 year’s or so. Go ahead and mock me!
Cedric: 10,000 years? So, you’ve come out of the closet?
(Seeker wanders off saying something about “Jerk” and “Go Away”.)
……………………………………………………………….
Seeker, I didn’t tell you to say 10,000 years.
You did that all by yourself.
Of course, you HAD to come up with a number because you’re supposed to be a ‘scientist’.
Now, if you were an ignorant hill-billy you could have said
“I dunno. Never really thought about it. Nobody does.”
And I would have let you alone, expecting nothing better.
The ignorant, like the poor, will always be with us.
But you’re NOT an ignorant hill-billy, right?
So, you don’t have that option.
Plus, you know it’s a valid, basic scientific question.
You can’t dodge it when somebody asks you straight out without looking ‘odd’.
Seeker.
Put up some articles on how you came to the conclusion that the Earth is 10,000 years old.
Please.
It would be a shame to just leave your readers hanging like this.
Come on, be a sport.
10,000 years? Really?
Not 6000 years? Or 14,000years? Or 4.5 billion years but ten…..thousand……years?
(pause for effect)
Ok, why?
Linking to AIG doesn’t cut it. We all know about AIG.
You link there all the time.
Explain it to us.
Like a scientist.
Mymyn.
Mymyn said
“I noted an article from a peer reviewed journal applying evolution to abiogenesis because you said: “You’ve made a common creationist mistake. You’ve confused abiogenesis with evolution.”
You did? And this helps you how?
Perhaps you could find an article applying chemistry to abiogenisis?
Or maybe geology?
What’s your point?
Mymyn said: Now that you cite a bit of text from a “real university” (as you put it)”
Yes, I DO put it that way.
Berkley IS a university.
A real one. Do you dispute this?
Mymyn said
“It is ignorant or dishonest to say that biologists don’t concern themselves with the origin of life.”
Oh but I agree. They do. What was your point?
Mymun:“It is incredibly disingenuous to say that creationists conflated evolution and abiogenesis“
So creationists clearly distinguish between the two?
Baloney!
Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind’s Age of the Earth. (25min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0
And everybody’s favourite…
Peanut Butter. The Atheist’s nightmare.(2min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&mode=related&search=
(300,000 hits and still going strong. I love that.)
By the way, I couldn’t help but notice that you gave ARN as your reference.
Why don’t you tell us a little about who’s in charge of ARN?
Please. Don’t be shy.
Mymyn said:
“It’s odd how those who believe in scientism these days use the word magic as a stigma word.”
Do you believe in magic?
How old is the age of the Earth?
I know you said “thousands of years” but how many?
6000 years? 8000 years? Maybe even 10,000 years?
You guys want to take this all the way back to Descartes? Do androids dream of electric sheep? Do bats dream of Jesus?
You guys want to take this all the way back to Descartes? Do androids dream of electric sheep? Do bats dream of Jesus?