Creation Museum Grand Opening, May 28 [Archive]

KP3FT

05-22-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 21 2007,21:15)]"Creation Science" is the worst oxymoron ever.

And it's embarrassing to have people who claim to be in a technical hobby but who vehemently support that sort of nonsense.
Actually, I've rejected evolution theory because of science, not in spite of it. I formally believed it, but after looking at both sides of the issue, and the available evidence, I conclude that he best theory, by far, is the ID (Intelligent Design) explanation. A brutally objective look at the claims of evolution theory reveals an extremely weak and, in fact, an anti-scientific foundation for the belief in "molecules to man". I am talking about "macro-evolution", not "micro-evolution". Micro-evolution is nothing more than mutation, deletion, or duplication of genetic information that already exists, leading to small changes of what is ALREADY THERE. This is observed all the time and not only fits in nicely with Creation theory but is even predicted by it. Macro-evolution is the process by which genetic information is created and increased through natural processes, leading from the creation of a simple cell all the way to the life we see today. Micro-evolution is an unfortunate term, because it infers that "if it happens on a small scale, then why not on a big scale?" when in actuality, it isn't even related. The big question is, who supplied the "information", because that is precisely what the DNA sequence is, information. Information requires intelligence.
A simple question of "why?" or "how?" when presented with an evolutionary claim quickly demonstrates how weak the position is. A quick example...in college I had a professor who emphatically insisted we evolved from anaerobic bacteria which mutated from the Sun's ultraviolet rays, and quite naturally led to the evolution of all animal life we see today. Asked "how?" revealed zero scientific data to defend the statement. Yet, he adamently stated this as fact, quote: "this DID happen!". That's a good example of other common statements we see in publications all the time.
Honestly, I have no problem with the teaching of evolution theory; the problem I have is in the way it is presented as fact. I believe in showing ALL sides and information, and let us decide. To do otherwise is an insult to our intellect.

73!
Jeff KP3FT

KD6NIG

05-22-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote[/b] (w3bny @ May 22 2007,05:34)]Yoo not hungree fo Creation Science... Yoo hungree for HAWT POKETS...

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1273/117980055488xa0.jpg

HAWT POKETS!
And for those watching their weight, they now have "lean pockets" too!

k6bbc

05-22-2007, 02:42 PM

Oh my God - that is too funny. A museum devoted to nonsense. If it makes money, I am opening a snipe museum.

bbc

k6bbc

05-22-2007, 02:46 PM

n2ize

05-22-2007, 02:50 PM

nx6d

05-22-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ May 22 2007,05:59)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 21 2007,21:15)]"Creation Science" is the worst oxymoron ever.

And it's embarrassing to have people who claim to be in a technical hobby but who vehemently support that sort of nonsense.
Actually, I've rejected evolution theory because of science, not in spite of it. #I formally believed it, but after looking at both sides of the issue, and the available evidence, I conclude that he best theory, by far, is the ID (Intelligent Design) explanation. #A brutally objective look at the claims of evolution theory reveals an extremely weak and, in fact, an anti-scientific foundation for the belief in "molecules to man". #I am talking about "macro-evolution", not "micro-evolution". #Micro-evolution is nothing more than mutation, deletion, or duplication of genetic information that already exists, leading to small changes of what is ALREADY THERE. #This is observed all the time and not only fits in nicely with Creation theory but is even predicted by it. #Macro-evolution is the process by which genetic information is created and increased through natural processes, leading from the creation of a simple cell all the way to the life we see today. #Micro-evolution is an unfortunate term, because it infers that "if it happens on a small scale, then why not on a big scale?" when in actuality, it isn't even related. # The big question is, who supplied the "information", because that is precisely what the DNA sequence is, information. #Information requires intelligence.
# # A simple question of "why?" or "how?" when presented with an evolutionary claim quickly demonstrates how weak the position is. #A quick example...in college I had a professor who emphatically insisted we evolved from anaerobic bacteria which mutated from the Sun's ultraviolet rays, and quite naturally led to the evolution of all animal life we see today. #Asked "how?" revealed zero scientific data to defend the statement. #Yet, he adamently stated this as fact, quote: "this DID happen!". #That's a good example of other common statements we see in publications all the time. #
# # Honestly, I have no problem with the teaching of evolution theory; the problem I have is in the way it is presented as fact. #I believe in showing ALL sides and information, and let us decide. #To do otherwise is an insult to our intellect.

73!
Jeff KP3FT
The only "insult to our intellect" is the constant propagation of the "Creation Science" nonsense.

Your post sounds like a Jack Chick tract.

Dave NX6D
Tulelake, CA

w8znx

05-22-2007, 04:38 PM

check their summer jobs info

items needed for possible employment

salvation testimony

creation belief statement

and

donfirmation of your agreement with the aig statement of faith

guess
they don't want any employes that can think

KA8NCR

05-22-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ May 22 2007,06:59)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 21 2007,21:15)]"Creation Science" is the worst oxymoron ever.

And it's embarrassing to have people who claim to be in a technical hobby but who vehemently support that sort of nonsense.
Actually, I've rejected evolution theory because of science, not in spite of it. I formally believed it, but after looking at both sides of the issue, and the available evidence, I conclude that he best theory, by far, is the ID (Intelligent Design) explanation. A brutally objective look at the claims of evolution theory reveals an extremely weak and, in fact, an anti-scientific foundation for the belief in "molecules to man". I am talking about "macro-evolution", not "micro-evolution". Micro-evolution is nothing more than mutation, deletion, or duplication of genetic information that already exists, leading to small changes of what is ALREADY THERE. This is observed all the time and not only fits in nicely with Creation theory but is even predicted by it. Macro-evolution is the process by which genetic information is created and increased through natural processes, leading from the creation of a simple cell all the way to the life we see today. Micro-evolution is an unfortunate term, because it infers that "if it happens on a small scale, then why not on a big scale?" when in actuality, it isn't even related. The big question is, who supplied the "information", because that is precisely what the DNA sequence is, information. Information requires intelligence.
A simple question of "why?" or "how?" when presented with an evolutionary claim quickly demonstrates how weak the position is. A quick example...in college I had a professor who emphatically insisted we evolved from anaerobic bacteria which mutated from the Sun's ultraviolet rays, and quite naturally led to the evolution of all animal life we see today. Asked "how?" revealed zero scientific data to defend the statement. Yet, he adamently stated this as fact, quote: "this DID happen!". That's a good example of other common statements we see in publications all the time.
Honestly, I have no problem with the teaching of evolution theory; the problem I have is in the way it is presented as fact. I believe in showing ALL sides and information, and let us decide. To do otherwise is an insult to our intellect.

73!
Jeff KP3FT
While I respect your opinions and views, your post is the same straw man argument used by other creationists that distorts the definitions and the science in order to prove your point.

My favorite is a local religious broadcaster who continually distorts evolution and then asks how can a billion cells somehow, magically, come together to form a complete human being in just a few million years? Then he recites some simple math that shows the volume of mutations based upon the number of cells in the human body and how through evolution, it's mathematically impossible for evolution to have created humans over the course of millions of years. Of course, the problem with that argument and its distortions are obvious; many of the mutations didn't happen at the multi-cell level and when they were at the multi-cell level, the organisms undergoing the changes were not humans.

Your complaint that the information required for human DNA is too vast and complex for chance is just another version of the same argument. No where has science said that it all had to come together overnight. And you're conveniently ignoring that science has indeed found traces of many forms of prehistoric single-cell life in the geologic record dating back many millions of years. And many simpler forms of life are still with us; a virus is a life form that has very little DNA information and can't replicate without swapping RNA from other viruses or by hijacking a cell or another form of virus.

People complain that there needs to be both sides of the argument presented. My issue with that is that there is even LESS evidence of creation than evolution. The only evidence is to fight to discredit evolution and the people who do the science and to point to an old book of man's interpretation of man's interpretation of man's interpretation of man's interpretation of the alleged word of a supreme being. Meanwhile, science presents more findings that continue to strengthen the position of evolution and how advanced life came to inhabit this planet.

Finally, I'm amused by the hypocrisy of many Creationists (the OP is excluded from this assessment). They'll dismiss science at every turn until they need it in the form of medical treatment to fight diseases like cancer. Then all of a sudden, they'll embrace the science that'll save their life, but never admitting that it's the same science that supports evolution.

N9XR

05-22-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote[/b] ]The day I meet a non-fundamentalist who has an issue with evolution, I will listen. Until then, this is just BS propaganda from a very evil source.
That'll be a pretty long wait.

Intelligent design was invented by fundamentalists to explain their theory that God is in no way smart enough to have invented evolution. They look at God as a celestial retard who has no clue how to make the evolution of one species to another.

k6bbc

05-22-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ May 22 2007,12:22)]Quote[/b] ]The day I meet a non-fundamentalist who has an issue with evolution, I will listen. Until then, this is just BS propaganda from a very evil source.
That'll be a pretty long wait.

Intelligent design was invented by fundamentalists to explain their theory that God is in no way smart enough to have invented evolution. They look at God as a celestial retard who has no clue how to make the evolution of one species to another.
I think you just won the debate. That will close the issue. Thanks.

bbc

al2n

05-22-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 22 2007,07:46)]The day I meet a non-fundamentalist who has an issue with evolution, I will listen. Until then, this is just BS propaganda from a very evil source.

bbc
Here is a list to get you started. Some are Christian, some are not.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

k6bbc

05-22-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,13:19)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 22 2007,07:46)]The day I meet a non-fundamentalist who has an issue with evolution, I will listen. Until then, this is just BS propaganda from a very evil source.

bbc
Here is a list to get you started. Some are Christian, some are not.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
Let's compare logic to nonsence why don't we.

bbc

n2ize

05-22-2007, 08:28 PM

In other words this is a RELIGION museam. Creationism isn't valid as science because it requires that you place blind faith in the supernatural and you must assume the existance and influence of a force that cannot be seen, measured or detected. It's like arguing that objects are not held together by forces of attraction between atoms and molecules but instear are held together by "the blather". I define "the blather" as a supernatural glue that is unseen, unknown and undetected but is valid nonetheless bacause I have faith in it.

N9XR

05-22-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 22 2007,07:28)]In other words this is a RELIGION museam. Creationism isn't valid as science because it requires that you place blind faith in the supernatural and you must assume the existance and influence of a force that cannot be seen, measured or detected. It's like arguing that objects are not held together by forces of attraction between atoms and molecules but instear are held together by "the blather". I define "the blather" as a supernatural glue that is unseen, unknown and undetected but is valid nonetheless bacause I have faith in it.
I believe in the creation. I believe God created the Big Bang.

KP3FT

05-22-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ May 22 2007,10:40)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ May 22 2007,06:59)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 21 2007,21:15)]"Creation Science" is the worst oxymoron ever.

And it's embarrassing to have people who claim to be in a technical hobby but who vehemently support that sort of nonsense.
Actually, I've rejected evolution theory because of science, not in spite of it. I formally believed it, but after looking at both sides of the issue, and the available evidence, I conclude that he best theory, by far, is the ID (Intelligent Design) explanation. A brutally objective look at the claims of evolution theory reveals an extremely weak and, in fact, an anti-scientific foundation for the belief in "molecules to man". I am talking about "macro-evolution", not "micro-evolution". Micro-evolution is nothing more than mutation, deletion, or duplication of genetic information that already exists, leading to small changes of what is ALREADY THERE. This is observed all the time and not only fits in nicely with Creation theory but is even predicted by it. Macro-evolution is the process by which genetic information is created and increased through natural processes, leading from the creation of a simple cell all the way to the life we see today. Micro-evolution is an unfortunate term, because it infers that "if it happens on a small scale, then why not on a big scale?" when in actuality, it isn't even related. The big question is, who supplied the "information", because that is precisely what the DNA sequence is, information. Information requires intelligence.
A simple question of "why?" or "how?" when presented with an evolutionary claim quickly demonstrates how weak the position is. A quick example...in college I had a professor who emphatically insisted we evolved from anaerobic bacteria which mutated from the Sun's ultraviolet rays, and quite naturally led to the evolution of all animal life we see today. Asked "how?" revealed zero scientific data to defend the statement. Yet, he adamently stated this as fact, quote: "this DID happen!". That's a good example of other common statements we see in publications all the time.
Honestly, I have no problem with the teaching of evolution theory; the problem I have is in the way it is presented as fact. I believe in showing ALL sides and information, and let us decide. To do otherwise is an insult to our intellect.

73!
Jeff KP3FT
While I respect your opinions and views, your post is the same straw man argument used by other creationists that distorts the definitions and the science in order to prove your point.

My favorite is a local religious broadcaster who continually distorts evolution and then asks how can a billion cells somehow, magically, come together to form a complete human being in just a few million years? Then he recites some simple math that shows the volume of mutations based upon the number of cells in the human body and how through evolution, it's mathematically impossible for evolution to have created humans over the course of millions of years. Of course, the problem with that argument and its distortions are obvious; many of the mutations didn't happen at the multi-cell level and when they were at the multi-cell level, the organisms undergoing the changes were not humans.

Your complaint that the information required for human DNA is too vast and complex for chance is just another version of the same argument. No where has science said that it all had to come together overnight. And you're conveniently ignoring that science has indeed found traces of many forms of prehistoric single-cell life in the geologic record dating back many millions of years. And many simpler forms of life are still with us; a virus is a life form that has very little DNA information and can't replicate without swapping RNA from other viruses or by hijacking a cell or another form of virus.

People complain that there needs to be both sides of the argument presented. My issue with that is that there is even LESS evidence of creation than evolution. The only evidence is to fight to discredit evolution and the people who do the science and to point to an old book of man's interpretation of man's interpretation of man's interpretation of man's interpretation of the alleged word of a supreme being. Meanwhile, science presents more findings that continue to strengthen the position of evolution and how advanced life came to inhabit this planet.

Finally, I'm amused by the hypocrisy of many Creationists (the OP is excluded from this assessment). They'll dismiss science at every turn until they need it in the form of medical treatment to fight diseases like cancer. Then all of a sudden, they'll embrace the science that'll save their life, but never admitting that it's the same science that supports evolution.
No straw man argument from me...I believe I presented the micro-evolution and macro-evolution definitions accurately, or at least the main essentials. The point of Intelligent Design theory, is that the complexity of DNA indicates a Designer, because the DNA sequence is information, not random mumbo-jumbo. Mutation, deletion, and duplication of already-existing information does not scientifically explain the origin of life, it only shows changes of what is already there. We do not have transitional fossils to point to. We do not observe life originating from non-life in nature or in the laboratory. I agree, discrediting Evolution does not prove Intelligent Design, however it does force us to think and investigate beyond the dogma. The questions remain, how and why are you right? Can you demostrate how macro-evolution is scientific? How DID molecules become man in millions of years? Why am I wrong?
Where did I say or infer there were no single-cell organisms in the past? Obviously there were and are today. I said that a professor presented, as fact, that anaerobic bacteria mutated into other organisms which led to all living organiosms today. This was given as an example of statements given with no scientific basis, yet ironically presented as science. The scientific facts are that anaerobic bacteria exist and that we exist, however saying that we came from anaerobic bacteria has no scientific evidence to support it.
Please present the evidence for your case. I see a lot of ridicule and accusations, but no science. One person wanted a non-fundamentalist viewpoint against evolution. Michael Behe is a good example; he wrote "Darwin's Black Box" and shows the "irreducable complexity" of simple organisms and their features. In other words, simple organisms which contain structures which would not exist without the other structures, which leads to the question of how evolution can account for this. I have read the rebuttals and critisms to his findings, and also his responses. He makes a very good case for intelligence being behind the DNA structure. There are multitudes of past and present scientists with all kinds of credentials who reject or at least question Evolution and also believe in Intelligent Design as the better theory.

73!
Jeff KP3FT

KE5FRF

05-22-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,15:19)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 22 2007,07:46)]The day I meet a non-fundamentalist who has an issue with evolution, I will listen. #Until then, this is just BS propaganda from a very evil source. # #

bbc
Here is a list to get you started. #Some are Christian, some are not.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
Mike, thanks for the link. Interesting.

I was struck by this commentary:
Quote[/b] ]"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

And from everything I understand, this is true. Has anyone created an organic cell from nothing in a lab? Oops, there's that "created" word. Let me restate...Has anyone put unrelated bits of matter into a test tube and managed to see it organize into a cell? Even with the random environmental stimulus? I don't think so. All you get is a soup that remains a soup and eventually breaks down into something non-soupy (rots, decomposes).

Science is supposed to be a doctrine of observation. Observations lead to theories. Yet, the missing key that would prove evolution has never been proven. (BTW, we aren't really debating evolution vs creation. We are debating "random nothing to something vs creation". Even creationsim isn't mutually exclusive of evolution.

Where is the evidence of the beginnings? Nobody has an explanation. Nobody has a model. Nobody has ingrediants. No body has reproducability. Its all as much a fairy tale as creationism until someone demonstrates the formula for how it happens. Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. The problem of evolution and the problem of where life began are two different problems that aren't neccessarily answered by the same "facts".

N9XR

05-22-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote[/b] ]Please present the evidence for your case.

I am sorry. I have no "evidence" on this one.

I have no evidence that God is not bright enough to figure out Mutation to Evolution. And just because we have not been smart enough, or lucky enough to find transitional fossils to point to, I am not going to blame God and say, "You are incapable of these acts because we don't see them here on Earth!" Just because we do not observe life originating from non-life in nature or in the laboratory, I will not dare say that God in incompetent of such actions.

That is blasphemy in my books. This discussion disgusts me.

KE5FRF

05-22-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote[/b] ]In other words this is a RELIGION museam. Creationism isn't valid as science because it requires that you place blind faith in the supernatural and you must assume the existance and influence of a force that cannot be seen, measured or detected.

Where is this force that can be seen, measured, and detected that supports the random organization of matter into life ie primordial soup, and if it has been seen, measured, or detected, why hasn't it been reproduced in a lab?

Is believeing in something that can't be seen, measured, or detected (proven, as in faith)...the bar for something being religious?

So is the primordial soup theory a religion then?

Interesting bit of logic. Fascinating.

n2ize

05-22-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ May 22 2007,13:42)]Quote[/b] ]Please present the evidence for your case.

I am sorry. #I have no "evidence" on this one.

I have no evidence that God is not bright enough to figure out Mutation to Evolution. #And just because we have not been smart enough, or lucky enough to find transitional fossils to point to, I am not going to blame God and say, "You are incapable of these acts because we don't see them here on Earth!" #Just because we do not observe life originating from non-life in nature or in the laboratory, I will not dare say that God in incompetent of such actions.

That is blasphemy in my books. #This discussion disgusts me.
"transitional fossils" are not a nesseaary precursor to have evolution. Additionally the notion of transitional fossils is very misunderstood.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil)

n2ize

05-22-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,13:43)]Quote[/b] ]In other words this is a RELIGION museam. Creationism isn't valid as science because it requires that you place blind faith in the supernatural and you must assume the existance and influence of a force that cannot be seen, measured or detected.

Where is this force that can be seen, measured, and detected that supports the random organization of matter into life ie primordial soup, and if it has been seen, measured, or detected, why hasn't it been reproduced in a lab?

Is believeing in something that can't be seen, measured, or detected (proven, as in faith)...the bar for something being religious?

So is the primordial soup theory a religion then?

Interesting bit of logic. Fascinating.
No because a theory is not a religion. What you're talking about is ambiogenisis. There are many theories regarding how such events could occur and how both order and complexity can be derived from what is seemingly disordered and random. Indeed there are many examples of this found in the universe. #However, as scientific theories they are falsifiable and not taken on faith and thus are not religion.. In creation science you are first making the unfalsifiable assumtion that "god exists" and then stating that "Gods intelligence created life". Since this is taken on faith it is not open to the same #premises as a theory.

Falsifiability and Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)

Origins of Life (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html)

AE6IP

05-22-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ May 22 2007,05:59)]Actually, I've rejected evolution theory because of science, not in spite of it. I formally believed it, but after looking at both sides of the issue, and the available evidence, I conclude that he best theory, by far, is the ID (Intelligent Design) explanation. A brutally objective look at the claims of evolution theory reveals an extremely weak and, in fact, an anti-scientific foundation for the belief in "molecules to man". I am talking about "macro-evolution", not "micro-evolution".

Thanks for providing me an example of what I was talking about.

This whole strawman of 'macro' versus 'micro' has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. There are no claims made by modern evolutionary biology that your "concerns" about macro-evolution even address.

AE6IP

05-22-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ May 22 2007,12:33)]No straw man argument from me...I believe I presented the micro-evolution and macro-evolution definitions accurately, or at least the main essentials.

But the terms don't come from evolutionary biology. They're constructs of creationists in an attempt to 'debunk' a theory that isn't evolutionary theory.

Quote[/b] ]The point of Intelligent Design theory, is that the complexity of DNA indicates a Designer, because the DNA sequence is information, not random mumbo-jumbo.

Sigh. That's not the claim of the ID folk. But let's take a look at this claim and see how 'scientific' it is. Please define "complexity" in a way that's measurable.

Quote[/b] ]Mutation, deletion, and duplication of already-existing information does not scientifically explain the origin of life, it only shows changes of what is already there. We do not have transitional fossils to point to.

You misunderstand what a transitional fossil is. Every fossil is transitional, and every species is continuously transitioning -- until it becomes extinct.

Quote[/b] ]We do not observe life originating from non-life in nature or in the laboratory.

That's not part of evolutionary biology, that's abiogenesis.

Quote[/b] ]Why am I wrong?

You're not even wrong. You're arguing about something that's not what evolutionary biology claims. If you're going to attempt to discedit the modern theory of evolution, it helps if you actually argue against it and not some strawman.

Quote[/b] ]Please present the evidence for your case.

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd Edition), Sinauer Associates (1998) ISBN 0-87893-189-9

Quote[/b] ]Michael Behe is a good example; he wrote "Darwin's Black Box" and shows the "irreducable complexity" of simple organisms and their features.

Behe can't even define a metric for complexity.

KE5FRF

05-22-2007, 10:50 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 22 2007,16:15)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,13:43)]Quote[/b] ]In other words this is a RELIGION museam. Creationism isn't valid as science because it requires that you place blind faith in the supernatural and you must assume the existance and influence of a force that cannot be seen, measured or detected.

Where is this force that can be seen, measured, and detected that supports the random organization of matter into life ie primordial soup, and if it has been seen, measured, or detected, why hasn't it been reproduced in a lab?

Is believeing in something that can't be seen, measured, or detected (proven, as in faith)...the bar for something being religious?

So is the primordial soup theory a religion then?

Interesting bit of logic. Fascinating.
No because a theory is not a religion. What you're talking about is ambiogenisis. There are many theories regarding how such events could occur and how both order and complexity can be derived from what is seemingly disordered and random. Indeed there are many examples of this found in the universe. #However, as scientific theories they are falsifiable and not taken on faith and thus are not religion.. In creation science you are first making the unfalsifiable assumtion that "god exists" and then stating that "Gods intelligence created life". Since this is taken on faith it is not open to the same #premises as a theory.

Falsifiability and Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)

Origins of Life (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html)
Nope. Wrong. Buzz. Million dollar question to follow.

There is no theory, in all of science, that is as groundless as the "theory" of "primordial soup.

No demonstration of a formula, no catalyst defined, key ingrediants are not isolated (duh, except for the obvious ones that already exist within living things)...No pressure or temperature has been put forth, no examples visible in the real world, not even close. It is as supposed, dreamed up, and totally without base as Alice in Wonderland.

What you have is a chain of logic, that HAS to arrive at a certain end, if you are to be an athiest. The athiest says, "I do not believe in God". Upon arriving at this decision, the athiest must find an alternative answer. Mind you, to not believe in one thing opens up a zillion doors of things to believe...but the athiest who also fancies himself a scientist must arrive at a conclusion that they deem reasonable.

So, if a sentient being did not create life, the only plausible answer is that it occured at random. Oh, you could theorize that life isn't even real, that we are nothing more than the brain synapses of some other strange being's imagination, or you could come up with some other cockamamie idea, but none of these are sensible. They are science fiction fantasies.

So, either life is the scheme of an undefined intelligence, or it is a random phenomenon. Upon those two options, I think we can agree (If indeed two options had to be defined)

So, with the mind of the scientist, we must conclude that life is random. That a chain of events occured. We draw that conclusion only because we have already decided the other one must be untrue. We have made a CHOICE. This choice at this point does not need a foundation, because it is seen as the only other alternative. Remember, we've already made our choice not to believe in a sentient being.

So you see, already, there does not have to be science involved for the "scientific" athiest to decide what he believes. In fact, he isn't truly defining what he believes. He is defining what he doesn't believe to be true, and accepting the alternative. This is not science. It is faith.

The reason it isn't science is because he has not offered proof that the other answer (creationism) is unquestionably false. He has only decided to conclude that the other answer isn't logical. This is enough. It doesn't have to be disproven because the scientist/athiest believes it laughable in the first place.

So, armed with this dismisal, any other alternate example is acceptable. As long as it is put forth in the context of randomness. It has to be, because without order and intelligence, an event must be random.

So, random it is. Random is a pretty cool word. However, there is no such thing as random in science. Not really. Everything is supposed to be definable. Everything is supposed to be quantifiable. Even if we don't have the formula worked out, we are to assume that some physical law(s) govern everything. On that, I think we can agree. Yet, in the case of "primordial soup", there is no hint of a physical law. We have no idea. None. Was it lightning? Lightning strikes the earth a thousand times a day. Was it a nuclear reaction? Nuclear reactions have been performed in controlled environments since the 1940s. I'm quite certain that the leading physicists and biologists doing research on the origins of life have made every combination of attempts imaginable to get organic matter to organize randomly. They Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail and fail again.

Nope, this is as much a matter of faith as any religious belief, because no evidence exists. None, nada.

Just as the plausibility of creation pivots on defining and proving the existance of God, one must also define the existance of a life inducing catalyst to render "primordial soup" theory as plausible. Proof of both is ellusive, and thus, faith in both can only be defined as a religious belief.

K0RGR

05-22-2007, 10:53 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ May 22 2007,13:33)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 22 2007,07:28)]In other words this is a RELIGION museam. Creationism isn't valid as science because it requires that you place blind faith in the supernatural and you must assume the existance and influence of a force that cannot be seen, measured or detected. It's like arguing that objects are not held together by forces of attraction between atoms and molecules but instear are held together by "the blather". I define "the blather" as a supernatural glue that is unseen, unknown and undetected but is valid nonetheless bacause I have faith in it.
I believe in the creation. I believe God created the Big Bang.
And that would be very consistent with the beliefs of some theologians, too.

As my Lutheran pastor put it some years ago, "Why wouldn't God use evolution to create the Earth's creatures?".

The current Pope was supportive of this concept until recently, when he seemed to backpedal a bit in the direction of the "the Bible is infallible" position.

If God did it in 6 days, they were 6 of God's days. That could be the amount of time it takes our Sun to revolve around the center of the galaxy.

I know a number of intelligent, educated people who are swayed by the 'intelligent design' argument. They like to point out the structures of the eye as an example of something too complex to have evolved naturally. Personally, I find it a much smaller leap of faith that photosensitive spots on simple creature's backs eventually developed lenses on their own, than that God designed the eye and all of its more primitve forms.

KD7ZRT

05-22-2007, 11:30 PM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,13:41)]Has anyone created an organic cell from nothing in a lab? Oops, there's that "created" word. Let me restate...Has anyone put unrelated bits of matter into a test tube and managed to see it organize into a cell? Even with the random environmental stimulus?
How many omnipotent gods have been created in labs? How about the precurors to omnipotent gods? What the duece are gods made of anyway?

KE5FRF

05-22-2007, 11:34 PM

Quote[/b] (KD7ZRT @ May 22 2007,18:30)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,13:41)]Has anyone created an organic cell from nothing in a lab? Oops, there's that "created" word. Let me restate...Has anyone put unrelated bits of matter into a test tube and managed to see it organize into a cell? Even with the random environmental stimulus?
How many omnipotent gods have been created in labs? How about the precurors to omnipotent gods? What the duece are gods made of anyway?
Good question.

For one I have no answer.

But if one is to believe in primordial soup, having an answer is not a requirement. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Next?

AE6IP

05-22-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,14:50)]So, if a sentient being did not create life, the only plausible answer is that it occured at random. Oh, you could theorize that life isn't even real, that we are nothing more than the brain synapses of some other strange being's imagination, or you could come up with some other cockamamie idea, but none of these are sensible. They are science fiction fantasies.

So, either life is the scheme of an undefined intelligence, or it is a random phenomenon. Upon those two options, I think we can agree (If indeed two options had to be defined)

So, with the mind of the scientist, we must conclude that life is random. That a chain of events occured. We draw that conclusion only because we have already decided the other one must be untrue. We have made a CHOICE. This choice at this point does not need a foundation, because it is seen as the only other alternative. Remember, we've already made our choice not to believe in a sentient being.
Of all the strawmen you've raised, Heath, this one is the most breathtakingly far from how a scientist thinks on such matters, atheist or not.

"god created life" explains nothing. if that's so, then what created god? If you can stop at god, why can't you stop one step short of god?

On the other hand, we know from good evidence that this planet did not always exist in this state. We know that there was a long time in which it existed without life as we know it. We know that it now exists with life as we know it. None of these things require an act of faith.

We also know that once life exists it evolves. This isn't a theory. This is an observation. You can see it in the lab if you're willing to do a little work. You can even see it in the field, with a lot more work.

There was a time before life. Life arose. Life evolved. We understand the how of all of that, except 'life arose.' But even 'life arose' isn't a theory, it's an observation. It happened, we just don't know how.

Now a scientist at this points takes a wait-and-see attitude, unless they're very interested in how life arose, in which case they follow in the footsteps of Urey et al, and try to figure it out.

That, Heath, is the difference between science and faith. A 'religious' person, when confronted with 'life arose', says goddidit, and quits wondering. A scientific person says "hmm, how did that happen?" and starts to figure it out.

The funny thing about the goddidits, and the reason why evolution is such a big deal to the fundamentalists, is that abiogenesis is the last place for the god of the gaps to hide. Every other time the religious have claimed goddidt but the scientific have looked, it's turned out that there was no goddidit.

There are really three possibilites here:

1) Abiogenesis doesn't require a goddidit,and, like quantum mechanics, we'll eventually figure it out.

2) Abiogenesis doesn't require a goddidit, and, like the G.U.T., we'll never figure it out.

3) The god of the gaps decided to interfer in a process that completely was without goddidits at one point, just long enough to create the first life. Hooray for the goddidit.

Now, as a betting man, given that the goddidit came in last every other time, I'm gonna go with there being no goddidit. But as a scientist, I'll abandon that working hypothesis the instance the god that did it shows up and takes credit.

al2n

05-22-2007, 11:51 PM

Marty,

What do you hold a degree in?

Just curious.

KE5FRF

05-22-2007, 11:52 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 22 2007,18:39)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,14:50)]So, if a sentient being did not create life, the only plausible answer is that it occured at random. Oh, you could theorize that life isn't even real, that we are nothing more than the brain synapses of some other strange being's imagination, or you could come up with some other cockamamie idea, but none of these are sensible. They are science fiction fantasies.

So, either life is the scheme of an undefined intelligence, or it is a random phenomenon. Upon those two options, I think we can agree (If indeed two options had to be defined)

So, with the mind of the scientist, we must conclude that life is random. That a chain of events occured. We draw that conclusion only because we have already decided the other one must be untrue. We have made a CHOICE. This choice at this point does not need a foundation, because it is seen as the only other alternative. Remember, we've already made our choice not to believe in a sentient being.
Of all the strawmen you've raised, Heath, this one is the most breathtakingly far from how a scientist thinks on such matters, atheist or not.

"god created life" explains nothing. if that's so, then what created god? #If you can stop at god, why can't you stop one step short of god?

On the other hand, we know from good evidence that this planet did not always exist in this state. We know that there was a long time in which it existed without life as we know it. #We know that it now exists with life as we know it. #None of these things require an act of faith.

We also know that once life exists it evolves. This isn't a theory. This is an observation. You can see it in the lab if you're willing to do a little work. You can even see it in the field, with a lot more work.

There was a time before life. Life arose. Life evolved. We understand the how of all of that, except 'life arose.' #But even 'life arose' isn't a theory, it's an observation. It happened, we just don't know how.

Now a scientist at this points takes a wait-and-see attitude, unless they're very interested in how life arose, in which case they follow in the footsteps of Urey et al, and try to figure it out.

That, Heath, is the difference between science and faith. #A 'religious' person, when confronted with 'life arose', says goddidit, and quits wondering. #A scientific person says "hmm, how did that happen?" and starts to figure it out.

The funny thing about the goddidits, and the reason why evolution is such a big deal to the fundamentalists, is that abiogenesis is the last place for the god of the gaps to hide. Every other time the religious have claimed goddidt but the scientific have looked, it's turned out that there was no goddidit.

There are really three possibilites here:

1) Abiogenesis doesn't require a goddidit,and, like quantum mechanics, we'll eventually figure it out.

2) Abiogenesis doesn't require a goddidit, and, like the G.U.T., we'll never figure it out.

3) The god of the gaps decided to interfer in a process that completely was without goddidits at one point, just long enough to create the first life. Hooray for the goddidit.

Now, as a betting man, given that the goddidit came in last every other time, I'm gonna go with there being no goddidit. #But as a scientist, I'll abandon that working hypothesis the instance the god that did it shows up #and takes credit.
And you match my "strawman" with an amazingly incoherent strawman.

Evolution and primordial soup are not mutually exclusive.

I can create a nice dinner in my gas oven there in the kitchen. My intelligent hands stirring in the neccessary ingrediants. Lets see, Louisiana Cajun Gumbo sounds nice.

Throw in some cayenne, some shrimp, some sausage. Yummy.

OK, so I forget and leave that pot on the stove. Neglect it and walk away. Lets say I walk out of my home and don't look back.

Pot of gumbo will continue to cook. It will boil out the water. It will eventual turn to carbon and ashe as the heat continues to consume it.

Might even catch fire. Maybe not. Perhaps the oven will eventually shut itself off, trip a breaker.

Mind you, my intelligent hands are no longer in control. Nature will begin to act upon my primordial Gumbo.

What fleshy matter remains will rot and decay. The pot may begin to oxydize, if it isn't stainless. Given enough time, in enough centuries, my intelligently designed Gumbo will evolve to something totally unlike the sum of its whole.

Evolution and random "origination" are two totally unrelated topics. And I have absolutely zero interest in debating evolution today. I won't debate you because I never thought evolution theory was wrong. At least it has a foundation in quantifiable evidence. Even if it is circumstantial.

But this primordial soup business has none. It is as made up as Micheal Jackson's nose job. It sounds good.

Has good science boiled down to accepting things that sound good now?

Martin. Please tell me the catalyst, Mr. Bill Nye, science guy. PLEEEZ. I have been waiting to hear this all my life. And since we know who has all the answers around here, I'll let you be the one to explain it.

Is it lightning?
Nuclear reaction?
Solar winds or flares?
Is it a platinum reaction under intense heat and pressure?
Please, do tell.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote[/b] ]Now, as a betting man, given that the goddidit came in last every other time, I'm gonna go with there being no goddidit. But as a scientist, I'll abandon that working hypothesis the instance the god that did it shows up and takes credit.

And likewise, I'll convert to athiesm the moment the smoking gun catalyst is quantified.

Until then, I'll continue to pursue my answers the way that suits me(nope, and that's not a "goddidit" autoresponse, but a continual proccess of questioning the world around me, reading the latest theories, and always arriving at the same answer, at least until the catalyst shows up. And that answer is that man creates. Creating something is not an illogical occurance. Given that man creates things, the thing that man creates, if it had awareness, would conclude that man is his superior. I truly believe that one day, man will create a computer that is capable of abstract reasoning. Maybe that is against the tennants of being a Christian, but so be it. And if man, an organic creature, can create a silicon based entity, hypothesizing that this is even possible (which I assume you, the computer and math whiz you are, would agree is)...then the idea of one creature creating another by intelligent design is not so ridiculous after all.

I really do not understand why you professed science whizes are so against the idea of intelligent design. Its as if though you believe the computer that you are now typing on was but a random occurance. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

al2n

05-23-2007, 12:08 AM

The evolution that can be observed in the lab is the mutation of a virus.

A virus can become resistant to antibiotics. They can mutate from airborne to waterborne, etc....

But at the end of the day that virus is still a virus for the same disease.

A chicken pox virus for example can mutate, but it is still a chicken pox virus.

You can breed dogs for years and eventually come up with a poodle, pug or boxer. What you cannot do is breed dogs for years and come up with something that is not a dog.

I used to buy into evolution when I was younger, but after some serious looking at it, the theory just did not add up. Too much is asked to be taken on faith.

The goo in the pool suddenly came to life- faith.

An organism, when placed under stress due to changes in climate or other such act of nature, will then evolve to better survive the changes. This asks for faith again. How does something "know" when to evolve?

There are lots of points in evolution/abiogenesis (you cannot have one without the other) that simply cannot be explained and therefore must be taken on faith that they happened in order to make the theory work.

What I call faith in regards to evolution you would call speculation or a hypothesis.

I also find it curious how the scientific community tends to shun those who would dare question the theory.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:11 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,18:51)]Marty,

What do you hold a degree in?

Just curious.
He's a ABD in physics, Mike.

Ask him what ABD means. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Oh no. I really don't want to get into a pithin competition over such stuff. I can tell you this, though, ABD has another acronym that is very popular in intellectual circles, kind of a running joke.

Ah, best example, in amateur radio terms. An ABD is kind of like an Advanced amateur. (Disclaimer, all advanced ops out there, I highly respect your license class, but I'm making a point to poke fun at my nemesis)

You can figure out the rest.

Oh yeah, amazing how the label "scientist" makes you an expert on every topic under the sun. I'm just a bohunk analyzer tech at a big oil boiling refinery. But I guess the label "tech" qualifies me to weld, pipefit, maintain HV electrical substations, and machine pump parts, given the logic of the "jack-of-all-sciences" Mr. Marty.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote[/b] ]I also find it curious how the scientific community tends to shun those who would dare question the theory.

Kind of like how Galileo was shunned by the contemporary "scientists" of his day, and Copernicus. If it goes against the grain of contemporary thought (ie peer-reviewed yadda yadda) it must not be allowed to gain credibility.

Funny how scientists do that, isn't it? Those open minded, inquisitive scientists.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,15:52)]Evolution and primordial soup are not mutually exclusive.

You mean evolution and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive.

'primordial soup' is a popularization of one set of speculations on how abiogenesis occured.

Quote[/b] ]
But this primordial soup business has none. It is as made up as Micheal Jackson's nose job. It sounds good.

Has good science boiled down to accepting things that sound good now?

We've always accepted things that 'sound good' until things that 'sound better' come along. In physics, it's called 'elegance', and for a large part of the twentieth century it worked very well. It's how we discovered the neutrino.

The fallacy of your position, by the way, is 'argument by incredulity'. Just because you don't know how something happened, does not mean it did not happen.

Let me make this simple for you Heath?

During the formation of the planet there was a time when conditions did not allow for life as we know it. Agree or disagree?

Life as we know it exists. Agree or disagree?

If you agree to both of those statements, then you have accepted that abiogenesis occured.

At which point, all you're doing is hoping it was a miracle and not a natural event.

If you disagree with either statement, please explain.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,15:51)]Marty,

What do you hold a degree in?

Just curious.
Doesn't matter.

My arguments stand on their merits, not on my credentials.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote[/b] ]There are lots of points in evolution/abiogenesis (you cannot have one without the other) that simply cannot be explained and therefore must be taken on faith that they happened in order to make the theory work.

Actually Mike, this is one point on which I will disagree. I just don't see how an explanation for how things have changed over the eons (evolution) has anything to do with how life was spawned. In other words, the origination of organized life, the complexities, the hows, the whys, the conditions, ought to stand on their own without evolution. Imagine a world where only one form of life exists (a hypothetical alien planet, perhaps) Lets assume that the environment of this panet is unchanging, and all nourishment for this organism can be obtained from the decaying matter of its dead predecessors, and some solar energy from its host star. This organism has nothing to adapt to, therefore evolution is not a requisite for this creature's existance.

A step further. Lets imagaine a timeline change in Earth history. Lets say this life breeding goo pool created that vert first cell. The very first organized life form, way back when. Lets say, at that moment, or within an hour of that organisms "birth", that the sun went supernova, thus destroying the earth and everything on it.

Would that organsims spawning be no less real because it never got a chance to evolve?

No, I contend not. Therefore, I contend that the creationists among us have taken our eye off the ball in this debate. We have argued against evolution, when evolution hasnothing to do with the "genesis" of life. It has everything to do with the postgenesis of life, but nothing to do with the spawning. Therefore, we loose credibility because we are arguing against something that we don't have to prove or disprove. Its a spinning wheels excercise and a waste of time.

The meat of the argument is in that missing catalyst. This mystery substance or energy that breathes life into lifeless matter. Hmmm... kinda sounds like a fancy word for God...but its gotta be random. No intelligence. Still waiting for it.

Theoretically, life spawning events do not have to be singular. Just as we don't see dogs giving birth to non-dogs, we don't see sesspools in the nooks and crannies of the Earth spawning new simple cells. Why?

WHy?
WHY?

I keep asking, but scientists keep failing.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:32 AM

Quote[/b] ]The fallacy of your position, by the way, is 'argument by incredulity'. Just because you don't know how something happened, does not mean it did not happen.

Your words. Thanks, then you agree with me!!

I knew I'd make a Christian of you yet, Mr. Fouts!

In other words, to quote an 80's pop song...

"Ya gotta have faith...you gotta have faith-a-faith-a-faith-ahhh"!!

Yep, "Just because you don't know how something happened, does not mean it did not happen" EQUALS=faith. FAITH

Faith in science. Faith in science. Hallelujah, faith in Marty!

I have the faith, Brother Martin. Preach to me some more! Pass that offerin' platter on down here and get some of the holy word! Deacon of the church of science, brotha Martin. Can I get an A-men? A-men brotha!

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,16:01)][a continual proccess of questioning the world around me, reading the latest theories, and always arriving at the same answer, at least until the catalyst shows up.

Ah, come on Heath. You're still going on about 'primordial soup'. What is the most recent literature on abiogenesis that you've read, anyway?

Quote[/b] ]I truly believe that one day, man will create a computer that is capable of abstract reasoning.

I don't. But that's way off topic at this point.

Quote[/b] ]the idea of one creature creating another by intelligent design is not so ridiculous after all.

Of course not. But that it can happen doesn't mean that it has happened in the way you want to believe. Why don't you subject your goddidits to the same demands as you subject 'primoridial soup' to?

Quote[/b] ]I really do not understand why you professed science whizes are so against the idea of intelligent design. Its as if though you believe the computer that you are now typing on was but a random occurance.

The "theory" of "intelligent design" (ID) that I oppose is the argument that complexity is proof that an object must have been designed and couldn't have arisen as the consequence of a natural process.

Take a careful look at ID and you'll find it's far more fanciful than the current state of understanding of abiogenesis. What is the metric by which you measure "complexity"? How do you know that there's "enough" complexity in an object to show it was "designed" rather than natural? As a theory, when you look at ID, there's no there there.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 12:43 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,16:08)]You can breed dogs for years and eventually come up with a poodle, pug or boxer. What you cannot do is breed dogs for years and come up with something that is not a dog.

Bad example. Humans bred wolves for centuries and came up with dogs, which are definitely not wolves, by any definition of species.

Quote[/b] ]I used to buy into evolution when I was younger, but after some serious looking at it, the theory just did not add up. Too much is asked to be taken on faith.

Please pick up a copy of "Evolutionary Biology", and point me at any part of it that is "asked to be taken on faith."

[/quote]The goo in the pool suddenly came to life- faith.[/quote] Not evolutionary biology.

Quote[/b] ]An organism, when placed under stress due to changes in climate or other such act of nature, will then evolve to better survive the changes. This asks for faith again. How does something "know" when to evolve?

That's not evolutionary biology, that's lamarkism.

Quote[/b] ]There are lots of points in evolution/abiogenesis (you cannot have one without the other) that simply cannot be explained and therefore must be taken on faith that they happened in order to make the theory work.

Abiogenesis, maybe. Evolution, no.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:43 AM

Quote[/b] ]Of course not. But that it can happen doesn't mean that it has happened in the way you want to believe. Why don't you subject your goddidits to the same demands as you subject 'primoridial soup' to?

Actually, I do Martin...thats just one of the little things you can't possibly know about me by arguing on the internet. I have spent my whole life asking questions. I've just decided to join a different church than the one you are a member of.

Can I get an AMEN from that side of the aisle? HALLELUJAH!

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:46 AM

Quote[/b] ]Bad example. Humans bred wolves for centuries and came up with dogs, which are definitely not wolves, by any definition of species.

Nope. Not true. Wolves and Dogs can still breed and produce offspring. Not enough genetic difference to make them speperate species. I thought you knew that, Martin?

Besides, breeding is intelligent design. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

n2ize

05-23-2007, 12:46 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,15:50)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 22 2007,16:15)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,13:43)]Quote[/b] ]In other words this is a RELIGION museam. Creationism isn't valid as science because it requires that you place blind faith in the supernatural and you must assume the existance and influence of a force that cannot be seen, measured or detected.

Where is this force that can be seen, measured, and detected that supports the random organization of matter into life ie primordial soup, and if it has been seen, measured, or detected, why hasn't it been reproduced in a lab?

Is believeing in something that can't be seen, measured, or detected (proven, as in faith)...the bar for something being religious?

So is the primordial soup theory a religion then?

Interesting bit of logic. Fascinating.
No because a theory is not a religion. What you're talking about is ambiogenisis. There are many theories regarding how such events could occur and how both order and complexity can be derived from what is seemingly disordered and random. Indeed there are many examples of this found in the universe. #However, as scientific theories they are falsifiable and not taken on faith and thus are not religion.. In creation science you are first making the unfalsifiable assumtion that "god exists" and then stating that "Gods intelligence created life". Since this is taken on faith it is not open to the same #premises as a theory.

Falsifiability and Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)

Origins of Life (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html)
Nope. Wrong. Buzz. Million dollar question to follow.

There is no theory, in all of science, that is as groundless as the "theory" of "primordial soup.

No demonstration of a formula, no catalyst defined, key ingrediants are not isolated (duh, except for the obvious ones that already exist within living things)...No pressure or temperature has been put forth, no examples visible in the real world, not even close. It is as supposed, dreamed up, and totally without base as Alice in Wonderland.

What you have is a chain of logic, that HAS to arrive at a certain end, if you are to be an athiest. The athiest says, "I do not believe in God". Upon arriving at this decision, the athiest must find an alternative answer. Mind you, to not believe in one thing opens up a zillion doors of things to believe...but the athiest who also fancies himself a scientist must arrive at a conclusion that they deem reasonable.

So, if a sentient being did not create life, the only plausible answer is that it occured at random. Oh, you could theorize that life isn't even real, that we are nothing more than the brain synapses of some other strange being's imagination, or you could come up with some other cockamamie idea, but none of these are sensible. They are science fiction fantasies.

So, either life is the scheme of an undefined intelligence, or it is a random phenomenon. Upon those two options, I think we can agree (If indeed two options had to be defined)

So, with the mind of the scientist, we must conclude that life is random. That a chain of events occured. We draw that conclusion only because we have already decided the other one must be untrue. We have made a CHOICE. This choice at this point does not need a foundation, because it is seen as the only other alternative. Remember, we've already made our choice not to believe in a sentient being.

So you see, already, there does not have to be science involved for the "scientific" athiest to decide what he believes. In fact, he isn't truly defining what he believes. He is defining what he doesn't believe to be true, and accepting the alternative. This is not science. It is faith.

The reason it isn't science is because he has not offered proof that the other answer (creationism) is unquestionably false. He has only decided to conclude that the other answer isn't logical. This is enough. It doesn't have to be disproven because the scientist/athiest believes it laughable in the first place.

So, armed with this dismisal, any other alternate example is acceptable. As long as it is put forth in the context of randomness. It has to be, because without order and intelligence, an event must be random.

So, random it is. Random is a pretty cool word. However, there is no such thing as random in science. Not really. Everything is supposed to be definable. Everything is supposed to be quantifiable. Even if we don't have the formula worked out, we are to assume that some physical law(s) govern everything. On that, I think we can agree. Yet, in the case of "primordial soup", there is no hint of a physical law. We have no idea. None. Was it lightning? Lightning strikes the earth a thousand times a day. Was it a nuclear reaction? Nuclear reactions have been performed in controlled environments since the 1940s. I'm quite certain that the leading physicists and biologists doing research on the origins of life have made every combination of attempts imaginable to get organic matter to organize randomly. They Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail and fail again.

Nope, this is as much a matter of faith as any religious belief, because no evidence exists. None, nada.

Just as the plausibility of creation pivots on defining and proving the existance of God, one must also define the existance of a life inducing catalyst to render "primordial soup" theory as plausible. Proof of both is ellusive, and thus, faith in both can only be defined as a religious belief.
You're making two incorrect assumptions in your sermon.

1) You are assuming that simply because a theory is underdeveloped (i..e demonstrated in terms of mathematical equations, etc.) that it equates itself to blind faith.

2) You are assuming that in the mind of the scientist it is his/her atheism that drives science.

The very fact that the notion of a "primordial soup" lies in the realm of science rather than faith stems from the very fact that it is the subject of research and is based on the observed premis that it is indeed possible for order and complexity to arise out of something seemingly random. There are many examples of this when one studies the universe, the solar system, mathematics, etc. Additionally experiments demonstrating the production of amino acids from less complex molecules has been demonstrated in the laboratory.While the theory may not presently state detailed specifics of precisely how life began there is enough observable data to warrant it as a valid research project.

Contrast that with the non falsifiable claim that God created life... end of story which warrants no further research.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:53 AM

Quote[/b] ]You're making two incorrect assumptions in your sermon.

1) You are assuming that simply because a theory is underdeveloped (i..e demonstrated in terms of mathematical equations, etc.) that it equates itself to blind faith.

2) You are assuming that in the mind of the scientist it is his/her atheism that drives science.

The very fact that the notion of a "primordial soup" lies in the realm of science rather than faith stems from the very fact that it is the subject of research and is based on the observed premis that it is indeed possible for order and complexity to arise out of something seemingly random. There are many examples of this when one studies the universe, the solar system, mathematics, etc. Additionally experiments demonstrating the production of amino acids from less complex molecules has been demonstrated in the laboratory.While the theory may not presently state detailed specifics of precisely how life began there is enough observable data to warrant it as a valid research project.

Contrast that with the non falsifiable claim that God created life... end of story which warrants no further research.

Yabbadayabbadayabbadayabbada http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Ya gotta have faith---youooo gotta have faith. Ya gotta have faith. Ohh you gotta have faith-afaith-afaith-ahhh!

Brotha John, can we get an Ame-yun! Please, lets hear an AMEYUN ovathere on that side of the aisle, brotha John!

Nope, nadda. You just typed a whole lot of BS and still said "I have faith" in something totally without any foundation or evidence.

None, zilch, zip, nadda, nil.

But I suspect your going to start parroting Marty in a little while, pea one and pea two.

I'm finished, enough pot stirring and trolling for me.
Some good see-dubya on the air tonight.

Anyone up for a QSO?

I do pretty good into NY and Cali. How about it brotha Marty, brotha John?

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:54 AM

Quote[/b] ]2) You are assuming that in the mind of the scientist it is his/her atheism that drives science.

THIS ONE WAS PARTICULARLY CLASSIC!

WHADDAYA MEAN!!!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif??

You can't be atall serious, brotha John?

al2n

05-23-2007, 12:55 AM

Quote[/b] ]
Bad example. Humans bred wolves for centuries and came up with dogs, which are definitely not wolves, by any definition of species.

Both are Canine. Both can interbreed. Same animal in many respects. What you call a dog started as a wolf or other such wild animal and has been bred over the years into specific breeds. All are Canines and are part of the same branch of the tree so to speak.

Take that dog and breed it till you have a cat. Then I will be impressed.

Better yet, take a bunch of amino acids and turn them into a living organism. The thing that gives life to a bunch of water and minerals is a mystery.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 12:57 AM

Calling 14.025.5

Any takers?

al2n

05-23-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote[/b] ]Additionally experiments demonstrating the production of amino acids from less complex molecules has been demonstrated in the laboratory.

You are talking about Miller's "Spark and Soup" experiment.

There is one problem with that experiment. The major products of the experiment (tar and carboxylic acids) are poisonous to living systems. Such chemicals poison and ultimately kill living systems by binding irreversibly to protein enzymes in them.

Evolutionist Robert Shapiro summed-up the experiment very well, "The very best Miller-urey chemistry, as we have seen does not take us very far along the path to a living organism. A mixture of simple chemicals, even one enriched in a few amino acids, no more resembles a bacterium than a small pile of real and nonsense words, each written on an individual scrap of paper, resembles the complete works of Shakespeare." (Robert Shapiro, "Origins - A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," 1986, p. 116)

KA8DKT

05-23-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ May 22 2007,09:59)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 21 2007,21:15)]"Creation Science" is the worst oxymoron ever.

And it's embarrassing to have people who claim to be in a technical hobby but who vehemently support that sort of nonsense.
Actually, I've rejected evolution theory because of science, not in spite of it. #I formally believed it, but after looking at both sides of the issue, and the available evidence, I conclude that he best theory, by far, is the ID (Intelligent Design) explanation. #A brutally objective look at the claims of evolution theory reveals an extremely weak and, in fact, an anti-scientific foundation for the belief in "molecules to man". #I am talking about "macro-evolution", not "micro-evolution". #Micro-evolution is nothing more than mutation, deletion, or duplication of genetic information that already exists, leading to small changes of what is ALREADY THERE. #This is observed all the time and not only fits in nicely with Creation theory but is even predicted by it. #Macro-evolution is the process by which genetic information is created and increased through natural processes, leading from the creation of a simple cell all the way to the life we see today. #Micro-evolution is an unfortunate term, because it infers that "if it happens on a small scale, then why not on a big scale?" when in actuality, it isn't even related. # The big question is, who supplied the "information", because that is precisely what the DNA sequence is, information. #Information requires intelligence.
# # A simple question of "why?" or "how?" when presented with an evolutionary claim quickly demonstrates how weak the position is. #A quick example...in college I had a professor who emphatically insisted we evolved from anaerobic bacteria which mutated from the Sun's ultraviolet rays, and quite naturally led to the evolution of all animal life we see today. #Asked "how?" revealed zero scientific data to defend the statement. #Yet, he adamently stated this as fact, quote: "this DID happen!". #That's a good example of other common statements we see in publications all the time. #
# # Honestly, I have no problem with the teaching of evolution theory; the problem I have is in the way it is presented as fact. #I believe in showing ALL sides and information, and let us decide. #To do otherwise is an insult to our intellect.

73!
Jeff KP3FT
Since you so carefully studied the evidence you must certainly have been struck by the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the "intelligence" behind the "intelligent design" exists.

In addition, your argument for "micro-evolution" versus "macro-evolution" fails because because you did not account for the sum total of all the successful evolutions over some three or four billion years.

Remember that any change that does not interfere with or enhances a lifeform's ability to survive and pass the change on to a succeeding generation is a successful mutation. #Watching micro-evolution shows us how the process works. We can observe the cells of a bacterium that survive encounters with penicillin become the surviving strain of the bacterium. #They had some kind of cell chemistry that enabled them to survive the antibiotic and that got passed on to the offspring. #They are now something different from what was already there. #For the next mutation, the new configuration is what was "already there".

It is not out of the possibilities that some bacteria might become multicelled. #The more cells in an organism, the greater the probability some will mutate. #And so on and on.

Sometimes the change becomes an enhancement, but both strains still survive. #Now you have two strains, either of which, over the course of some thousands of generations will likely have strains that are mutated further.

The same thing happens with multicelled lifeforms, it just takes a little longer for the more complex forms. #Multicelled lifeforms as a group are a mutation of the single celled lifeforms.

Because we can see it functioning in a matter of years, days, or even hours, we can gain a real appreciation for what three billion or so years can do. #Because the bad mutations often die long before they can reproduce we don't get the perspective of what those changes might have been like.

Quote[/b] ]The big question is, who supplied the "information", because that is precisely what the DNA sequence is, information. #Information requires intelligence.
An atom or molecule exists before there is anyone there to observe it. #The fact that the atom or molecule is there is "information". #Information only requires intelligence to be cognizant of and appreciate the information.

The whole point is that the DNA can happen without design. #Its just a group of chemicals, you know. #The protein precursers of life have indeed been created in the laboratory. #The only reason that self replicating life has not occurred in the laboratory is that it is a little hard to duplicate the half billion years or so that the "primodial soup" had for it to happen.

-gary

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,20:06)]Quote[/b] ]Additionally experiments demonstrating the production of amino acids from less complex molecules has been demonstrated in the laboratory.

You are talking about Miller's "Spark and Soup" experiment.

There is one problem with that experiment. #The major products of the experiment (tar and carboxylic acids) are poisonous to living systems. Such chemicals poison and ultimately kill living systems by binding irreversibly to protein enzymes in them.

Evolutionist Robert Shapiro summed-up the experiment very well, "The very best Miller-urey chemistry, as we have seen does not take us very far along the path to a living organism. A mixture of simple chemicals, even one enriched in a few amino acids, no more resembles a bacterium than a small pile of real and nonsense words, each written on an individual scrap of paper, resembles the complete works of Shakespeare." (Robert Shapiro, "Origins - A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," 1986, p. 116)
Absolutely.

Good one, Mike.

Been calling on 14.025.5. Guess the athiest crowd will have none of my fist.

Had a nice Venezuelan contact, though. So I know I'm getting out.

Cuban up a few QRMing and calling CQ
need to move.

KA8NCR

05-23-2007, 01:31 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,18:06)]Quote[/b] ]Additionally experiments demonstrating the production of amino acids from less complex molecules has been demonstrated in the laboratory.

You are talking about Miller's "Spark and Soup" experiment.

There is one problem with that experiment. The major products of the experiment (tar and carboxylic acids) are poisonous to living systems. Such chemicals poison and ultimately kill living systems by binding irreversibly to protein enzymes in them.

Evolutionist Robert Shapiro summed-up the experiment very well, "The very best Miller-urey chemistry, as we have seen does not take us very far along the path to a living organism. A mixture of simple chemicals, even one enriched in a few amino acids, no more resembles a bacterium than a small pile of real and nonsense words, each written on an individual scrap of paper, resembles the complete works of Shakespeare." (Robert Shapiro, "Origins - A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," 1986, p. 116)
The experiment wasn't faulty, but a lot of interpretations of it are. It would be very hard to prove this could create life because you'd have the constant threat of contamination from the existing life on earth.

The experiment does prove however that it doesn't take a whole lot to get the ball rolling; life will come if the conditions are right. Now if those conditions are due to a supreme being or serendipity, that has yet to be determined. Nevertheless, I'm continually dismayed that some people seem to needlessly equate those supporting evolution with atheists. I had a professor who taught the philosophy of religion, a protestant minister as well, and he happened to believe that God used evolution as his method of creation.

k5xit

05-23-2007, 02:00 AM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 22 2007,07:42)]Oh my God - that is too funny. #A museum devoted to nonsense. #If it makes money, I am opening a snipe museum.

bbc
Do y ou really have ANY idea of just what a snipe is. Bet you don't.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 02:21 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,16:46)]Quote[/b] ]Bad example. Humans bred wolves for centuries and came up with dogs, which are definitely not wolves, by any definition of species.

Nope. Not true. Wolves and Dogs can still breed and produce offspring. Not enough genetic difference to make them speperate species. I thought you knew that, Martin?

Besides, breeding is intelligent design. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Being interfertile is not the only factor in the definition of species.

Wildlife biologists consider wolves a separate species from dogs and have for over a century.

Canis lupus is not the same species as Canis familiaris.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 02:27 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,16:43)]Quote[/b] ]Of course not. But that it can happen doesn't mean that it has happened in the way you want to believe. Why don't you subject your goddidits to the same demands as you subject 'primoridial soup' to?

Actually, I do Martin...thats just one of the little things you can't possibly know about me by arguing on the internet.
Wrong twice, Heath.

First, it is possible to know how much scrutiny you've given these beliefs, because you've said enough about what you believe and how you've arrived at those beliefs for one to know.

Second, your own comments in this thread betray that you hold abigogenetic theory to a higher standard than you hold your religion.

There is some evidence towards a theory of abiogenesis. There is no evidence towards a godddidit. If you held them to the same standard than you would believe less in the godddidit than in the rudiments of a theory of abiogenesis.

By the way, Heath, you didn't answer my question: what is the most recent material you've read on abiogenesis?

kf6rdn

05-23-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,14:50)]There is no theory, in all of science, that is as groundless as the "theory" of "primordial soup.
You havent seen the crap my kids leave in their bowls, in their rooms, have you?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,16:55)]Quote[/b] ]
Bad example. Humans bred wolves for centuries and came up with dogs, which are definitely not wolves, by any definition of species.

Both are Canine. Both can interbreed. Same animal in many respects. What you call a dog started as a wolf or other such wild animal and has been bred over the years into specific breeds. All are Canines and are part of the same branch of the tree so to speak.

Take that dog and breed it till you have a cat. Then I will be impressed.

Better yet, take a bunch of amino acids and turn them into a living organism. The thing that gives life to a bunch of water and minerals is a mystery.
Canine's not the species level, it's one up.

Interbreeding is not all there is to the definition of species.

Breeding a cat from a dog would be impressive. So would breeding a tiger. Er, wait, that's another example of speciation within recorded history.

kf6rdn

05-23-2007, 02:30 AM

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ May 22 2007,06:21)]Quote[/b] (w3bny @ May 22 2007,05:34)]Yoo not hungree fo Creation Science... Yoo hungree for HAWT POKETS...

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1273/117980055488xa0.jpg

HAWT POKETS!
And for those watching their weight, they now have "lean pockets" too!
With todays gas prices they now have Empty Pockets!

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 02:30 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,16:57)]Calling 14.025.5

Any takers?
sorry, OM, you're not coming through.

Perhaps if you evolved your antenna design?

k6bbc

05-23-2007, 02:30 AM

Quote[/b] (k5xit @ May 22 2007,19:00)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 22 2007,07:42)]Oh my God - that is too funny. A museum devoted to nonsense. If it makes money, I am opening a snipe museum.

bbc
Do y ou really have ANY idea of just what a snipe is. Bet you don't.
I don't but it was a lot of fun going on snipe hunts.

bbc

k6bbc

05-23-2007, 02:31 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,17:57)]Calling 14.025.5

Any takers?
Anit-code=anti-God.

bbc

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,17:06)]Quote[/b] ]Additionally experiments demonstrating the production of amino acids from less complex molecules has been demonstrated in the laboratory.

You are talking about Miller's "Spark and Soup" experiment.

There is one problem with that experiment. The major products of the experiment (tar and carboxylic acids) are poisonous to living systems. Such chemicals poison and ultimately kill living systems by binding irreversibly to protein enzymes in them.

Evolutionist Robert Shapiro summed-up the experiment very well, "The very best Miller-urey chemistry, as we have seen does not take us very far along the path to a living organism. A mixture of simple chemicals, even one enriched in a few amino acids, no more resembles a bacterium than a small pile of real and nonsense words, each written on an individual scrap of paper, resembles the complete works of Shakespeare." (Robert Shapiro, "Origins - A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," 1986, p. 116)
You need to read more current literature. There's been work done since Shapiro published 20 years ago.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 02:35 AM

Quote[/b] (k5xit @ May 22 2007,18:00)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 22 2007,07:42)]Oh my God - that is too funny. A museum devoted to nonsense. If it makes money, I am opening a snipe museum.

bbc
Do y ou really have ANY idea of just what a snipe is. Bet you don't.
Sure. A Snipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe) is any of nearly 20 very similar wading bird species characterised by a very long slender bill and cryptic plumage.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 02:42 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 22 2007,21:21)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,16:46)]Quote[/b] ]Bad example. #Humans bred wolves for centuries and came up with dogs, which are definitely not wolves, by any definition of species.

Nope. Not true. Wolves and Dogs can still breed and produce offspring. Not enough genetic difference to make them speperate species. I thought you knew that, Martin?

Besides, breeding is intelligent design. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Being interfertile is not the only factor in the definition of species.

Wildlife biologists consider wolves a separate species from dogs and have for over a century.

Canis lupus is not the same species as Canis familiaris.
Martin.

Surely you jest! Wolf vs dog is just the arbitrary "name" that people have given the two breeds. You know this as well as I. The dog is STILL a breed of canine. The wolf is STILL a breed of canine. Just as mongoloids are a human breed and caucasians as well. #A dog is a breed that has been developed over the centuries to hone the desireable qualities. But dogs are STILL just domesticated wolves, jackylls, whatever.

An interesting article on canine "evolution"
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm.....1.html (http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/01/01/html/ft_20020101.1.html)

Quote[/b] ]At the molecular level not much changed at all: The DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical.

No Wolf giving birth to a cat. No cat giving birth to a dog. No mouse giving birth to a chipmunk.

Bring me a domesticated breed of any animal that has changed to the point that it can no longer reproduce with its originating genetic line, and then we'll talk about a "new species".

Nevertheless, you are trying to take my eye off the ball. That is an unreleted topic. I've laid out the fact that the evolutionist argument is independant of the spawning of life.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 02:42 AM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 22 2007,21:31)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,17:57)]Calling 14.025.5

Any takers?
Anit-code=anti-God.

bbc
What hath God wrought? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

KA8DKT

05-23-2007, 02:45 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,21:14)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,20:06)]Quote[/b] ]Additionally experiments demonstrating the production of amino acids from less complex molecules has been demonstrated in the laboratory.

You are talking about Miller's "Spark and Soup" experiment.

There is one problem with that experiment. #The major products of the experiment (tar and carboxylic acids) are poisonous to living systems. Such chemicals poison and ultimately kill living systems by binding irreversibly to protein enzymes in them.

Evolutionist Robert Shapiro summed-up the experiment very well, "The very best Miller-urey chemistry, as we have seen does not take us very far along the path to a living organism. A mixture of simple chemicals, even one enriched in a few amino acids, no more resembles a bacterium than a small pile of real and nonsense words, each written on an individual scrap of paper, resembles the complete works of Shakespeare." (Robert Shapiro, "Origins - A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," 1986, p. 116)
Absolutely.

Good one, Mike.

Been calling on 14.025.5. Guess the athiest crowd will have none of my fist.

Had a nice Venezuelan contact, though. So I know I'm getting out.

Cuban up a few QRMing and calling CQ
need to move.
Ahh, but the Miller-Urey experiments have been replicated. #In addition, in 1961 Oro showed yet another way for the proteins to be produced out of the soup that yielded even greater amounts of proteins that could survive intact. #There may be more possible ways. #We don't know today what for sure what the mechanism was, but there are plenty of workable possibilities that can be supported by experimental evidence. #This is the way we eventually will find out what the mechanism really was.

Remember, the theory of evolution was first formed to explain the observations. #And while it is still considered a theory, the supporting evidence continues to grow, while the only support for other theories remains in the rhelm of rhetoric and misunderstanding.

-gary

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 02:51 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,18:42)]
Surely you jest! Wolf vs dog is just the arbitrary "name" that people have given the two breeds.

So now we can add 'species' to the long and growing list of matters of science you don't understand, Heath.

Quote[/b] ]
Nevertheless, you are trying to take my eye off the ball. That is an unreleted topic. I've laid out the fact that the evolutionist argument is independant of the spawning of life.

Actually, it's the other way round, Heath. I asked you whether you agreed or disagreed with two simple statements about abiogenesis, and I asked you to indicate what is the most recent research in the area you're familiar with.

You've refused to do either. Each time anyone has tried to engage in an intelligent discussion with you in this thread you've behaved like a two year old, which I fully expect you'll do in response to this post.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 02:52 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 22 2007,21:29)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ May 22 2007,16:55)]Quote[/b] ]
Bad example. #Humans bred wolves for centuries and came up with dogs, which are definitely not wolves, by any definition of species.

Both are Canine. #Both can interbreed. #Same animal in many respects. #What you call a dog started as a wolf or other such wild animal and has been bred over the years into specific breeds. #All are Canines and are part of the same branch of the tree so to speak.

Take that dog and breed it till you have a cat. #Then I will be impressed. #

Better yet, take a bunch of amino acids and turn them into a living organism. #The thing that gives life to a bunch of water and minerals is a mystery.
Canine's not the species level, it's one up.

Interbreeding is not all there is to the definition of species.

Breeding a cat from a dog would be impressive. #So would breeding a tiger. #Er, wait, that's another example of speciation within recorded history.
Canis lupus familiaris #(Domestic dog)
Canis lupus (Wolf)

Canis (genus)
lupus (species)

same species, with the "familiaris" indicating domestication. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Now, what is it I don't understand?

Homo-sapiens

Homo (genus)
sapiens (species)

Lupus and lupus familiaris are on par with the differences in the varying races of man. Martin, you aren't a racist, are you?

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 03:00 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 22 2007,21:51)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,18:42)]
Surely you jest! Wolf vs dog is just the arbitrary "name" that people have given the two breeds.

So now we can add 'species' to the long and growing list of matters of science you don't understand, Heath.

Quote[/b] ]
Nevertheless, you are trying to take my eye off the ball. That is an unreleted topic. I've laid out the fact that the evolutionist argument is independant of the spawning of life.

Actually, it's the other way round, Heath. I asked you whether you agreed or disagreed with two simple statements about abiogenesis, and I asked you to indicate what is the most recent research in the area you're familiar with.

You've refused to do either. #Each time anyone has tried to engage in an intelligent discussion with you in this thread you've behaved like a two year old, which I fully expect you'll do in response to this post.
Nope, I didn't behave like a 2 year old.

I rejected your ignorance of genus and species. I showed the latin roots for the genus and species of the dog and the wolf.

I'll do it again, in case you missed it.
Genus (Canis)
Lupus (Species)

Wolf ..canus(genus) lupus (species)
dog..canus(genus) lupus (species) familiaris (domesticated)

DNA practically indistinguishable.

OK, Jack-of-all-sciences, Mr. Fouts. Show me a link were lupus has two species associated with it.

Hmm...subspecies, ever heard that word? A little different from species. NOT species.

I think I understand what a species is.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 03:07 AM

Oh man of science,

Here is a little wiki (yeah I know, wiki) on the definition of "subspecies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

Even shows Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo to show the idea of subspecies.

Canus lupus, being the species, of course.

Now, mr all knowing man of science, I can see that biology was not your strong suit.

And thus, it is easy from here on out, because you have clearly demonstarted you complete and total ignorance of scientific words like species and subspecies (read it, it even shows how race and subspecies are to be considered the same)...I'll easily dismiss your ignorance on everything else from here on out.

Unless, of course, you are going to say that Jackie Chan and I are two different species of homos. (Whoops, I mean, well, I guess thats what I have to mean)

Waiting for the crow dinner.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 03:14 AM

The key to species vs subspecies:

Quote[/b] ]If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps black frogs do not find white frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.

If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.

Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

Ah, how grand. And indeed, we know that when a domesticated dog is adopted by a pack of wolves, or vice versa, when a wild wolf is adopted as a cub and raised with domesticated dogs, it will interbreed, thus the scientific criteria for a DISTINCT SPECIES has been met. Given artificial or even natural barriers removed, the gene pool will once again intrmingle and all is right with the world.

Hmmm. I love it.

http://www.linsdomain.com/totems/pictures/crow.jpg

Some "Corvus corone" for your midnight snack?

(Yes, acting like a 2 year old, I love it)

Don't want to take up bandwidth with too much more, but I'll take your silence as either meaning you are hiding in shame, frantically looking for a rebuttal but have none of scientific merit, or that you have went to sleep, which I know I need to do. Anyhow, when you are good and ready, feel free to post the following:

Quote[/b] ]I retract my false and unwise statement that Heath doesn't understand the definition of SPECIES, and I have added SPECIES to the list of things that I do not understand (yeah, I know, that one will be tough for you)...Heath clearly understands the definition of species better than my ABD in physics allows. When I am wrong, I can admit being wrong

Or, you can modify it to suit your overinflated ego however you choose. I'll understand.

KA8DKT

05-23-2007, 03:21 AM

Quote[/b] ]Your complaint that the information required for human DNA is too vast and complex for chance is just another version of the same argument. #No where has science said that it all had to come together overnight. #And you're conveniently ignoring that science has indeed found traces of many forms of prehistoric single-cell life in the geologic record dating back many millions of years. #And many simpler forms of life are still with us; a virus is a life form that has very little DNA information and can't replicate without swapping RNA from other viruses or by hijacking a cell or another form of virus. #

Correct!

Even with just one life supporting planet per galaxy, with some 100 million or more galaxies in the universe, the odds are extremely in favor of life forming in many, many other places. #It has not just happened here, folks.

Now consider an average of some 200 million stars per galaxy and you can see that the odds of many more than one location for life forming just in our own galaxy is pretty impressive, much less the same odds for a hundred million galaxies.

By the way, make that single celled lifeforms probably dating back as much a 4 billion years.

Given the known universe being as much as 20 billion years old that just increases the odds even more.

-gary

k6bbc

05-23-2007, 03:34 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,19:42)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ May 22 2007,21:31)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,17:57)]Calling 14.025.5

Any takers?
Anit-code=anti-God.

bbc
What hath God wrought? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I'm just about old enough to have heard that live.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 04:10 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,19:00)]OK, Jack-of-all-sciences, Mr. Fouts. Show me a link were lupus has two species associated with it.

Hmm...subspecies, ever heard that word? A little different from species. NOT species.

I think I understand what a species is.
Heath, meet the species

Canis Familiaris (http://www.ensembl.org/Canis_familiaris/index.html)

Oh, and here (http://www.wolfhowl.org/subspecies.php) is a discussion on whether or not Canis familiaris is canis lupus familiaris or not.

Apparently your knowledge of of Canis is twelve or more years out of date.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 04:12 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,19:07)]Waiting for the crow dinner.
I do hope you enjoy eating it.

AE6IP

05-23-2007, 04:21 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,19:14)]If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.
Oh, Heath; such selective reading. I've taken the time to highlight the bit you missed in your misreading.

But, I suggest that if you really want to understand what species means in biology you pick up a copy of evolutionary biology. There's a citation for it earlier in the thread.

By the way, are you going to ever get back on the subject of abiogenesis and tell us whether you agree or disagree with these two statements:

There was a time when this planet was incapable of sustaining biological life was we know it.

The planet now sustains biological life as we know it.

KE5FRF

05-23-2007, 04:24 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 22 2007,23:10)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 22 2007,19:00)]OK, Jack-of-all-sciences, Mr. Fouts. Show me a link were lupus has two species associated with it.

Hmm...subspecies, ever heard that word? A little different from species. NOT species.

I think I understand what a species is.
Heath, meet the species

Canis Familiaris (http://www.ensembl.org/Canis_familiaris/index.html)

Oh, and here (http://www.wolfhowl.org/subspecies.php) is a discussion on whether or not Canis familiaris is canis lupus familiaris or not.

Apparently your knowledge of of Canis is twelve or more years out of date.
Oh crap, a "discussion"?

a quote:

Quote[/b] ]The Lupine Species and Subspecies

In 1992 certain experts decided to reclassify Wolf subspecies into seven species. This new system of classification has yet to catch on. These 'new' species were decided as follows:

Canis arctos: The Arctic islands and Greenland species: arctos, bernardi and orion.
Canis baileyi: The Mexico and the extreme southwestern United States species: baileyi, mogollonensis,and monstrabilis.
Canis dingo: the Austrailian wild dog.
Canis familiaris: the domestic canine.
Canis lycaon: The southeastern Canadian and northeastern United States species: lycaon (except for those in Minnesota).
Canis nubilus: The SE Alaskan, central and northeastern Canadian and western United States species: beothucus, crassodon, fuscus, hudsonicus, irremotus, labradorius, ligoni, lycaon (those in Minnesota), manningi, nubi