Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ouroboros

Give Us Scientific Proof For Creationism

Recommended Posts

(cont...)

 

Applying Thermodynamics just to our universe and saying that it will eventually run down is therefore a non-argument. Here's why.

 

Applying the false boundary of 'just-our-universe-and-no-more' runs contrary to the basic conclusions of Big bang theory, which holds that our universe is just one part of an infinite whole. Our universe is not a closed system, where Thermodynamics will yield an eventual 'run down'. It is part of an infinite whole.

 

Secondly, if the Big Bang's starting point (singularity) had infinite energy to begin with...

...has already produced an infinite quantity of pocket universes

... is currently producing 'new' pocket universes...

...and is predicted to continue doing so for billions of years to come, how can this 'run down'?

The simple answer is that it cannot. Infinities never run down. That is simple logic. Infinity never runs out of steam. Only closed systems with boundaries run down and as mentioned earlier, applying any kind of boundary (based on what we observe) is illogical, mistaken or just plain bad science.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In conclusion...

 

Holding to Big Bang theory means accepting ALL of it and not just cherry-picking what we want from it.

Accepting all of it means accepting that our observable universe is NOT all that there is.

Therefore, taking just our observable universe as everything there is and using this to invoke a boundary is wrong.

There is no such boundary. Therefore, Thermodynamic principles cannot be applied to such a 'closed' system because there is no such closed system.

 

If you hold to Big Bang theory you cannot also use Thermodynamics to run down the universe.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

The topic title is in itself a contradiction. Creationism is not a scientific theory and can, as such, not be supported by scientific evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a scientist I can honestly say, I do not believe in micro eveolution (meaning the primordial pool and a single cell forming). I do believe the earth is 4 billion yrs old though. Also, I do believe in macro evolution (adaptation). If you were to back 5000 yrs ago, dogs were different, people were different, snakes were different etc. Things do change with time. Look at isolated islands, if there are 2 islands 10 miles apart, they have the same animals, like snakes, but the snakes are different on each island etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Valk0010

As a scientist I can honestly say, I do not believe in micro eveolution (meaning the primordial pool and a single cell forming). I do believe the earth is 4 billion yrs old though. Also, I do believe in macro evolution (adaptation). If you were to back 5000 yrs ago, dogs were different, people were different, snakes were different etc. Things do change with time. Look at isolated islands, if there are 2 islands 10 miles apart, they have the same animals, like snakes, but the snakes are different on each island etc

Isn't that bit like having a banana split without the banana?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(cont...)

 

Applying Thermodynamics just to our universe and saying that it will eventually run down is therefore a non-argument. Here's why.

 

Applying the false boundary of 'just-our-universe-and-no-more' runs contrary to the basic conclusions of Big bang theory, which holds that our universe is just one part of an infinite whole. Our universe is not a closed system, where Thermodynamics will yield an eventual 'run down'. It is part of an infinite whole.

 

Secondly, if the Big Bang's starting point (singularity) had infinite energy to begin with...

...has already produced an infinite quantity of pocket universes

... is currently producing 'new' pocket universes...

...and is predicted to continue doing so for billions of years to come, how can this 'run down'?

The simple answer is that it cannot. Infinities never run down. That is simple logic. Infinity never runs out of steam. Only closed systems with boundaries run down and as mentioned earlier, applying any kind of boundary (based on what we observe) is illogical, mistaken or just plain bad science.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In conclusion...

 

Holding to Big Bang theory means accepting ALL of it and not just cherry-picking what we want from it.

Accepting all of it means accepting that our observable universe is NOT all that there is.

Therefore, taking just our observable universe as everything there is and using this to invoke a boundary is wrong.

There is no such boundary. Therefore, Thermodynamic principles cannot be applied to such a 'closed' system because there is no such closed system.

 

If you hold to Big Bang theory you cannot also use Thermodynamics to run down the universe.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

You cannot apply thermo, because thermodynamics says the universe is expanding less and less and will contract. The expansion rate ofthe universe is actually increasing (i.e. dark energy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a scientist I can honestly say, I do not believe in micro eveolution (meaning the primordial pool and a single cell forming). I do believe the earth is 4 billion yrs old though.

"Microevolution" is a term used for the level of genetics. It's not something you can choose to believe in or not since it has been proven in biochemistry over and over again that DNA does actually exist, and mutation actually do occur.

 

What you're talking about is what is called "abiogenesis."

 

I'm not sure what kind of science you're in, but not knowing the difference between "microevolution" and "abiogenesis" is kind of ... hmm... really?

 

---

 

Just to make it a little bit more clear, from wikipedia:

 

Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.[1] This change is due to four different processes:mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.

Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

And

Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matterthrough natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. The geologic era in which abiogenesis likely took place was the early Eoarchean era (between 4.0 and 3.6 billion years ago, i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten) with abiogenesis occurring between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago.

Microevolution is proven and can be studied in laboratories (and in beer brewing, you have to accept it to be true or reusing your yeast can contribute to off-tastes). Abiogenesis has not been reproduced in full yet, even though several steps have (but not all).

 

It's beneficial for all of us if we use the terms in the most used definition (to avoid confusion). Mkay. smile.png Besides that, you seem to be a cool guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a scientist I can honestly say, I do not believe in micro eveolution (meaning the primordial pool and a single cell forming). I do believe the earth is 4 billion yrs old though. Also, I do believe in macro evolution (adaptation). If you were to back 5000 yrs ago, dogs were different, people were different, snakes were different etc. Things do change with time. Look at isolated islands, if there are 2 islands 10 miles apart, they have the same animals, like snakes, but the snakes are different on each island etc

 

You being a scientist and using the terms of micro and macro evolution in a weird was seems odd to me. Micro evolution, if such a term is even verifiable should be applied to dogs and small changed in the genome, not "macro" evolution. Micro evolution to my knowledge has never been lumped with A-biogenesis.

 

EDIT: Not verifiable as in Micro evolution isnt proven becuase it obviously is, i meant that most dont like ussing the term micro evolution to my knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A crisis of language is the most fundamental threat to any rational discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A crisis of language is the most fundamental threat to any rational discussion.

Yes. That's a way to put it.

 

To have a meaningful discussion, it's important to have common platform, which includes agreement on definitions. When words start to mean different things for the parties in a discussion, then agreements can't be achieved, or agreements are only artificial (since it would be based on different understandings). So yes, conflicts of interpretations and definitions are most definitely serious threats to a discussion (if its purpose is to achieve some meaningful agreement at the end).

 

(If I'm too wordy and sound pretentious, my defense is that I had a couple of shots of tequila and several beers... :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif Herp Derp, "micro-evolution, macro-evolution"

 

I heard the same thing in my apologetics class at my Christian high school. I see another Christian, physicist, philosopher, guru, expert, prophet, Voice of God has graced our presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif Herp Derp, "micro-evolution, macro-evolution"

 

I heard the same thing in my apologetics class at my Christian high school. I see another Christian, physicist, philosopher, guru, expert, prophet, Voice of God has graced our presence.

 

Chemist and not a biochemist. Open to discussion, like I said, the earth is 4 billion yrs old and there is adaptation. I have issues with believing life arose out of inorganic matter though. Definitely not here to evangelize though, more for intelligent discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif Herp Derp, "micro-evolution, macro-evolution"

 

I heard the same thing in my apologetics class at my Christian high school. I see another Christian, physicist, philosopher, guru, expert, prophet, Voice of God has graced our presence.

 

Chemist and not a biochemist. Open to discussion, like I said, the earth is 4 billion yrs old and there is adaptation. I have issues with believing life arose out of inorganic matter though. Definitely not here to evangelize though, more for intelligent discussion.

 

How the hell are you a chemist and you dont know the diference between a-biogenesis and micro evolution.

 

Anyways, so what are your problems with A-biogenesis? The only issue i have ever had is the fact that the chemicals for life came together without any other interfering molocules in the enviorment which life started. I encourage you to go online and watch "through the worm hole: how did we get here" becuase it nicely peices together the difrent discoveries that have been made when it comes to A-biogenesis such as the replication of adanine and guanine, the formation and replication of extremly basic genetic molocules that form then reproduce.

 

More than likley it would of abeen a chain of events that led to life over a few hudred million years, not one event that created life.

 

Somthing you also must remember is even if life is a one out of a billion billion chance there will still be one billion planets with life becuase of the sheer number of stars would alow for rare things to happen. Not everything with life has been solved but if our current discoverys is enough to go off of we should get to the point when life systems began.

 

the last thing i want to throw out there is, as a chemist you should know that life is made of inorganic materials found on the periodic table. Most of the time people who cant accept evolution or A-biogenesis dont relize this point, they want to clump life into some supernatural sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have issues with believing life arose out of inorganic matter though.

 

Fair enough. All the theories of biogenesis are highly speculative with little to no evidence that they occured. Keep in mind that biogenesis is is also a historical science so even if you prove through experimentation that life COULD arise via a certain method, it doesn't mean that it did. However, you have to apply the same skepticism to god as well. You can't simply say, "We don't know, therefore God did it." Why would God be a default in the absence of other explainations?

 

I except that life most likely arose naturally from nonliving matter (you can't say inorganic, because organic molecules can and do exist independantly of life) because before you can prove god created life, you must first prove that god exist. We know that life exist, we know that nonliving matter exist, we know that life can evolve from simple to more complex forms; thus, Occams Razor, the explaination that life developed from nonliving matter is the simplest. The only assumption made is "That it can happen".

 

The god explaination makes many assumptions.

1. "An immaterial world exist apart from our own".

2. "A sentient being called god exist in this immaterial world".

3. "This being called god had the will to create life".

4. "That this being called god had the power and means to carry out his will to create life"

5. "He did so".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last thing i want to throw out there is, as a chemist you should know that life is made of inorganic materials found on the periodic table. Most of the time people who cant accept evolution or A-biogenesis dont relize this point, they want to clump life into some supernatural sector.

Exactly. There's no magical supernatural element in the DNA. The exact chemical construction of the molecule is well known and proven, and when new cells form, and new DNA is made, it's made completely and always from all natural elements. Every time a cell splits, dead matter is becoming alive, for the simple reason that now there are two cells and all that made up the new situation came from natural dead elements. Live organisms consist of dead and inorganic matter. There's no supernatural magic to the "alive" part, and consider that artificially built DNA has been done... and it's also "alive." In a sense, there's no real difference between "dead" or "alive" matter. All of it is alive to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Valk0010

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif Herp Derp, "micro-evolution, macro-evolution"

 

I heard the same thing in my apologetics class at my Christian high school. I see another Christian, physicist, philosopher, guru, expert, prophet, Voice of God has graced our presence.

 

Chemist and not a biochemist. Open to discussion, like I said, the earth is 4 billion yrs old and there is adaptation. I have issues with believing life arose out of inorganic matter though. Definitely not here to evangelize though, more for intelligent discussion.

So somehow a lack of understanding of abiogenesis disproves evolution? The reason I form the question that way is because micro evolution is essential to macro evolution, so I am no sure how one could have one without the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif Herp Derp, "micro-evolution, macro-evolution"

 

I heard the same thing in my apologetics class at my Christian high school. I see another Christian, physicist, philosopher, guru, expert, prophet, Voice of God has graced our presence.

 

Chemist and not a biochemist. Open to discussion, like I said, the earth is 4 billion yrs old and there is adaptation. I have issues with believing life arose out of inorganic matter though. Definitely not here to evangelize though, more for intelligent discussion.

So somehow a lack of understanding of abiogenesis disproves evolution? The reason I form the question that way is because micro evolution is essential to macro evolution, so I am no sure how one could have one without the other.

 

It has been proven (but the Miller experiment has been discredited), that you can form aminio acids form electrical discharges in a non organic environment, but when amino acids are formed in that way, they are racemic, the ones in life are pure optical isomers. Why?

 

Also, I am not a biochemist, I never heard of abiogenesis until yesterday. (from you guys). Also, if the molecules can form, how do they become cells?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this video helpful

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been proven (but the Miller experiment has been discredited), that you can form aminio acids form electrical discharges in a non organic environment, but when amino acids are formed in that way, they are racemic, the ones in life are pure optical isomers. Why?

I don't think Miller's experiment has been discredited. It's just that the experiment produce proteins, not nucleotides. But there has been other, more recent, experiments that has produced nucleotides.

 

Racemic and only optical isomers... perhaps it's because one has to win out? There are several explanations, but none has been verified or properly tested yet. It could be accidental or perhaps even a benefit to have L over D because of it's ability to polarize light. Some experiments suggest that a slight excess of either L or D in a racemic mixture eventually leads to a complete win of L or D (respectively). So it's plausible that it was just pure chance that the initial racemic world had just 1% more L and that led to an L-world.

 

 

 

Also, I am not a biochemist, I never heard of abiogenesis until yesterday. (from you guys). Also, if the molecules can form, how do they become cells?

How can they not? You are at this moment a big lump of trillions of cells that formed over your lifetime from eating dead molecules. Or do you assume that your cells are a collection of other living organisms separate from yours? Or do you believe that God puts his electrical life-generating finger to each and every cell during mitosis?

 

What makes your cells alive? And where do they come from? Are cells created from the supernatural spiritual world void and transfered here through invisible pixie angels? Think about it. How did you get your cells in your personal body?

 

 

The process of dead matter to living material is happening under your nose ever millisecond as we speak... or more accurately, under your skin.

 

From this, then think of how bacteria and other single cell organisms work. Then think of the virus which is neither alive or dead. A virus is generally just a single RNA (dead matter) which can interact (or must interact) with living cells to replicate and stay "alive". It's not alive itself, but is becoming alive when infecting the cell. Strange isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Valk0010

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif Herp Derp, "micro-evolution, macro-evolution"

 

I heard the same thing in my apologetics class at my Christian high school. I see another Christian, physicist, philosopher, guru, expert, prophet, Voice of God has graced our presence.

 

Chemist and not a biochemist. Open to discussion, like I said, the earth is 4 billion yrs old and there is adaptation. I have issues with believing life arose out of inorganic matter though. Definitely not here to evangelize though, more for intelligent discussion.

So somehow a lack of understanding of abiogenesis disproves evolution? The reason I form the question that way is because micro evolution is essential to macro evolution, so I am no sure how one could have one without the other.

 

It has been proven (but the Miller experiment has been discredited), that you can form aminio acids form electrical discharges in a non organic environment, but when amino acids are formed in that way, they are racemic, the ones in life are pure optical isomers. Why?

 

Also, I am not a biochemist, I never heard of abiogenesis until yesterday. (from you guys). Also, if the molecules can form, how do they become cells?

Well I am not a expert, but from what I understand, the stuff your discussing more or less falls under abiogenesis (something I know next nothing about because the last time I had a biology class was in 9th grade high school). But I can say one thing with certainity, that is that if one was to think of it like a alphabet, evolution would be like B to Z, and abiogensis would be A. From what I understand your talking about A. I honestly know nothing about it. I have been planning on once things have settled down, since I am over alot of the personal problems i had related to religion to start actually learning about this stuff. But to make a long story short, for once I can't really reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif Herp Derp, "micro-evolution, macro-evolution"

 

I heard the same thing in my apologetics class at my Christian high school. I see another Christian, physicist, philosopher, guru, expert, prophet, Voice of God has graced our presence.

 

Chemist and not a biochemist. Open to discussion, like I said, the earth is 4 billion yrs old and there is adaptation. I have issues with believing life arose out of inorganic matter though. Definitely not here to evangelize though, more for intelligent discussion.

So somehow a lack of understanding of abiogenesis disproves evolution? The reason I form the question that way is because micro evolution is essential to macro evolution, so I am no sure how one could have one without the other.

 

It has been proven (but the Miller experiment has been discredited), that you can form aminio acids form electrical discharges in a non organic environment, but when amino acids are formed in that way, they are racemic, the ones in life are pure optical isomers. Why?

 

Also, I am not a biochemist, I never heard of abiogenesis until yesterday. (from you guys). Also, if the molecules can form, how do they become cells?

 

The miller experiment has not been discredited, simply misunderstood.

 

The miller experiment shows that less complex things can form into more complex things, which is also showable by many other processes but the miller experiment is good for a show of a increasing complexity in the beginning of life. It dosent bridge the Gap of periodic non life, to biological systems but it sets up an inital stage of increasing complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a scientist I can honestly say, I do not believe in micro eveolution (meaning the primordial pool and a single cell forming).

 

As a casual observer, I don't believe your claim that you are a scientist as a scientist would know he/she were not describing the evolutionary process here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An honest scientist wouldn't make assertions without investigation. Knowing definitions would be the place to start.

 

just sayin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

assertations... oops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in God nor evolution. Geez, I don't believe in anything.... :(

 

My problem with evolution is that how can simple things become more complex? Where is the computer code that starts evolving all by itself to the point that it gains consciousness? I'm pretty sure if you put down monkeys for 100 thousand years to type on a keyboard, they will never come up with something even vaguely reminiscent of Shakespeare's work. When mutations occur, those are either just like parameters (input variables) of a code (e.g. colour of hair, longer leg, etc.), or degenerative (the program fails to run). For example if your hard drive is damaged, the result is never a better software, but surely a lost file.

 

I think (not believe) that life (cells) are biorobots, programmed to perform certain functions. DNA is the best and most effective way to store information reliably for a prolonged period of time. This would not have come to existence by pure chance of physical forces, but requires intelligence and design.

 

I have no idea who could have created this and why, but maybe we created ourselves, humans (with consciousness) could be the incarnated gods who created the world - we just lost the memory of it. I don't believe this either but it's an alternative thought. We could be our own gods and creators.

 

What is impossible though is that even the simplest cell could have come to existence by pure chance. BTW, there are no simple cells, all of them are made up of more than 10 thousand(s) of different types of chemicals, reacting with each other more than 1000 times per second. Even the simplest cell is more advanced technology than the most advanced mobile phone today. Evolution theory is not satisfactory to explain that this could have come to existence without intelligent design.

 

That doesn't mean that I believe in christian god or any other god, but having a god is more plausible explanation for how life started than evolution - IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. :) IMHO

 

p.s. I respect evolutionists (my father is one of them too) - but sometimes I don't understand them. They are often so rude to other thinkers. My father was so angry when he found out I don't believe in evolution that he almost kill me - I guess the deep insinct in him to control the external world - probably the result of the evolution. I think there is not a theory out there that sufficiently explains how life begin and developed. We humans like simple things. To me evolution theory is too simple to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you don't believe evolution is that you don't understand it. Mutations are random. However there is nothing random about natural selection. There is no way our world could have come about by intelligent design. There could have been an incompetent designer. But there are too many flaws for there to have been an intelligent designer. Intelligent design may not exist. Creationists like to point at watches as metaphors of intelligent design. However watches are not intelligently designed. Watches evolve. Unlike biological creatures technology is perpetuated through the labor of humans. This labor replaces the random mutation found in biology but the natural selection remains. Warships evolve. Cars evolve. Airplanes evolve. All of our technology evolves. We are not intelligent designers. We simply remember what when wrong when we randomly tried something. We call it trial and error. Death, destruction, chaos and mess are everywhere to testify of our mistakes. We keep what works and discard what doesn't work - just like evolution in biology. Evolution is everywhere. Intelligent design is nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.