Just joined, haven't read any postings, but evolutionists can't answer this one!

[Harzburgite]

Foolish to who? I think it is MORE foolish to believe in your fairy tale, otherwise known as "Evolution." ...........Researchers have mixed together the chemicals they think composed the "primordial ooze" applied as much energy as they could, changed things, tried again and guess what... nothing.

Skippy, I don't know how to phrase this without giving the appearance of flaming or delivering an ad hominem attack, so I'll just leap in and hope for the best.

You are making yourself look very foolish and displaying rather vividly your current lack of any scienctific education.

The origin of life is independent of the question of evolution. They are two separate things. Clear?

Furthermore, while researchers have experimented with various 'primordial' mixtures these experiments were not intended, or expected, to produce life. Clear?

I seriously recommend you learn a little more basic biology and geology before making ill-founded statements. I shall be happy to discuss any of these matters with you, but lets deal with facts and not third hand reports of interpretations of popular summaries. Can we talk on those terms?

[joeblow]

The origin of life is independent of the question of evolution. They are two separate things. Clear?

 

Why insult a mans education. What you claim is not very clear at all and he could do the same right back.

 

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

 

When you make a claim like that the above qoute is what you're going to see. Explain how they can be independent and not break down Darwins theory. Clear things up ;)

[niviene]

Harzburgite, welcome to hypography. Nice post. You are right. Certain people here push one kind of fairy tale, and expect people to believe it based on what they say, and then try to discount what they call other "fairy tales" because they say there is no proof, which is exactly what's lacking in what they are trying to push on others. You will become accustomed to this here, unfortunately. It can be distracting and discouraging, but just learn to ignore the parts that are the same, over and over and over again. Try to look for the new material when, and if, any ever shows up. ;) Thanks for handling your comments with tact.

[niviene]

Why insult a mans education. What you claim is not very clear at all and he could do the same right back.

 

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

 

When you make a claim like that the above qoute is what you're going to see. Explain how they can be independent and not break down Darwins theory. Clear things up ;)

 

 

joe, welcome to hypography, but this has been done in many other threads. Feel free to look around and find them. Sometimes our conversations spill over. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time; that doesn't mean at some point the original alleles didn't come from God or some type of deity/etc. The point is, we're not sure. Some believe this, some believe that, but neither is provable to 100% certainty, so each of us takes what we can accept based on what we know and what we believe. Hopefully in the process we remember to keep an open mind about the possibilities.

[Skippy]

Skippy, I don't know how to phrase this without giving the appearance of flaming or delivering an ad hominem attack, so I'll just leap in and hope for the best.

You are making yourself look very foolish and displaying rather vividly your current lack of any scienctific education.

The origin of life is independent of the question of evolution. They are two separate things. Clear?

Furthermore, while researchers have experimented with various 'primordial' mixtures these experiments were not intended, or expected, to produce life. Clear?

I seriously recommend you learn a little more basic biology and geology before making ill-founded statements. I shall be happy to discuss any of these matters with you, but lets deal with facts and not third hand reports of interpretations of popular summaries. Can we talk on those terms?

I will restate my academic background one more time for your benefit - Bachelor's Degree from Rice University, 1988...emphasis in Biology and Science. Clear? Basic difference in my education and many others is I was taught to think for myself - if the evidence isn't there, it isn't there.

 

Dictionary.com - Evolution - (Biology) -Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

 

You and others continue to try to separate what you want to call evolution and what is referred to as "abiogenesis." Correct me if I'm wrong, but either abiogenesis is part of evolution, or it is not. If it is not, then you must agree that the Creator set in place the animals which your preferred definition of evolution says 'evolved' to the set of species we have now.

 

As to my assertion on experiments to create life, maybe I should have been more clear and said the experiments tried to create the building blocks from what is believed to have been the chemical composition of the pre-historic earth. Check out this link, there are many others, which point to just such attempts - http://www.yfiles.com/origin.html . Note, the article says, "The results of this experiment have been taught to every high school and college biology student for nearly four decades." My memory is still pretty good for an old man.

[Harzburgite]

I will restate my academic background one more time for your benefit - .

Out of courtesy I shall do the same: B.Sc. (Honours) Geology - University of Glasgow 1970, focused on Palaeontology and Stratigraphy with minors in chemistry, physics and botany.

Basic difference in my education and many others is I was taught to think for myself.

Curiously, it seems I had this ability from my formative years; perhaps a God-given talent.

Dictionary.com - Evolution - (Biology) .....bllahh de blah de blah.

As I suggested in my previous post let us avoid popularised material. I don't think quotations from a dictionary have much place in a scientific discussion. I'll certainly entertain extracts from text books, but I think this dictionary quote earns me the right to drop at least one wikipedia article into the debate. ;)

You and others continue to try to separate what you want to call evolution and what is referred to as "abiogenesis." Correct me if I'm wrong, but either abiogenesis is part of evolution, or it is not. If it is not, then you must agree that the Creator set in place the animals which your preferred definition of evolution says 'evolved' to the set of species we have now.

This appears wholly illogical. The initial appearance of life is distinct from subsequent changes to that life. We have four broad possibilties

a) God created life as we know it in a single act.

;) God created the first life and then allowed it to evolve to what we know today.

c) God created the Universe with a set of laws that permitted the origin and then the subsequent evolution of life to what we know today.

d) The Universe arose in an undefined manner with a set of laws that permitted the origin and then the subsequent evolution of life to what we know today.

The vast body of evidence points to c) or d). It is a matter of faith which you choose, but regardless the origin of life is not the same thing as its evolution

 

As to my assertion on experiments to create life, maybe I should have been more clear and said the experiments tried to create the building blocks from what is believed to have been the chemical composition of the pre-historic earth. Check out this link, there are many others, which point to just such attempts - http://www.yfiles.com/origin.html . Note, the article says, "The results of this experiment have been taught to every high school and college biology student for nearly four decades." My memory is still pretty good for an old man.

Yes. You very definitely should have been more clear. Pause for thought. Actually you were very clear. What you stated was "Researchers have mixed together the chemicals they think composed the "primordial ooze" applied as much energy as they could, changed things, tried again and guess what... nothing.".

Well, nothing if the objective was to create life, (which you clearly imply was the intent of the experiment) but quite a lot if it was, as you concede, to try fabricating the basic building blocks. You aren't trying to use debating tricks on me are you? That would be intellectually dishonest. ;)

As you will no doubt appreciate from my educational background I am well familiar with the work of Miller-Urey: my personal view - it is lamentable that an experiment, which at the time was ground breaking, has been so misinterpreted, oversold and "taught to every high school and college biology student for nearly four decades" when it is well past its sell-by date. There is a lot more of interest out there than some amino acid gunge at the bottom of a flask: you might like to google Cairns-Smith. I only mention him since I was fortunate enough to be at Glasgow when he began publishing his clay template theories. If you really do like to think for yourself you should find his concepts intriguing.

[Harzburgite]

Why insult a mans education.

Well, I wasn't insulting his education joe, I was suggesting he didn't have one.

Ignorance is, to my mind, a great thing. Imagine our knowledge as the contents of a balloon. The skin of the balloon is where what we know meets what we don't know - the limits of our knowledge. When we know very little the balloon is small and our ignorance, the surface of the balloon, is small also. As we learn, the balloon expands, and our ignorance increases .

So, when I suggest someone is ignorant I am declaring a wonderful opportunity for them. Ignorance should be embraced because it is by passing through ignorance that we enhance our knowledge. Of course, paradoxically we become more ignorant, more aware of what we don't know, thereby fuelling the next step in our acquisition of knowledge.

A few even progress far enough to transform some of the knowledge to wisdom. ........

 

Hope is another positive human attribute.

[joeblow]

I hope that didn't come off as rude. My only point was that after veiwing what few threads I have, he's stated his education already. If you're dealing with facts it's easy to destroy any arguement without the need of stating your education. I probably shouldn't have said anything.

 

You were asking if it's clear, when it is obviously isn't clear to him (or me). If it's a fact that Evolution and the origin of life are two separate things, then I am very ignorant of this and would have loved to see a link to support this....that's all. My deflated ballon needs more air...or was it surface? ;)

[Skippy]

Out of courtesy I shall do the same: B.Sc. (Honours) Geology - University of Glasgow 1970, focused on Palaeontology and Stratigraphy with minors in chemistry, physics and botany.

So you're what we would call a minister of the Gospel of Evolution?

As I suggested in my previous post let us avoid popularised material. I don't think quotations from a dictionary have much place in a scientific discussion.

Typical. A dictionary is no longer valid when it supports the antagonist's argument. That was Winston Smith's job, no?

[C1ay]

If it is not, then you must agree that the Creator set in place the animals which your preferred definition of evolution says 'evolved' to the set of species we have now.

Sounds to me that you claim there is no evolution, not even the flu from one season to the next?

[Harzburgite]

Typical. A dictionary is no longer valid when it supports the antagonist's argument. That was Winston Smith's job, no?

Typical of what Skippy? The definition given may be a perfectly valid one. I was making the point that when discussing science in a serious manner we do not use dictionaries, we use peer reviewed papers and textbooks. I really shouldn't need to tell you that: as a science graduate of a quality University you already know that. Please stop being precious. I am trying to conduct a civilised debate and you appear to want to indulge in innuendo whilst avoiding responding to the points I have raised.

 

If it's a fact that Evolution and the origin of life are two separate things, then I am very ignorant of this

Sorry, joe, I am perhaps so immersed in these issues that it seems so very clear to me. I can't think of a specific link off hand, but I'll look around for you.

Let me try a quick summary. When we look at the fossil record we see that life has changed over the eons. When we look at it closely and painstakingly we see relationships of form and function that are mirrored in studies of the DNA of living forms. From this it becomes evident that life on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor. It is easy now to see where this has occured, evolutionary theory tells us broadly how it has occured and, increasingly the precise mechanisms of evolutionary change are being clarified. (Of course the larger balloon also introduces uncertainties and ignorance that the evolutionists love to pounce on).

All well and good. But every life form we see on Earth today evolved from an earlier form. Where and how did that first life form, ancestral to us all originate? That initial transition from life to non-life is different in character from all the subsequent evolutionary steps. It may well have been governed by similar 'rules' but it was different, because it was a momentous step. [As an aside, if in your reading you see someone refer to a simple bacteria or amoeba, run a mile. Those little brats are way complex and far in advance of the first life. Anyone who describes them as simple is mirroring their own limited understanding.]

Cheers

Does that help at all?

[zmweaver]

We have four broad possibilties

a) God created life as we know it in a single act.

;) God created the first life and then allowed it to evolve to what we know today.

c) God created the Universe with a set of laws that permitted the origin and then the subsequent evolution of life to what we know today.

d) The Universe arose in an undefined manner with a set of laws that permitted the origin and then the subsequent evolution of life to what we know today.

The vast body of evidence points to c) or d). It is a matter of faith which you choose, but regardless the origin of life is not the same thing as its evolution

 

I believe "scientific research" should have been used in place of "evidence". I think the vast body of evidence lies in common-sense and what we can see, pointing to possibility a) or ;). Obviously, we see similar physical characteristics between us and primates. However, the mental-capability differences between us is even more obvious. We can teach apes to do damn near anything by exploiting their instincts and physical abilities... by adding organizational input into their lives. The ability to rationalize our instincts, emotions, and existence involved a huge leap in mental organization ("free-will" is probably the most appropriate broad term for this ability). I'm sure there are sociological theories as to "why" these abilities emerged, but the "how" still involves a decrease in entropy. Walk outside and take a good look around you. The beauty, infinitely-complex interdependency, and scientific laws we developed to model nature suggest life was "intentional". Discounting this possibility because it cannot be scientifically proven is close-minded and quite a gamble if God does happen to exist. Skippy's watchmaker analogy exemplifies my point.

 

You may not know or see the watchmaker, but you look at a watch and KNOW its parts were not tossed into a bag, shaken and poured out as a completed working watch without the watchmaker's aid. You not knowing or seeing the watchmaker doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

 

"The vast body of evidence" does not point to c) or d). Our historically-recent scientific attempts to rationalize "the vast body of evidence" is the only evidence pointing to c) or d).

[Harzburgite]

I think the vast body of evidence lies in common-sense and what we can see, pointing to possibility a) or ;)..

Sorry zmweaver, you make some interesting points, but it is my belief (based on observation, not faith) that 50% or more of conclusions based on common sense are drivel. I'm afraid you will have to offer more than 'common sense' to engage my interest.

You see common sense tells me my explanations c) or d) must be the correct ones, but I've backed up that by evidence produced, as you point out, by scientific research.

[Skippy]

Sorry zmweaver, you make some interesting points, but it is my belief (based on observation, not faith) that 50% or more of conclusions based on common sense are drivel.

Have you ever truly read the words associated with every aspect of evolutionary theory? You, my friend, are the one who needs a bib.

[Harzburgite]

Have you ever truly read the words associated with every aspect of evolutionary theory? You, my friend, are the one who needs a bib.

Skippy, does the fact that you are resorting to personal insult mean you feel you have lost the argument?

 

As for the matter of reading words - the word was drivel; no bib necessary, not dribble.

 

Your question is a non sequitur but I shall answer. Of course I haven't read the words associated with every aspect of evolutionary theory. If I had done nothing else with my life but read journals I could still not have done so. Your point?

[Skippy]

Skippy, does the fact that you are resorting to personal insult mean you feel you have lost the argument?

 

As for the matter of reading words - the word was drivel; no bib necessary, not dribble.

 

Your question is a non sequitur but I shall answer. Of course I haven't read the words associated with every aspect of evolutionary theory. If I had done nothing else with my life but read journals I could still not have done so. Your point?

Drivel - verb - To slobber; drool. To flow like spittle or saliva. (A bib might be necessary if you are driveling)

 

Me resulting to personal insult? Remember this, "Well, I wasn't insulting his education joe, I was suggesting he didn't have one." (Post #24 - this thread)

 

My point was, every purely scientific (taking out emotion) reference of evolution has words and phrases like: "may have," "supposing," "could have," "must have," "should have been," "if we had," and the like, many times used in combination. Those are words of faith when you use them as the evolutionist has.

[Skippy]

Sounds to me that you claim there is no evolution, not even the flu from one season to the next?

Is that truly evolution, or is it a totally different organism? Breed? Is it adaptation? Survival of the fittest? Has a petrie dish with influenza ever been observed to change into the HIV, HBV, HCV or any other virus? Maybe into a bacterium?

 

I have agreed that a black moth will "be chosen" over white moths in a forest of black bark trees. While that is what Darwin suggested in his Galapogos study of birds, it is not what is preached by evolutionists today. Sure, they still refer to that but they also include macro-evolution which cannot be defended without the use of supposition. Find me a fossilized female reptile bearing an unlaid egg which contains a mammalian baby and you might win me to the "dark side."