Evolution is true? (macro evolution)

[JonaDiaper]

Thats why I said you dont know anything about evolution. Darwins theory is old and outdated, we have better models for evolution now. Funny that you didnt seem to know that. Furthermore theories are DESIGNED TO CHANGE based on observations that are made. You do realize that even newtons law of universal gravitation has changed since it was first put forth.






We actually can see evolution and given enough work we could probably create new species through artificial selection, but really, look at dogs, which all have a common ancestor and tell me that species cannot diverge over time.

but what observations have been made? i thought we couldnt see macro evolution cuz its soo slow.

dogs and wolves are all the same. i really think that some dogs were domesticated and others werent, leaving them wild and known as wolves. theres a dog that looks just like a wolf but i forgot what it was called.

the only real diference between wolves and dogs that i see is domestication. im sure you can take a baby wolf home, raise it as a normal dog, and call it the dog that looks like a wolf. i forgot what it was called but my neighbor actually has one.

 

[TP]

I honestly feel bad for those who believe in God, simply because they have people like JonaDiaper arguing for them. I'm sure they have plenty of good arguments (about God, not about evolution) but the foolish and uninformed believers are the ones who talk the loudest. It kinda gives the atheists an unfair advantage, since we actually send our smarter people to the front lines.

 

[JonaDiaper]

Why are you assuming that the transitional phase would even be noted? The ape-like creature "Lucy" is considered the first creature to walk upright. How did this happen? Apes, who were at risk of lions in the wild, would stand upright to see them approaching. This began taught to the young, and in turn, became to be the only form of motion. With this pack of apes, they were able to outlast other apes like them because they could see predators coming.

Jonadiaper, I will close this topic if you do not stop just replying. People have provided you with LOADS of information and you just say "Nah, that's not true," or cite Darwin with no sources. Stop. This is quickly becoming tiresome for me and will end soon.

isnt this a blog? why would you close a blog? why does it bother you so much.

overswarm seems to like the topic, hes helping me out alot.

and "lucy" is disproven scientifically. its been determined man could walk upright before the time of lucy.

if humans evloved from apes the fossil record should show a multitude of transitional forms.
and because humans are said to have evolved recently the fossils would have had less time to decay and should therefore be plentiful.

 

[Crimson King]

All you are doing is trolling at this point. Numerous people have given you site after site after site, and you just say things that would disprove that without any proof of where you got that from.

 

[jellis186]

but what observations have been made? i thought we couldnt see macro evolution cuz its soo slow.

dogs and wolves are all the same. i really think that some dogs were domesticated and others werent, leaving them wild and known as wolves. theres a dog that looks just like a wolf but i forgot what it was called.

the only real diference between wolves and dogs that i see is domestication. im sure you can take a baby wolf home, raise it as a normal dog, and call it the dog that looks like a wolf. i forgot what it was called but my neighbor actually has one.

Heres the great thing, its not about what you think. Its not about what I think. Its about what everyone, as a whole can agree upon given the scientific method and peer review. Its simple, Macro evolution has stood up to the test of peer review over and over again. We all can sit here and spit back and forth, but truth be told none of have enough background in the fields required to understand the complexity of evolution to prove a point, NO ONE.

Those that do have, and they have said that evolution is the best theory given the facts.

It seems you problem more lies with your desire to read genesis literally than figuratively. How old do you believe the earth is? 6,000 years or some odd billion years. If you say some billion years old, then move question evolution, you are in fact questioning the very same scientific procedures that determined the age of the earth.

Let go of your indoctrinations. Know what has made you into the person you are today, explore why you believe the things you do and under what context those beliefs came to be and maybe you will learn a little more about yourself.

 

[JonaDiaper]

why'd it get unlocked?

anyways, i just wanted to show i could throw out scientific things out there too.

and most of the things i said, no one had a reply to. and why? science used to disprove science.

like crimson king said, all im doing is saying nah your wrong.

and thats what everyone else is doing to me too. what makes a website true?

i can give you websites about creationism and youll say nah your wrong and brush it off.

 

[kr3wman]

Guys...

You will never win against someone who doesn't understand the rules.

 

[JonaDiaper]

there are no rules thats the thing.

where does it say anywhere about rules for blogging?

people came in here to argue with me. not the other way around.

i invited people to read what i had written and that is all.

people challange me so i challenge back.

fair enough?

 

[kr3wman]

there are no rules thats the thing.

where does it say anywhere about rules for blogging?

people came in here to argue with me. not the other way around.

i invited people to read what i had written and that is all.

people challange me so i challenge back.

fair enough?

See? He doesn't understand them at all. And I'm not talking about blogging.

 

[JonaDiaper]

try and make cents.

or dollars lol

but seriously what are you talking about

 

[kr3wman]

The rules of debating seriously.

You know, when you actually say stuff like 'Well, I know this is our opinion, but I think that X,Y and Z disproves it'

and the other guy say 'Well, I think X can be disproven by A, Y by B and Z by C'.

You're just going off saying things like 'lolololol ur wrong 1+1 != 2 lolololol'

 

[JonaDiaper]

gotcha. im no debater.

if you want to debate seriously go to the debate hall. this is kinda my blog.

were getting off topic arent we?

how about just debating and stop johning on how bad of a debater i am

 

[Dolente]

gotcha. im no debater.

if you want to debate seriously go to the debate hall. this is kinda my blog.

were getting off topic arent we?

how about just debating and stop johning on how bad of a debater i am

Honestly, I have yet to see one of my or any other evolutionist's claims regarding the veracity refuted. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think we are standing on the high ground here.

 

[GoldShadow]

I know that Dolente and mattNF and CK and others have already said some of these things, but I'd like to take it from the top anyway (partly for the sake of reiteration, partly to provide some more sources/websites and partly to interject my own knowledge)

Ignoring the straw man arguments inherent.... yes, you do believe we came from nothing. The question remains, where did those cells come from? In the beginning, there was ____. That's all you've got. Your best answer is "I don't know", so you can't slam him very hard for that.

And none of you have given a satisfactory answer. All the elements necessary? Where did they come from? Where did the bang come from?

one is living matter came from non-living matter.
this is shown to be impossible. the scientific method requires repeatable observation to prove something. scientist have never been able to create life from non life.

This shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Researchers, based on sound theory and experiments, have concluded that life must have originally arisen from non-living material.

This is kind of like the big bang theory. Although we've never seen or been able to recreate the big bang, physicists have concluded that it happened (based on stellar motion, background radiation, and other evidence). Biologists have concluded the same about abiogenesis. Like physicists, the exact mechanism is not known. Like physicists (who are using the LHC to try and recreate a mini-big bang), biologists are also trying to figure out how it happened.

And they are making progress. Numerous experiments have confirmed that organic molecules (amino acids, nucleic acids, and phospholipids) do form spontaneously in water under the conditions of the early earth. Modern day scientists have done this. There are also asteroids that contain amino acids, many of which hit the early earth.

I think a lot of people also think it's "impossible" just because it's "unlikely", when this is definitely not true. Abiogenesis was unlikely, without a doubt. But given enough time, even something with a low probability becomes almost certain to happen. Getting a living cell out of inorganic matter at any one second is not likely. But if you give it the right conditions and a few billion years, then it becomes very likely to happen. This was exactly the case with our young earth. Remember, it didn't happen suddenly; it probably wasn't a movie Frankenstein moment where there was a bolt of lightning and suddenly life had formed. No, it was a gradual process that took a little luck and a couple billion years.

Read about the famed Miller-Urey experiment and numerous subsequent experiments that confirmed the formation of organic molecules from water and inorganic matter (Wiki's actually pretty good on this one):

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Second condition for macro evolution to be considered true.

that one specie gradually changes over time into another species.

scientists line up various creatures point out similarities and say they are obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.

have you seen the charts in school textbooks?
they go from fish to reptiles to mammals.

lets say i line up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size,
from sub compact to luxary cars and pointed out similarities.

would you say they obviously had a common ancestor?
or with your common sence think they had a common maker?

at best the fossils used to create the charts demonstrates

such as the variety within horses, but is there proof of one species changing into another? no

in fact there is proof of the opposite, that they didnt. for it if were true, all species would have spent more time in transition then in completion thus the fossil record would reveal millions upon millions of transitional forms.

charles darwin acknowledged this lack of transitional forms as one of his theory's fatal flaws

"as by this theory innumerable tranistional forms must have existed."

why havent we found them?

geological research does not yield the infinatley many fine gradations between past and present species requiered by the theory.

there should be millions upon millions of fossils in the intermidiate stages of their transitions. but there are none.

150 years after darwin what do we find in the fossil record? fully formed wolly mamoths, whole fish, whole reptiles and so on.

everything in the fossil record appears to be fully formed and true to its own kind.

there are no creatures with partially formed skeletons, or partial fins or beaks

umong the billions of fossils found we dont find one example of the transitional forms darwin said must exist ifhis theory of evolution were true.

the fossils record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true.

I'm sorry, but you're FLAT OUT WRONG. You obviously haven't studied any evolutionary biology, because everything you said is just wrong. There are, in fact, thousands and thousands of intermediate fossils, species, and gradations. No biologist believes that something jumped from fish to lizard to bird and mammal just like that. I urge you to pick up an upper level biology text or an advanced evolutionary biology textbook sometime and leaf through it. There are more intermediate stages than I care to think about.

For example, here is a condensed picture showing a few selected stages of hominid evolution:

(This is from Campbell's if anyone's interested, it's an intro bio text)
They've left out several dozen more intermediates because it would be ridiculous to try and cram that into an intro bio textbook.

 

[GoldShadow]

im not anti evolution, just anti macro evolution. it has been proven impossible. humans have always had their mental and physical diseases and saying that down syndrome is proof of macro evoultion is just ridiculous.

"Proven impossible"? Hardly. You should study some current genetics and evolutionary biology. Down's syndrome is one example that others have brought up (of mutations), but let's look at a few other things.

There are a number of different genetic mutations that can happen. DNA is made up primarily of 4 different nucleic acid bases: A, T, C and G. Long strings of these bases make up an organism's genome. So let's say we have a DNA sequence: ATGGCAATT. One possible mutation is a substitution, where one base gets switched out for another. Other mutations include insertions (where extra bases get put in), deletions (where some bases get cut out), duplications (where an entire string of bases might get duplicated), inversions (the order of a string of bases gets reversed), deaminations (conversion to non-standard bases, usually by chemicals/mutagens), cyclobutadiene dimer formation (abnormal formation of bonds between adjacent C's due to UV light), and improper methylation, among others.

There are so many different types of mutations, it's not hard to see how one species can gradually become another. The way a mutation affects the whole animal is by changing the protein sequence. Sometimes, a mutation is "silent"; either the mutation doesn't change the protein sequence, or it changes it but does not affect the function of the protein. Do you see how easy it might be for silent mutations to accumulate in a population? Other mutations might change protein sequence completely; it might either make a non-functional protein, or a protein with a completely new function. That is how changes arise. Sometimes, these new functions are useful; they will be selected for. Sometimes, new functions hurt; natural selection will weed these out. Sometimes, new functions don't hurt or help, so they just stay there. That's probably how a lot of things, like feathers or fur, started out. These traits weren't weeded out at first, so they grew over time; eventually, they became useful and were selected for.


How might one animal, over millions of years, become something completely different in appearance? Easy. Mutations in the genes that control development and morphology. The hox genes are a perfect example; they control morphology and development; ie, the shape and physiology of animals. Over millions and millions of years, several duplication events allowed for development of more complex animals. I believe flies have 1 set of hox genes, many amphibians/fish have 2 (due to a duplication event), and mammals have 4 sets of hox genes (due to a second duplication event). Apparently, having more of these allowed the development of more complex animals.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/10/4492

That's more proof of evolution by the way, shared homology. We can evolutionarily trace very similar genes back to very simple animals. Why do flies and humans share certain genes? Because they must have come from the same ancestor. We can look at molecular/genetic homology, but we can also look at structural homology:

In mammals, the same skeletal structure is found across the board; these mammals all share a common ancestry (in the picture: human, cat, whale, bat limbs). There are literally thousands, possibly even millions of examples of this (both genetic and structural homology).

Anyway, back to how mutations might change an animal: The evolution of vision can also be traced. Three-color vision in human eyes was the results of several unequal crossing-over events and duplications during meiosis. Five-color vision in birds probably evolved the same way:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/11/991109072142.htm
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/991202/colorvision.shtml
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=24891

Over millions of years, it's easy to see that a number of mutations caused changes in organisms; sometimes, leading to new organisms. Just remember that for every successful organism, there were probably 10 or 20 or more unsuccessful ones. Evolution is not a directed process (ie, "lizard to bird to mammal"); it just depends on the environment, competition, and conditions.

there was a man who owned more then 6 million fossils i believe, and he wrote a book on evolution, and he was asked why he didnt have any transitional fossils showing evolution aactually happened, and he said becuase there arent any. no proof for macro evolution.

Okay, here you're just pulling stuff out of your ***. I'm not even going to address this.



The truth is, evolution has more backing evidence than any of you anti-evolutionists have even an inkling of an idea about. There is plenty more I can go on about, and if this debate/argument continues, I'll continue to explain why evolution is real and provide more evidence.

 

[JonaDiaper]

its been proven impossible becuase something cant come from nothing.

The origin of the first biological organism has been an intense area of study for the past 50 years. Beginning in 1953, when Stanley Miller first demonstrated that mixtures of reducing gases subjected to electrical discharges produced many organic compounds, including several amino acids, scientists were confident that the mystery of life's origin would be discovered.10 However, recent studies have revealed what chemistry can and cannot do. In addition, continuing studies in earth and planetary sciences reveal that the atmosphere of the early earth was not reducing, as had been assumed in many prebiotic chemistry experiments (including Miller's). In fact, the presence of oxidized zircons dated at 4.3 billion years ago11 (only 0.25 billion years after earth's creation) tell us that atmospheric conditions were not reducing when life appeared ~3.8 billion years ago.12 Such facts have relegated origin of life hypotheses to hydrothermal oceanic vents, where volcanic outgassing produces reducing conditions. However, since there is no source of electrical discharge undersea, the process is prohibitively inefficient (if it functions at all). The other problem is that many of the critical building blocks of life cannot be synthesized under these conditions. Even if they could appear miraculously, assembly often requires high concentrations, which would not have been available. Although it is possible that such materials could be concentrated by drying on shoreline coastal areas, the simultaneous drying of the salts present in the sea water inhibit virtually all assembly reactions. Additionally, recent studies have show that the polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in sea water,13 which was at least twice as salty as it is now.14 The once highly touted RNA World hypothesis has been seriously challenged, since pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions nor are found in carbonaceous meteorites.15 Synthesis of ribose and deoxyribose (the sugars that form the backbone of RNA and DNA) is extremely inefficient (and unstable) and produces racemic (both left and right handed versions) mixtures of nucleosides (the homochirality problem), which cannot self-assemble. In addition, the maximum spontaneous RNA assembly length of 50 mer (bases) is insufficient to code for anything meaningful (the average transcript consists of hundred to thousands of base pairs). Even assuming this problem could be solved, searches of quadrillions of randomly generated RNA sequences have failed to yield a spontaneous RNA replicator.16

Although many of the arguments against the naturalistic origin of life may seem like God of the gaps variety, the fact that they haven't gone away after 50+ years of intensive research, but have actually increased in number, suggest that the problems are real and probably insurmountable. Multiple unattainable steps in such processes defy the laws of physics and chemistry. Originally thought to be gaps in our understanding of chemistry, origin of life research continues to produce "science of the gaps" explanations for naturalistic origin of life scenarios. Only one whose philosophy is predisposed to naturalism-only explanations would seriously entertain such unlikely scenarios as realistic models for how life arose on earth.


from

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/god_of_the_gaps.html

 

[Crimson King]

gotcha. im no debater.

if you want to debate seriously go to the debate hall. this is kinda my blog.

were getting off topic arent we?

how about just debating and stop johning on how bad of a debater i am

Read any posts of yours in this comment section if you have any doubts as to why you are not.

Goldshadow addressed A TON of information, which you ignored with a religious site that uses slanted information instead of proven facts and ideas. In the future, when someone presents as much as he has for you, be respectful and reply to ALL of it.

 

[kr3wman]

The guy is basically saying that, using logic, logic shouldn't exist.

You can't prove God just because you can disprove him like you would with a theory.

He's just being a racist to Atheist. It's pretty unbelievable the amount of crappy logic he has on that site.

 

[JonaDiaper]

uh huh so becuase you say so that site is worthless? got it.

so what if im not a good debater, no one else seems to care to challenge what i believe to be

ridiculous human claims to make people think there is no god.

im just trying to use the science humans made against them, and it wont work becuase people keep pulling things from like out of no where.

i need overswarm. hes good at this, i guess im not.

 

[RDK]

My God, Jonah, give it up. You know nothing about evolutionary biology, because you don't want to know anything about it. No amount of evidence will be enough for you.

There's a reason you got kicked out of the DH.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Why does a belief in God have to mean "I refuse to believe we weren't always here." Whose to say God didn't create the cells which formed primitive life and went on to eventually make us? I mean either way the answer sucks. Either it's "God did it" or "I dont know"

Both are faith based really lol.


(Jonah you really need to learn more about evolution and how **** began. You really do.)

 

[kr3wman]

uh huh so becuase you say so that site is worthless? got it.

so what if im not a good debater, no one else seems to care to challenge what i believe to be

ridiculous human claims to make people think there is no god.

im just trying to use the science humans made against them, and it wont work becuase people keep pulling things from like out of no where.

i need overswarm. hes good at this, i guess im not.

The site is worthless.

You may be complaining about some **** people pull out of their *** here, but that guy is pulling some ridiculous amount of **** out of his butt. I'm reading it and I'm on the verge of puking as I see the sickening amount of twisted logic he uses to proves his points.

 

[Dolente]

Why does a belief in God have to mean "I refuse to believe we weren't always here." Whose to say God didn't create the cells which formed primitive life and went on to eventually make us? I mean either way the answer sucks. Either it's "God did it" or "I dont know"

Unfortunately, if God did create the primordial building blocks of life, he did a pretty crappy job of it, and set it back with multiple ice ages, and ended up with a race that produces people like me, who try to deny His existence. I just don't see that coinciding with an all-knowing entity. However, the existence of God debate is actually a good one, and unworthy of this thread, so how about a mutual agreement to drop it, folks?

Thank you very much for summarising our points, GoldShadow.

 

[JonaDiaper]

nah im closed minded about that. i dont want to spend my time debating with people. i have better things to do. no amount of evidence will convince any of you either becuase you are set to believe in your evolution theory and will keep arguing about it becuase "science is on your side" im gonna pass the baton on to anyone willing to take it.

 

[Dolente]

nah im closed minded about that. i dont want to spend my time debating with people. i have better things to do. no amount of evidence will convince any of you either becuase you are set to believe in your evolution theory and will keep arguing about it becuase "science is on your side" im gonna pass the baton on to anyone willing to take it.

I'll take this for a concession. Can we hear the opinion of the panel?

With all due respect, I don't recall seeing any evidence...

 

[kataklysm336]

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

Whenever you said reptiles don't have genes for feathers...sorry...incorrect. A common protein exists to create feathers and scales. This is present in modern day birds (allowing them to express feathers and scales, located on their feet.) This protein determines both feathers and scales. Which one is expressed is determined by the alignment of genes on the DNA strand. Experiments have been done where a bird's leg scales were slowly morphed into lighter variations of themselves (closely related to what we know as feathers.)

And where would you begin to look for a link between two different species? They were both once one kind of species and a gene alignment determined a different expression of that gene thus making it into a completely different species as the new species cannot procreate with another species based on pre and post-zygotic barriers. Not to mentions thousands maybe millions of fossils have been washed away, eroded, of destroyed so any of these links could be lost.

 

[kr3wman]

You know, on that site, he has a whole page on Bible stuff he tries to twist around to prove that they aren't contradictions even if they are, and he doesn't mention the fact that Adam and Eve had 2 sons and only 2... Or 3. Man, this **** is ****ing stupid. Still 3 sons tho.

 

[RDK]

nah im closed minded about that. i dont want to spend my time debating with people. i have better things to do. no amount of evidence will convince any of you either becuase you are set to believe in your evolution theory and will keep arguing about it becuase "science is on your side" im gonna pass the baton on to anyone willing to take it.

But science is on our side, you incredible moron. No amount of evidence will convince us because there is no evidence for your side; not even one shred.

Quit quoting bullcrap from Answers in Genitals and actually read up on the things you presume to know so much about.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Unfortunately, if God did create the primordial building blocks of life, he did a pretty crappy job of it, and set it back with multiple ice ages, and ended up with a race that produces people like me, who try to deny His existence. I just don't see that coinciding with an all-knowing entity. However, the existence of God debate is actually a good one, and unworthy of this thread, so how about a mutual agreement to drop it, folks?

Thank you very much for summarising our points, GoldShadow.

I said he created life, never said he influences its thought and mannerisms. And lol, I dont refute science. I dont disagree with what scientists say because it isn't faith based. Believing or disbelieving in God is faith based, and arguing based on faith is stupid.


@Jona-Dude what the ****, we dont believe you because you dont have any evidence.

 

[RDK]

I said he created life, never said he influences its thought and mannerisms. And lol, I dont refute science. I dont disagree with what scientists say because it isn't faith based. Believing or disbelieving in God is faith based, and arguing based on faith is stupid.


@Jona-Dude what the ****, we dont believe you because you dont have any evidence.

So I guess not believing in God is just as faith-based as not believing in a giant spaghetti monster that **** the entire universe out of his ******* and ***** you every night in your sleep, but leaves no evidence behind and it's almost like he never really did it in the first place.

 

[Cinder]

nah im closed minded about that. i dont want to spend my time debating with people. i have better things to do. no amount of evidence will convince any of you either becuase you are set to believe in your evolution theory and will keep arguing about it becuase "science is on your side" im gonna pass the baton on to anyone willing to take it.

What evidence? All I saw was a half-*** attempt to disprove science, which is no where near as easy to disprove as religion...that, and I never once saw an attempt to disprove any other religion...I mean, if you WERE to somehow disprove science, we could just become Hindus, Muslims, followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pagan, or anything else...just throwing that out there...

 

[Blackadder]

I just read through this whole **** thread. My eyes are bleeding. ._.

I'm just gonna tell Diaper what I told him in the Hall, and what a ton of others have said in this thread already:

Study.

Please. Look things up. Read into other religions. Look up evolution. Research atheist/agnostic/insane cult beliefs. ... Please.

You're painy to my mind.

…And y’know, evolution doesn’t even DISAPPROVE of your God! It’s not TOO hard for you to at least go “Well maybe God made evolution?”
It’s not too far-fetched, is it? God made science maybe?

Pleeeeaaaaase look into things. I'm seriously not asking you become atheist or anything. Just... open your mind!

 

[AltF4]

Well, I've come to the party a bit late, I'm afraid. GoldShadow is far more knowledgeable about Biology, anyways.



What I CAN answer is two things:

-Abiogenesis
-Big Bang



Abiogenesis is the creation of life from non-life. Clearly Abiogenesis did in fact happen. Life now exists. Life did not always exist. Therefore, at some point in time, life came about. So don't feed me nonsense about how Abiogenesis is impossible. It obviously is not.

The only point of debate is HOW it happened. IE: Whether it was natural or an act of god. Both at this point have little direct evidence. There are lots of cool studies and research being done on naturalistic Abiogenesis, but it is admittedly very loose right now. Give it some time, there are lots of cool ideas.


-The Big Bang

Similar to the problem of Abiogenesis, some will try to argue for the existence of god as the creator of the universe. Essentially, it's the question of "What caused the big bang?". Or equivalently "Where did all this stuff in the universe come from?"

Both are questions asked with a fundamental false assumption: That the universe was created. Or more specifically: That the universe had a moment of creation.

I will link you to a previous post of mine which describes this in greater detail...

One of the very first things that you think about when you hear the bing bang theory is: "Well, that's all fine and good. But what happened before the big bang? And what caused it to bang?" These are important questions, because the answer is not at all obvious.

The Big Bang says that everything in the universe began with one huge explosion. Our progress thus far in physics has been extremely successful in describing the universe in the moments after the big bang. But when you talk about the actual moment of creation, things break down. At that moment, energy seemingly popped out of nowhere. At that moment, all kinds of stuff happened that we can't explain.

The problem is with what is called the "boundary condition". That is, if someone asks you: "What is the boundary of time?" they are asking: "Did time continue infinitely before us? Or did it begin at some point?" The solution to these problems was developed by Stephen Hawking. He proposed the "No Boundary" boundary condition.

Let's not think of time for a moment and think of space. Is space infinite? If it is not infinite, then does it have a wall? What would happen if you ran into the edge of space? These are all problems that have to do with the boundary condition of space.

As it turns out, space can be curved. It is possible that space is curved in such a way that there is no boundary to space. Think of it like the surface of earth. The Earth is curved such that it has no boundary. Ie: You cannot walk off the edge of the earth.

But space and time are not separate. They are one entity called spacetime. It is possible that time is curved in such a way that there was no moment of creation. Think of the graph of the line 1/x. The curvature of time continues toward the moment of creation and approaches it, but never reaches. Thus we have no boundary, and no contradictions that come from them.

Make any sense? Remember: your ability to rationalize the science is not relevant. What matters is that the math works out. Many very odd things happen in science that defy common sense. (ALL of Quantum Mechanics) But as long as it works on paper, it works.

 

[GoldShadow]

its been proven impossible becuase something cant come from nothing.

Except that "something" isn't coming from "nothing." It's something becoming something else; some matter is rearranging to form matter.

In addition, continuing studies in earth and planetary sciences reveal that the atmosphere of the early earth was not reducing, as had been assumed in many prebiotic chemistry experiments (including Miller's). In fact, the presence of oxidized zircons dated at 4.3 billion years ago11 (only 0.25 billion years after earth's creation) tell us that atmospheric conditions were not reducing when life appeared ~3.8 billion years ago.12

The atmosphere was not reducing, this is true. But that means the requisite changes and oxygen production were brought about by sunlight/UV radiation rather than a reducing atmosphere.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html
http://science.jrank.org/pages/1387/Chemical-Evolution.html

Such facts have relegated origin of life hypotheses to hydrothermal oceanic vents, where volcanic outgassing produces reducing conditions. However, since there is no source of electrical discharge undersea, the process is prohibitively inefficient (if it functions at all). The other problem is that many of the critical building blocks of life cannot be synthesized under these conditions. Even if they could appear miraculously, assembly often requires high concentrations, which would not have been available. Although it is possible that such materials could be concentrated by drying on shoreline coastal areas, the simultaneous drying of the salts present in the sea water inhibit virtually all assembly reactions.

Not necessarily true. Membranes can form spontaneously, first of all. Small complexes called protobionts are similar to cell membranes; they are capable of producing a voltage across the membrane (and thus can utilize electrical energy) spontaneously.

http://porpax.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/life/protobionts.htm

14 The once highly touted RNA World hypothesis has been seriously challenged, since pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions nor are found in carbonaceous meteorites.15

False.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3867162j2132026/

Synthesis of ribose and deoxyribose (the sugars that form the backbone of RNA and DNA) is extremely inefficient (and unstable) and produces racemic (both left and right handed versions) mixtures of nucleosides (the homochirality problem), which cannot self-assemble.

Irrelevant. Early inefficient mechanisms do not rule out abiogenesis; a chiral mixture simply means that it would take longer for the proper pieces to assemble than if only the correct configuration were present.

In addition, the maximum spontaneous RNA assembly length of 50 mer (bases) is insufficient to code for anything meaningful (the average transcript consists of hundred to thousands of base pairs). Even assuming this problem could be solved, searches of quadrillions of randomly generated RNA sequences have failed to yield a spontaneous RNA replicator.16

False.
http://www.pnas.org/content/90/9/4191.full.pdf

Additionally, the idea of RNA forming early in abiogenesis is supported by the fact that, due to its properties, RNA can form "ribozymes", or RNA-enzymes. In early life, RNA probably acted as both genetic material and enzymes. Proteins as enzymes, which requires a little more complexity, evolved later.
http://txtwriter.com/onscience/Articles/ribosomes.html

 

[Crimson King]

Post a link to this CD, Jonah. Pm me if you don't want to post in here.

 

[GoldShadow]

Dolente, CK, Alt, RDK, MattNF, jellis, kr3wman, Cinder, and others, it's been a pleasure debating alongside you.

 

[RDK]

Glad to have someone else who actually knows biology. You should apply for the Debate Hall, Goldshadow.

 

[virtualgamecafe]

lol. i know what the big bang and evolution are. people have different views too, dummy. people think things, shape it the way they want, its already gonna be the fact that you all gang up on my post, and it wasn't too serious and not putting my knownledge forth. blargh. if i can put up a fight, and raise questions, with that post, you may have well been arguing with a 12 year old.

 

[manhunter098]

but what observations have been made? i thought we couldnt see macro evolution cuz its soo slow.

dogs and wolves are all the same. i really think that some dogs were domesticated and others werent, leaving them wild and known as wolves. theres a dog that looks just like a wolf but i forgot what it was called.

the only real diference between wolves and dogs that i see is domestication. im sure you can take a baby wolf home, raise it as a normal dog, and call it the dog that looks like a wolf. i forgot what it was called but my neighbor actually has one.

Look at a Chihuahua and tell me that it didnt undergo significant changes from its earlier wolf like form...we know that species can change significantly over time. There is no arguing against that at all.

 

[JonaDiaper]

Post a link to this CD, Jonah. Pm me if you don't want to post in here.

alright well im uploading it now, just so you guys know its really long, and totally in the favor of creationism.

i got almost all of my arguments from there. it seemed really solid. maybe i did a bad job writing it down or something.

but i know if you take time to listen to it you will understand it. or just try and argue with the cd.

like i said its probably around 4 or 5 hours. but its intresting and you wont notice the time go by