Abiogenesis

Originally posted by Starrman
Come then dj2becker, since you obviously see fit to cast your aspertions upon quantum theory, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to us (in your [b]own words) what quarks are, how many different types there are, how electron orbits and spins work and what the relative forces are in molecular bonding. You obviously know a great deal about it to be able to say that others are talking nonsense.[/b]

Quarks are the basic constituents of matter, and just by the way, no quarks have been seen in the lab because they cannot exist as free particles.

I suppose that in it's own gives the abiogenesis theory a huge dent.

Quantum theory deals with the structure and behavior of atoms and molecules and it has absolutely nothing to do with the abiogenesis myth.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Quarks are the basic constituents of matter, and just by the way, no quarks have been seen in the lab because they cannot exist as free particles.

I suppose that in it's own gives the abiogenesis theory a huge dent.

Quantum theory deals with the structure and behavior of atoms and molecules and it has absolutely nothing to do with the abiogenesis myth.

So in fact you obviously know nothing about quantum mechanics. I am not surprised.

In actual fact it has everything to do with abiogenesis. Quantum mechanics provide the building blocks of chemistry and therefore the relative forces which allow non-living matter to make up living matter. The fact that you do not understand even rudimentary quantum mechanics, suggests that your beliefs about the nature of abiogenesis are utterly unsupported by anything other than ignorance.

Who now sounds like they don't know what they are talking about?

Originally posted by Starrman
So in fact you obviously know nothing about quantum mechanics. I am not surprised.

In actual fact it has everything to do with abiogenesis. Quantum mechanics provide the building blocks of chemistry and therefore the relative forces which allow non-living matter to make up living matter. The fact that you do not understand even rudimentary quantum mec ...[text shortened]... thing other than ignorance.

Who now sounds like they don't know what they are talking about?

So you really think that a theory can be used to prove another theory?

Btw: The famous Stanley-Miller experiment totally wasted the idea that life can arise from non-life.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you really think that a theory can be used to prove another theory?

Btw: The famous Stanley-Miller experiment totally wasted the idea that life can arise from non-life.

Actually, quite the opposite†.

---
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you really think that a theory can be used to prove another theory?

Btw: The famous Stanley-Miller experiment totally wasted the idea that life can arise from non-life.

So you admit you know nothing about quantum mechanics and your knowledge of chemistry is woefully inadequate to comment intelligently on the likelyhood of abiogenesis?

The Miller-Urey experiment (which I presume you meant to reference) was not intended to create life you moron. It was intended to show that organic compounds can result from certain conditions, adding weight to the theory of the origins of life. Amino acids were created from raw compounds (water, methane etc). The experiment is regarded as a success. You can fill in some of your void-like mind here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, quite the opposite†.

---
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

Here's another take on the subject:

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Originally posted by Starrman
So you admit you know nothing about quantum mechanics and your knowledge of chemistry is woefully inadequate to comment intelligently on the likelyhood of abiogenesis?

The Miller-Urey experiment (which I presume you meant to reference) was not intended to create life you moron. It was intended to show that organic compounds can result from certain condi ...[text shortened]... ill in some of your void-like mind here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

In the famous Miller experiment conducted in 1953, a mixture of amino acids was produced by passing an electric discharge through a mixture of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor. Since that time, various mixtures of amino acids, sugars, and nucleic acid bases have been produced in similar experiments. As these chemicals are the building blocks of living systems, it is argued that such experiments prove beyond doubt that life was produced by chance on the earth. Yet these experiments prove nothing about the origin of life for a variety of reasons.

The first reason is because such experiments have been designed by intelligent scientists; they have nothing at all to do with chance. Another reason is that in Miller’s experiment, for example, amino acids were produced only because they were removed from the experiment as soon as they were formed. Had they been left in the apparatus, then they would have been destroyed by the same electrical discharge that caused them to be synthesized. Furthermore, the amino acids that are produced in all such experiments are in the right-handed as well as the left-handed forms, whereas living systems contain only left-handed amino acids. Additionally, had oxygen been present in the mixture of gases, the amino acids would not have formed in such experiments. This point is extremely important because the evidence from geology indicates that the earth’s atmosphere has always contained oxygen. Hence, the mixture of gases in such experiments does not mimic the composition of the earth’s atmosphere. This means that the experiments have absolutely nothing at all to do with what may or may not have happened on the so-called prebiotic earth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/white.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
In the famous Miller experiment conducted in 1953, a mixture of amino acids was produced by passing an electric discharge through a mixture of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor. Since that time, various mixtures of amino acids, sugars, and nucleic acid bases have been produced in similar experiments. As these chemicals are the building blocks of ...[text shortened]... ned on the so-called prebiotic earth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/white.asp

Yes thank you, I am quite capable of reading at the site you posted the link to, I don't require you to cut and paste as rebuttal. So are you going to admit you know nothing about quantum mechanics and your knowledge of chemistry is woefully inadequate? Or are you just going to answer by using somebody else's words? Words which you cannot validate as being true or false because of your ignorance in the realm of science.

Originally posted by Starrman
So are you going to admit you know nothing about quantum mechanics and your knowledge of chemistry is woefully inadequate?

What are you thinking, Starmann? DJ never answers a direct question or admits anything--he wriggles and writhes and grrrrrrins, it's nasty.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What are you thinking, Starmann? DJ never answers a direct question or admits anything--he wriggles and writhes and grrrrrrins, it's nasty.

And when finally he can wriggle no more he stops responding only to post the same already refuted arguments next week in a new thread.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
And when finally he can wriggle no more he stops responding only to post the same already refuted arguments next week in a new thread.

I suspect he's some sort of self-replicating Internet ghost.

Wow, look at those recs. Have you got just one stalker or a team?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I suspect he's some sort of self-replicating Internet ghost.

Wow, look at those recs. Have you got just one stalker or a team?

My posts are concentrated awesomeness and the more discerning realise this.

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]Hmmm...I didn't think creationists were capable of understanding what logical fallacies were. They certainly don't seem to be able to grasp the one about circular reasoning.

Duh... we date the fossils by which layer they're in, we date the layer by which fossil we find in it.

Originally posted by RatX
Duh... we date the fossils by which layer they're in, we date the layer by which fossil we find in it.

nope,,, you aint dj so stop pretending

Originally posted by frogstomp
nope,,, you aint dj so stop pretending

Just repeating some drivel served in several textbooks and museums... And thanx, I'll stop.🙄