Originally posted by FreakyKBH If we can't find what we need here in order to accomodate the requirements of life, we simply move the solution to another parenthetical part of an increasingly long formula.
Evolution relies on gaps. Very, very, very wide insurmountable gaps. Kinda like the whole creationist formula that had:
(and then, a miracle happened)
right in the middle of an otherwise sound argument.
If we can't find what we need here in order to accomodate the requirements of life, we simply move the solution to another parenthetical part of an increasingly long formula.
I don't understand. What do you mean by "here" and "the requirements of life"? What are the "solution" and "formula"? What are these "gaps" you refer to that evolution relies on?
Originally posted by Conrau K I believe the idea that AThousandYoung was explaining (and I'm pretty sure he's explained this before as well) is called panspermia. Panspermia is another theory to account for life on this planet but in the end we still need abiogensis to occur in order to produce the life in the first place. Evolution is not pertinent to any discussion on evolution- they ...[text shortened]... ou say that we "move the solution". Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it still be a solution?
I was not referring to panspermia when I mentioned meteorites. I was saying the presence of organic molecules on meteorites is evidence that such molecules can spontaneously form without life around (though it's possible they came from life somewhere else I guess).
They couldn't (and can't) stand the thought that the idea itself was (and is) flawed.
Say it enough, and you might actually start to believe it. You are the epitome of the metaphorical ostrich, KBH.
Are you honestly suggesting that the fortuitous strike of said meteor, with said unknown elements (in exact purportion, mind you), at the precise moment when all the indigenous elements were in perfect balance, is anything short of miraculous?
You disingenuously infer that this "precise moment" where "perfect balance" existed was somehow short. It most certainly was not. I suppose there's little point in arguing with you that it was likely millions of years that the state of the atmosphere was receptive to the introduction of foreign elements from interstellar matter. You're a Young Earther, right? Carbon and radiometric dating is pure bunk, and all that?
Originally posted by whodey Just having some fun with you guys. Honestly though, in my mind I find evolution somewhat plausible. I find Abigenesis much less plausible and even laughable. I find the origins of matter absurd and undefendible from a scientific standpoint. It seems to me that assuming their is no God opens a can of worms that gets harder and harder to defend after talki ...[text shortened]... d cells back to life using the power of static electricity...........it could work!!!!!!!!!!!
It's spelled abiogenesis. a- means without; -bio- means life; - genesis means "the beginning". The origin of matter is no more of a difficulty than the origin of God. In fact the God idea adds another "step" in the process which violates Occam's Razor, a tool everyone uses on a day to day basis.
The time element was not added by evolutionists; geologists had already come up with the idea that the Earth had existed a lot longer than previously thought, and this influenced Darwin whose observations led him to the same conclusion.
What is a "premothesis"? Dictionary.com does not recognize that term.
Originally posted by KellyJay If life were nothing but chemicals in the right order, why wouldn't it
work?
Kelly
It should work (raising corpses). However we lack the technology to make it work at this time. One major problem is that corpses have decayed I imagine.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung [b]If we can't find what we need here in order to accomodate the requirements of life, we simply move the solution to another parenthetical part of an increasingly long formula.
I don't understand. What do you mean by "here" and "the requirements of life"? What are the "solution" and "formula"? What are these "gaps" you refer to that evolution relies on?[/b]
"Here," on the earth.
"Requirements of life," organic material.
"Solution," that thang that made it all possible. That spark of life, as it were.
"Formula," this plus/minus/times/divided by that equals life.
"Gaps," are you serious?
Originally posted by David C They couldn't (and can't) stand the thought that the idea itself was (and is) flawed.
Say it enough, and you might actually start to believe it. You are the epitome of the metaphorical ostrich, KBH.
Are you honestly suggesting that the fortuitous strike of said meteor, with said unknown elements (in exact purportion, mind you), at the You're a Young Earther, right? Carbon and radiometric dating is pure bunk, and all that?
Say it enough, and you might actually start to believe it. You are the epitome of the metaphorical ostrich, KBH. Truer words are hard to come by. Except for the jab at me, of course.
it was likely millions of years that the state of the atmosphere was receptive to the introduction of foreign elements from interstellar matter. Likely because the idea needs the window of opportunity, or... ?
You're a Young Earther, right? Carbon and radiometric dating is pure bunk, and all that? Seriously? This thing has been here for a long, long time.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung The time element was not added by evolutionists; geologists had already come up with the idea that the Earth had existed a lot longer than previously thought, and this influenced Darwin whose observations led him to the same conclusion.
What is a "premothesis"? Dictionary.com does not recognize that term.
You are confused about why I mentioned meteors.
"Premothesis" is an amalgamation of "premise," and "hypothesis." Guess it wasn't cute enough to catch on.
and this influenced Darwin whose observations led him to the same conclusion. Thus, the charge that it is a premise, not a hypothesis arrived at by separate and independent inquiry.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
29 Apr '06 21:53
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I was not referring to panspermia when I mentioned meteorites. I was saying the presence of organic molecules on meteorites is evidence that such molecules can spontaneously form without life around (though it's possible they came from life somewhere else I guess).
Then I really can't see what Freaky is complaining about .
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
29 Apr '06 21:56
Originally posted by KellyJay Did you mean evolution is not pertinent to any discussion on
abiogenesis?
Kelly
Yes, that's what I meant. See you know where I'm coming from.
Originally posted by whodey Just having some fun with you guys. Honestly though, in my mind I find evolution somewhat plausible. I find Abigenesis much less plausible and even laughable. I find the origins of matter absurd and undefendible from a scientific standpoint. It seems to me that assuming their is no God opens a can of worms that gets harder and harder to defend after talki ...[text shortened]... d cells back to life using the power of static electricity...........it could work!!!!!!!!!!!
Abiogenesis isn't "without evidence". For example is we look at the chemical composition of rocks from the time (and therefore the composition of the oceanic environment that it was formed in) then we see a remarkable similarity between the two. This isn't the only time that you get these concurrences between phenomena. Did you know that human cell cytoplasm has the same composition as seawater, just at about 1/3 the concentration. This tells me that human precursors were aquatic a long, long time (10's or 100's of millions of years). Abiogenesis only requires the formation of a short DNA/RNA chain (which happens spontaneously in both the lab and the wild) and time. It is an exceedingly unlikely (but possible) event, but when you have 50 million years and an environment the size of the earth for it to happen it will happen eventually.
As for the inception of the universe, you are correct, there was a start around 18 billion years ago, and some try to force a cause to this effect. As cause and effect is time dependant, and time is a property within the universe then cause and effect isn't necessary. It's like trying to open a box with the crowbar that's inside it. A very hard question ro be sure, but not one that requires me to "jump to the conclusion of god".
Originally posted by whodey No, I read on some evolutionary web site that according to evolutionary sceintist, it appears we have stopped evolving...........I coulda told them that.
Evolution doesn't stop. My feeling is what he perhaps meant would be that the mixing of populations at the moment is slowing down the differentiation between populations (giving the gene pool a good stir). But cheap oil won't be around forever and long distance travel will become more expensive. Things will return just the way they were and differentiation between populations will continue.
Abiogenesis
29 Apr '06 16:40
Back to Top