Any Evolution-believing Person care to Explain Origin of Life?

[SpidermanTuba]

carbon dating and the WMD fossils that have been found are not evidence of .....

the creation of the universe,man the earth or any thing else for that matter....

Fossil evidence doesn't purport to have anything to do with the creation of the universe. And the evolution of man is not the only thing which evolution deals with. Obviously, we have egotistical reasons to be concerned with the evolution of man, but from a scientific point of view it is no more important than the evolution of any of the others thousands of plant and animal species.

all they prove is that somethin once existed and about how old the carbon in it is nothing more.

Missile man was wrong on that carbon dating - carbon dating is only useful back to 50000 years or so. Other isotopes are used to date older things.

How does the finding of a land mammal to whale transitional form prove only that something existed? We have fossils of certain large land mammals, which disappear off the fossil record at about the same time that fossils of land mammal/whale transition fossils are found, which disappear from the fossil record at about the same time that whale fossils appear. This is much more than "proving something existed" - it is an observation which fits the observations predicted by Darwin.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You still didn't give me what YOU think.

And nothing can be 100% proven?

I think all the people on the board here would differ.

We can prove we are all alive..human..breathing.

Including you. You can prove you are alive.

Yeah, I did. I told you that there is no such thing as 100% proof, and I told you that the only fact is observation. If you have reading comprehension problems, see a tutor.

You can't prove I am alive 100%. I may simply be an illusion.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what say ye of those that claim those objects are slowing down and the universe may in fact be colapsing.....

The objects should be slowing down, according to our present day form of the theory of gravity.

But recent observation as hinted that they may be in fact speeding up, which would indicate there is something we don't yet fully understand, dubbed "Dark Energy" for now.

is it possible that the universe expands and contracts like a human heart? and that it has always been and there was no bang? ... since matter can neither be created or destroyed .... prove my theory wrong.

If the Universe's age were infinite, if it had no beginning or end in time, then all of the hydrogren, helium, carbon, oxygen, and other elements lighter than iron would have been fused to iron in the cores of stars, and hence there would be no stars which were radiating light. But there are stars radiating light. Hence your theory is disproven.


The restriction on the creation/destruction of matter only applies within the space-time boundaries of the Universe. Obviously, the Big Bang had to come from somewhere, but there is likely no way to ever tell from where - and if there is, then our "Universe" is really part of a larger "universe" as by definition the "universe" is every physical thing there is, was, or will be.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

guesses are not random...nothing is random....guesses are based on what is already known and experienced....

Well. whatever. The exact definition of "guess" is of little relavance here.

Looking at a jar of m&m's and determining how many are in it simply from looking at it is a "guess". However, if you measured its size, and then measured the size of an m&m, and then used that to estimate how many are in it, you would not be "guessing". You could in fact quantify your uncertainty. But if your counting of the number of m&m's in this way in any way disagreed with the bible, you would still call it a pure "guess"

scientists have a fancy name for guess and another name for good guesses that they have not proven right or wrong yet because they are still doing research.

All of science has not been proven and all of science is still doing research. There is no final 100% proof of anything.

These "fancy names", hyothesis, and perhaps ansatz, have a different meaning than "guess".

 

[manu1959]

The objects should be slowing down, according to our present day form of the theory of gravity.

But recent observation as hinted that they may be in fact speeding up, which would indicate there is something we don't yet fully understand, dubbed "Dark Energy" for now.

If the Universe's age were infinite, if it had no beginning or end in time, then all of the hydrogren, helium, carbon, oxygen, and other elements lighter than iron would have been fused to iron in the cores of stars, and hence there would be no stars which were radiating light. But there are stars radiating light. Hence your theory is disproven.

The restriction on the creation/destruction of matter only applies within the space-time boundaries of the Universe. Obviously, the Big Bang had to come from somewhere, but there is likely no way to ever tell from where - and if there is, then our "Universe" is really part of a larger "universe" as by definition the "universe" is every physical thing there is, was, or will be.

what if your theroy / good guess about gravity is wrong? which your second guess seems to indicate....so is your therory that the expanison will slow and then stop and then? or will it speed up and ?

you already said that the universe can not be infinitely old so esentially all the stars will burn out and no new stars will be created the univers wil just go dark huh?

the last paragraph sure sounds like guessing to me

 

[manu1959]

Well. whatever. The exact definition of "guess" is of little relavance here.

Looking at a jar of m&m's and determining how many are in it simply from looking at it is a "guess". However, if you measured its size, and then measured the size of an m&m, and then used that to estimate how many are in it, you would not be "guessing". You could in fact quantify your uncertainty. But if your counting of the number of m&m's in this way in any way disagreed with the bible, you would still call it a pure "guess"

All of science has not been proven and all of science is still doing research. There is no final 100% proof of anything.

These "fancy names", hyothesis, and perhaps ansatz, have a different meaning than "guess".

all very true but you can not measure hold or touch the big bang, primordial oooz or the transitional oooooz to man fossil.....so all you have is.....you think there was once nothing, then there may have been a jar, that may or may not have held m&ms, you think the jar may have been such and such a size and that the m&m's were such and such a size....

what color were the m&ms, plain or peanut?

do you know the orrt of therory and hypothosis and who first coined them?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what if your theroy / good guess about gravity is wrong? which your second guess seems to indicate....so is your therory that the expanison will slow and then stop and then? or will it speed up and ?

This depends on the total amount of mass in the Universe. Many cosomologists believe there is good reason to expect that we should be above critical mass, that is, that the UNiverse will end up contracting (why they believe this is above my level of understanding). Though we can't observe all the matter for this to happen. We do know, though, for instance, that much of the matter in galaxies is not directly observable, we know its there from its affects on the observable matter in the galaxies, we can't detect it otherwise. Hence "dark matter". The nature of the dark matter is not known for sure, there are a few viable theories. Compact objects, such as white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, and neutron stars, or black holes even, are candidates, as they could be huge amounts of these objects that we cannot see simply because they emit very little radiation. Current efforts to detect these objects in our own galaxy through gravitational lensing is underway.

Of course, it could be that there isn't enough matter to cause a slow down, which would mean the universe would expand forever, and eventually become nothing but a vast expanse of cold iron.

you already said that the universe can not be infinitely old so esentially all the stars will burn out and no new stars will be created the univers wil just go dark huh?

Eventually, provided the universe does not contract and collapse on itself before this happens, yes, all the matter in the universe will be converted to the most stable element, iron. However, this is a long long way off. Our own sun is about 70% hydrogen 25% helium. About 5 billion years from now, it will die, but still it will be mostly hydrogen, as only the matter in the core is hot enough to fuse.

the last paragraph sure sounds like guessing to me

How is that a guess?
The laws of the Universe only apply to the Universe, how could they apply elsewhere?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

all very true but you can not measure hold or touch the big bang,

We can measure its effects. Science deals with determining things which are not initially apparent. 100 years ago you couldn't directly observe atoms, yet we already knew they existed, decades before the scanning tunneling microcope was invented. Are you saying that we should not have taught children about atoms before the 90's, when we were first able to directly observe them?!?

primordial oooz or the transitional oooooz to man fossil.....

No, actually, fossils are directly observable. You can hold touch them in fact.

what color were the m&ms, plain or peanut?

Would this information be neccessary to determine an estimate of the number of M&M's?

do you know the orrt of therory and hypothosis and who first coined them?

The Oort cloud is a cloud of comets and other matter surrounding our solar system. Much about it is unknown. The probe they just sent to Pluto will be continuing into the Oort cloud after that.

I'm not sure who first proposed it, but I suspect Oort, perhaps?

 

[MissileMan]

carbon dating and the WMD fossils that have been found are not evidence of .....

the creation of the universe, man the earth or any thing else for that matter....all they prove is that somethin once existed and about how old the carbon in it is nothing more.

link me up to the transitional wmd fossil the one that proves your therory is not based on faith

The fossils and isotopic (edited from carbon) dating are evidence used in support of the theory of evolution.

If were proven as fact, it wouldn't be a theory.

What's with the hangup on linking science and faith? Are you going to attempt to redefine science as a religion in lieu of the failed attempt to get Christianity redefined as science? As I said before, religion needs to stick with what it does best; explain the supernatural or risk falling prey to the revelations (pun intended) of natural science.

p.s. Yo Arch...that's what a pun is supposed to look like.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The fossils and isotopic (edited from carbon) dating are evidence used in support of the theory of evolution.

If were proven as fact, it wouldn't be a theory.

What's with the hangup on linking science and faith? Are you going to attempt to redefine science as a religion in lieu of the failed attempt to get Christianity redefined as science? As I said before, religion needs to stick with what it does best; explain the supernatural or risk falling prey to the revelations (pun intended) of natural science.

p.s. Yo Arch...that's what a pun is supposed to look like.

And as a statment for the record, we know isotopes have been decaying at the same rates over the past 5 billion years at least from Supernovae observations.

 

[manu1959]

The fossils and isotopic (edited from carbon) dating are evidence used in support of the theory of evolution.

If were proven as fact, it wouldn't be a theory.

What's with the hangup on linking science and faith? Are you going to attempt to redefine science as a religion in lieu of the failed attempt to get Christianity redefined as science? As I said before, religion needs to stick with what it does best; explain the supernatural or risk falling prey to the revelations (pun intended) of natural science.

p.s. Yo Arch...that's what a pun is supposed to look like.

dude i am just asking questions yall act like ya have all the answers didn't see the harm..... don't get all spun....

 

[MissileMan]

dude i am just asking questions yall act like ya have all the answers didn't see the harm..... don't get all spun....

I'm not spinning...

 

[manu1959]

We can measure its effects. Science deals with determining things which are not initially apparent. 100 years ago you couldn't directly observe atoms, yet we already knew they existed, decades before the scanning tunneling microcope was invented. Are you saying that we should not have taught children about atoms before the 90's, when we were first able to directly observe them?!?
No, actually, fossils are directly observable. You can hold touch them in fact.
Would this information be neccessary to determine an estimate of the number of M&M's?
The Oort cloud is a cloud of comets and other matter surrounding our solar system. Much about it is unknown. The probe they just sent to Pluto will be continuing into the Oort cloud after that.
I'm not sure who first proposed it, but I suspect Oort, perhaps?

you can not measure the effect of the big bang because you don't know if it happened you are guessing that it did because things are moving but you are not sure if they are speeding up or slowing down.

the rimodial ozzzz transition fossil to man...where is it?....it does not exist .....stop changing the subject and admit that you don't know.....you are guessing you have no proof.....damn dude.....if all the proof exixts why do all still call it a working hypothesis and a therory? oh ya ...yall are still trying to prove it

 

[manu1959]

I'm not spinning...

then it is all good

 

[manu1959]

And as a statment for the record, we know isotopes have been decaying at the same rates over the past 5 billion years at least from Supernovae observations.

how many supernova observations have there been over the past 5 billion years? man has seen how many of these?

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I am agnostic.....I find the following article to provoke thought....try and take my perspective (not believing) and read......

Creating life in a test-tube?

by Carl Wieland

What if a team of scientists were to announce in tomorrow’s headlines that they had synthesized life? In other words, that they had made ‘from scratch’, from basic non-living chemicals, a living, reproducing organism?

I know (from asking this question at some meetings, and seeing the wary faces) that many Christians would be worried. One thing is certain, many humanists would not be able to contain their crowing. They would be claiming that this was the last nail in the coffin of belief in creation. ‘Creator Not Needed to Make Life’ would no doubt be a triumphant headline theme.

To show that this is not idle speculation, a short while ago a team announced that it was setting to work on just such a task. Now remember, nothing had been achieved. They just said, ‘We’re going to start working on it.’ Immediately, a gloating email message arrived at Answers in Genesis, saying, in effect, ‘You stupid Christians, you’re going to see … as soon as this happens, the credibility of belief in creation will be finished.’

However, even if we assumed that the synthesis of life were to happen, would such responses be appropriate? Actually, it’s not hard to show that they would not be even faintly logical or rational. In fact, if it were to happen, then in one sense, Christians should be getting excited, using it as evidence for creation.

Why so?

When considering how life began, there are really only two alternatives. Either life was created by an intelligent source or it ‘made itself’—i.e. evolved. That’s really what ‘evolution’ is all about—things making themselves, arising spontaneously from within nature—the material world—with no outside assistance. So if someone were to claim that synthesizing life in a test-tube wipes out the idea of creation, they would in effect be saying, ‘Synthesizing life in a test-tube proves that it evolved.’ Now substitute the italicized words in that phrase with others of identical meaning, and the absurdity of it becomes clear: ‘Using intelligence to make life in a test-tube proves that it made itself and did not arise through intelligence.’
Information—the key to life

Life’s long-chain molecules (like DNA) actually carry programmed information—a specific sequence of symbols (like alphabet letters). This information can be transmitted, as in reproduction, but it does not reside in the chemical properties of the matter that carries it, just as the message on this page is unrelated to the properties of ink and paper. A scientist creating life would be imposing his intelligence onto matter to generate the information needed.

A further analogy might be as follows: say someone, washed ashore on a remote island, sees a portable battery-operated television set. Never having seen a TV set before, they eventually happen to switch it on and watch it in amazement. Puzzling about how this device came to be, its discoverer decides to take it apart. Years are spent studying it and learning all about how it works. Using thousands of hours of mind-power and effort, the person learns how to make an exact copy of each part,1 and how to put the parts together in exactly the same way as the original. Finally, the moment has arrived—the switch is thrown—voilà, it works. Now if such an amazingly brilliant achievement had taken place, it would obviously be the height of foolishness for such a person to say, excitedly, ‘Wow, now I know for certain that the device I found made itself!’

I trust the analogy is clear. If (or perhaps ‘when’, provided God’s patience with rebellious mankind does not run out beforehand) humanity achieves the synthesis of a living organism, it will be much like the TV set on the island. The original design will, with a great deal of intelligent effort, have been copied.

The fact that, with all our knowledge of molecular biology, we are not even close to knowing everything about the complexities of even the ‘simplest’ living organism shows just how much ‘design-power’ and intelligence went into the creation of the first of its kind.

I believe that, in principle, people are capable of learning enough to be able to be hopeful of one day achieving such a thing for perhaps a bacterial cell. But far from undermining Genesis creation, it merely reflects the image of God (Genesis 1:27) in humanity—creativity and intelligence, even if only a pale shadow of that of their Maker.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I am going to go watch "CONTACT" again...and see if I can glean any REAL information.....(other than wishing I could see Jodie Foster's boob)

 

[Gunny]

you can not measure the effect of the big bang because you don't know if it happened you are guessing that it did because things are moving but you are not sure if they are speeding up or slowing down.

the rimodial ozzzz transition fossil to man...where is it?....it does not exist .....stop changing the subject and admit that you don't know.....you are guessing you have no proof.....damn dude.....if all the proof exixts why do all still call it a working hypothesis and a therory? oh ya ...yall are still trying to prove it

I have to completely support this statement, having made it myself on more than one occasion.

You aren't going to get an honest answer. If you did, they the proponents of scientific theories of origin would have to concede that you are correct. When was the last time you saw THAT?

There is too much emotion involved. Usually, those who push scientific theories of origin as legit are also staunchly anti-religion. They cannot overcome their personal biases to have an objective conversation on the topic.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I have to completely support this statement, having made it myself on more than one occasion.

You aren't going to get an honest answer. If you did, they the proponents of scientific theories of origin would have to concede that you are correct. When was the last time you saw THAT?

There is too much emotion involved. Usually, those who push scientific theories of origin as legit are also staunchly anti-religion. They cannot overcome their personal biases to have an objective conversation on the topic.

And I'd say that sums it up very nicely. Next topic?

 

[Gunny]

And I'd say that sums it up very nicely. Next topic?

The topic will NEVER go away. It'll just pop up again with a different title, but the result will be the same.