Evolution v. Creationism

[Woodznutz]

How do you know they're missing? Is there something in the religious literature you can provide that identifies the missing links? There are entire university libraries that have documentation describing cell division. Genetic data is routinely used in the medical field to diagnose disease. Rattling bones and burnig incense doesn't work as well.

I'm depending on science to eventually realize that the ToE is false. No need for objection on religious grounds.

 

[Hollie]

I'm depending on science to eventually realize that the ToE is false. No need for objection on religious grounds.

The ToE is among the best supported theories in science. That's infuriating for those who reject the evidence on religious grounds.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Look... you are arguing that life isn't necessarily limited to being based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen without having anything to back it up. I at least provided expert testimony on why all life in the universe must be based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.

Here's another one too...

What are the Ingredients of Life?

Life on Earth is usually, but not always, composed of six ingredients. Life's Little Mysteries tells you which ones, and why they are considered the building blocks of life.

www.livescience.com

and another one....

How six elements came together to form life on Earth

How did life begin? We will never know with certainty what the Earth was like four billion years ago, or the kinds of reactions that led to the emergence of life at that time, but there is another way to pose the question. If we ask "how can life begin?" instead of "how did life begin," that...

blog.oup.com

and another one...

Read

Read chapter 2 A Sketch of the Chemistry Behind Known Carbon-based Life on Earth: The search for life in the solar system and beyond has to date been gov...

nap.nationalacademies.org

You are claiming (based on something you read by someone you heard got a Nobel so he must be super smart) that ONLY CHNOSP can be the make-up of life. That's irrational because you would have to have a definition of life that is independent of what makes it up.

Once you generate that definition you will find that you cannot rule out the idea that maybe something other than CHNOSP can be used to make life.

Let's talk "self-replication". Life is essentially a special case for standard adsorption. Early organic chemicals may have "replicated" by selective adsorption onto mineral surfaces (like carbonates or phyllosilicates --clays-). It is likely that life looks like it does because of those mineral surfaces.

But think about how crystals grow. They behave VERY MUCH like how organic chemicals interact in living things. DNA and RNA coordinate based on super-simple basic chemistry rules and hydrogen bonds. That's pretty much the same way a crystal grows. It relies on elements coordinating on a surface following basic super-simple chemistry rules.

What else could life form as? I honestly don't know! But then neither do you nor does Wald. It could be any number of things.

Life likely REQUIRED non-C, Non-H, Non-S compounds to exist. Why assume that ONLY these CHONSP compounds can possibly be "life"?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm depending on science to eventually realize that the ToE is false. No need for objection on religious grounds.

That's literally the ONLY grounds for expecting the ToE is false.

Because right now ToE is the basis of biology and medicine and it seems to work pretty damn well.

 

[Woodznutz]

The ToE is among the strongly supported theories in science. That's infuriating for those who reject the evidence on religious grounds.

I think the ToE is a very shaky "jenga" game with some very weak blocks within the stack. Eventually someone will pull them out and the whole thing will come crashing down.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I think the ToE is a very shaky "jenga" game with some very weak blocks within the stack.

Just saying that doesn't make it true.

Eventually someone will pull them out and the whole thing will come crashing down.

Probably not. Certainly not from the religious side.

 

[Woodznutz]

Because right now ToE is the basis of biology and medicine and it seems to work pretty damn well.

That can be a controversial topic by itself. Science assumes that we can only prosper if they interfere with biology. This is especially true in the area of medicine and health. They've got biology completely screwed up with gmo's and chemicals.

 

[ding]

You are claiming (based on something you read by someone you heard got a Nobel so he must be super smart) that ONLY CHNOSP can be the make-up of life. That's irrational because you would have to have a definition of life that is independent of what makes it up.

Once you generate that definition you will find that you cannot rule out the idea that maybe something other than CHNOSP can be used to make life.

Let's talk "self-replication". Life is essentially a special case for standard adsorption. Early organic chemicals may have "replicated" by selective adsorption onto mineral surfaces (like carbonates or phyllosilicates --clays-). It is likely that life looks like it does because of those mineral surfaces.

But think about how crystals grow. They behave VERY MUCH like how organic chemicals interact in living things. DNA and RNA coordinate based on super-simple basic chemistry rules and hydrogen bonds. That's pretty much the same way a crystal grows. It relies on elements coordinating on a surface following basic super-simple chemistry rules.

What else could life form as? I honestly don't know! But then neither do you nor does Wald. It could be any number of things.

Life likely REQUIRED non-C, Non-H, Non-S compounds to exist. Why assume that ONLY these CHONSP compounds can possibly be "life"?

Because they are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further. Now do you understand?

 

[Woodznutz]

Probably not. Certainly not from the religious side.

No need. It will self-destruct.

 

[Hollie]

I think the ToE is a very shaky "jenga" game with some very weak blocks within the stack. Eventually someone will pull them out and the whole thing will come crashing down.

Your beliefs are your own but denying science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs doesn't diminish the supported theory.

You haven't offered anything that contradicts the ToE or presented anything to challenge the Theory or the available evidence.

"The Bible says ...." is not an argument that refutes evidence.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because they are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases)

You really DIDN'T Understand what I meant when I said a stable "octet" did you?????

Woah!

Fer heaven's sake, dude, GOOGLE IT! LOLOLOLOL.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No need. It will self-destruct.

It won't. But since it is important to your religious faith you feel free to believe as you like.

 

[ding]

You really DIDN'T Understand what I meant when I said a stable "octet" did you?????

Woah!

Fer heaven's sake, dude, GOOGLE IT! LOLOLOLOL.

I get that it's a red herring you are using to hide the fact that you have absolutely no evidence for life being based upon anything other than, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

Just in case you missed this... The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further. Now do you understand?

 

[Woodznutz]

Your beliefs are your own but denying science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs doesn't diminish the supported theory.

You haven't offered anything that contradicts the ToE or presented anything to challenge the Theory or the available evidence.

"The Bible says ...." is not an argument that refutes evidence.

Creation is the only alternative once the evidence is honestly examined.

Did you do some reading in the anatomy book I suggested? You could go over it with a divining rod and never find a trace of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

No need. It will self-destruct.

Anything from Ken Ham's silly Ark Park you can offer to deconstruct the ToE?

The exhibits of humans in buckskin outfits frolicking with dinosaurs is just so cute.

 

[Hollie]

Creation is the only alternative once the evidence is honestly appraised.

Show us the data confirming Amun Ra as the creator of creation. He's the leading contender for the Big Kahuna god of the gods. You knew that, right?

 

[Woodznutz]

Show us the data confirming Amun Ra as the creator of creation. He's the leading contender for the Big Kahuna god of the gods. You knew that, right?

The only God that has revealed him/itself to me is the God of the Bible.

 

[Hollie]

The only God that has revealed him/itself to me is the God of the Bible.

That's fine. Competing gods seem to reveal themselves to others based largely on geographic place of birth. The gods seem to have staked out turf they control.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I get that it's a red herring you are using to hide the fact that you have absolutely no evidence for life being based upon anything other than, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

Look at the periodic table. See C? Yeah, there are several elements lighter than it.

MOST OF THEM MAKE BONDS THAT "MIMIC" A NOBLE GAS...THAT'S WHAT AN OCTET IS.

Just in case you missed this... The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further. Now do you understand?

That literally MEANS NOTHING! LOL.

What do you mean "saturating all their tendencies"????


I work as a chemist. Please stop. You're killing me. LOL.

 

[ReinyDays]

It did in China. Come to think of it I guess we do it everywhere. But China's one child policy is the best example of destroying people that don't make the grade.

My mistake ... this is something we shouldn't do ... not sure the China example fits ... the extra children weren't killed, just the parents fined and/or imprisoned ... and the Catholic Church is heavily suppressed there, so vasectomy/tubal ligation and all manner of birth control ...

China is more like a puppy mill than an honest breeder ... and so they had to stop ... or they'd be like India today ...