Jump to content


Photo

Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 April 2011 - 09:59 AM

1. It is not COMPLETELY novel, yes, but it does contain a little novelty.  Keep this process going a few million years and the amount of novelty will increase.
I am sure that some models have been made but I just don't have that information available right now. 

2.  In fact we have a system that has 40 parts removed from the flagellum that acts like a motor without the paddly thingy.
Ken Miller on the bacterial flagellum

3. Wrong, we have many fossils which provide evidence for the predictions that evolution makes.  One is Homo Erectus which I presented before.  This species went extinct just before we started seeing humans, and had a brain size much smaller than ours.  They were very much like us from the neck down but had very ape-like features in the face like a protruding eye-ridge.  Many parts of their brains for intelligence were not very well developed, and from artifacts that we have dug up, homo erectus did not have quite as much culture and technology as humans did.  We have found dozens of fossils and many many skulls of specimens of all age groups. 

3a. We have found small groups of hHomo Erectus fossilized together.  This is strong evidence of evolution.

4. Very astute observation.  That was a typo.  I meant to say that the fossil record is a record of bones not genes (although we have found neanderthal DNA, and fossilized feathers in the ancestors of birds). Here is the evolutionary process:  Random mutations creates a diversity and natural selection selects for the best characteristics.  Over time this usually brings about a lot of change.  Mutations in the wrong direction will be struck out by natural selection quickly so these mistakes are not likely to get far. 

5. We do see a variation in transitional fossils; evolution is not a strait path but a wandering tree.  Those failed transitions did not have outright bad structures contrary to what you might think but merely had structures that could not compete with others.  Does that answer your question?

I mean, mutations like down syndrome; you know, bad ones.
From what I have read about tetrapod evolution, oxygen levels were indeed low, although I am not sure low levels were necessary for the evolution of the lung.  As you can see, I am not an expert on tetrapod evolution but I will try to answer your question the best I can. 

6. Sometimes however, if you were a shore living fish, your lake may temporarily dry up if you live in certain parts of the world and it would be beneficial to be able to hop to another lake using a primitive form of lung.  In the lives of fish, they do sometimes come in contact with air just like we humans come in contact with water.  My brother had a fish and I noticed that the fish would sometimes come in contact with air often accidentally.

7. Also, because of low oxygen levels, having a second source of oxygen (from the air) would have been very useful for survival and that "redudancy" would have given you an advantage. 

8. We have some knowledge of the process by which lobe-finned fish evolved into amphibians from the fossil record in the late devonian era.  I will list these transitions from most fish-like to most amphibian-like:
Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega. 
Tiktaalik is a perfect example of a cross between fish and amphibian.
Ichthyostega is a good example of a very fishy creature with a vertebrate positioned back bone.

9. A belief in a theory is somewhat analogous to faith.  In science, you see patterns in nature and give an unproven hypothesis and tentatively assume that hypothesis is true(with a lot of skepticism).  You try to see if the facts that are later uncovered fit the predictions of the hypothesis. 

10. If these predictions are validated, then we start having more faith in it, and with even more validations our trust may become almost absolute and it may even become a theory.  If future discoveried contradict its predictions or there is nothing to fit its predictions, then we lose faith in the theory, and look for something else.

View Post


Firstly I'll suggest that you check out the entire thread, since some of what you have said has already been covered

1. It would be interesting to see a scientific model of this, since there are none given that I know of, (despite studying evolution at Uni last year :D ).

So you believe that many changes can equal into a large one over time? Despite that there is no actual scientifically proven mechanism for that.. No evidence means that the null hypothesis automatically says no, (science says no). People can make models till the cows come home, if they are not supported via empirical evidence all they are is someones personal opinion / idea.

2. Yep, thats great another machine.... But saying that doesn't demonstrate that mechanisms that show it "evolved" over many small changes.. All is shown is that part of the flagellum, (if 50 parts are taken away) can be used as a pump.... Yet how did those other 50 proteins come to be to form the flagellum... Let alone how did the pump come about by itself too...

Also how the pump "evolved" straight after the first cell "evolved" since a pump will be required for the cell to live, (get in good nutrients, expel waste, etc)

3. Just one fossil is not enough. Furthermore the "brain size" issue was already refuted earlier, (I think), also I believe that Homo Erectus is being debated, since to some it is TOO similar to a human and thus could just be a variant of a human.

How do they know that there was ape like features? what fossils demonstrate this, (please no artist renderings).

3a. How? How does groupings of homo erectus fossils demonstrate evolution?

4. Not a problem :)

Yes that is the usual evo-fare. Considering that most mutations are detrimental, and the fact that there has never been any observed evidence that variations can lead to larger changes... All we see is changes within the species, and to assume that over millions of years they can add up is an argumentum ad futuris..

5. Actually no you haven't answered my question.. I never said evolution was a straight path, and my question actually is based on evolution NOT having a linear path... Since you already admit that there was other competing structures, I ask you where are they... ie- the runner up and third prize attempts at fish legs... etc etc... Or how about the fossils of half legged fish / quarter legged fish etc etc

By transitional forms, not just one or two with imagination filling the gaps between, (evolution of the gaps? :lol: )... a steady transition from one to the other, since claiming evolution with just a handful of independant organisms is based solely on assumption.

6. As asked previously, do you think these chance encounters assisted in the evolution of the lung... Yet considering this, it an arguement for Lamarkism.. As the fish needs to be BORN with the mutation not stick its head out of the water x times so it can "evolve" lungs... (Just like how I can rub my hands x times to make a millions dollars)... Do you think that the mutant fish was born with fully developed lungs? If not then how were the advantageous to be selected for, (since they are not fully developed and do not work)..

7. How do they know that the oxygen levels on earth was low? (Logically I'd have assumed they would be high due to the plethora of photosyntesising bacteria etc that lived "millions" of years before hand creating oxygen... IMO it doesn't fit logically.. Please provide evidence of this claim.

8. No, we have no knowledge of the PROCESS... Just the assumption that somehow, (by "natural selection"??), this independant organism changed into that independant organism... Tiktaalik has already been debunked due to fossil Tetrapod footprints found in Poland that out date Tiktaalik by about 18 million years :)

http://creation.com/...ample-tiktaalik

9. I am glad that you admit that belief in evolution is faith based :) Not many people do,

10. Then considering the tetrapod footprints and the tiktaalik / fish to beast transition, do you think that this sequence requires a serious overhaul?

#42 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 24 April 2011 - 10:59 AM

Dan,

Which came in what order?

1) Oxygen.
2) Plants.
3) Rain.

Oxygen is produced from hydrogen by stars
Then water is produced by hydrogen combining with oxygen
Then rain occurs whenever enough water vapor accumulates in the air.
Then plants developed

Plants make the oxygen.
You need rain for the plants.
And you need oxygen for the rain.

Stars make oxygen atoms which is what is in H2O and CO2. Plants make Oxygen gas (O2) from CO2 and H2O. Plants are completely unnecessary for the existence of water, as evidenced by water being found in places where plants have never existed like the moon, mars, ganymede, interstellar space etc.

And how did plants survive if there was not enough oxygen for the ozone layer?

Plants make oxygen.
Oxygen is needed for ozone layer.
Plants cannot survive without ozone layer.

So if you have oxygen first, you have to have a source. If you have plants first, they die before they make enough oxygen (a whole atmosphere worth) for what they need.

All the elements in the universe heavier than hydrogen and helium were produced by fusion in stars.
Water is capable of shielding from UV which means photosynthetic bacteria can survive underwater without an ozone layer.
Photosynthetic bacteria converted enough CO2 into O2 for Ozone to accumulate in the upper atmosphere.

Also a newly forming atmosphere is going to have low barometric pressure. Low pressure means that water boiling point is going to be low a well.

Life didn't exist when the earth's atmosphere was forming so this is not a problem.

Example: Mars barometric pressure is 1/4 - 1/8 that of the earth. That puts the boiling point of water at 50 F. The temps around the equator is about 70 degrees. Which means any water around that area would have boiled and went into the atmosphere. Problem is, the evidence for water evaporating does not exist. The mars atmosphere is over 98% CO2. No hydrogen gas means now water. And what about the ice caps on the poles? Mar's poles get very cold. The high concentration of CO2 freezes and falls like snow. Giving the appearance of ice. There is no water on mars.
You can google this and research it yourself: "Mars atmosphere" and "CO2 freezes mars". Now why would science lie like this? Money to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.

Water ice is still water. Liquid water can't exist on the surface of mars for long but that is not the same thing as saying water doesn't exist on mars in solid form. If you are trying to find out about water on mars you should probably search for "water on mars" rather than "CO2 freezes mars".

Researching on google seems to contradict your claim that there is no water on mars. Could you provide your source for the idea that there is no water ice on mars?
http://en.wikipedia....i/Water_on_mars
Data obtained by the Mars Express satellite, made it possible in 2004 to confirm that the southern polar cap has an average of 3 kilometres (1.9 mi)[citation needed]thick slab of ice with varying contents of frozen water, depending on its latitude; the polar cap is a mixture of 85% CO2 ice and 15% water ice. The second part comprises steep slopes known as 'scarps', made almost entirely of water ice, that fall away from the polar cap to the surrounding plains. The third part encompasses the vast permafrost fields that stretch for tens of kilometres away from the scarps. NASA scientists calculate that the volume of water ice in the south polar ice cap, if melted, would be sufficient to cover the entire planetary surface to a depth of 11 metres



My main question would be: Why did earth end up with so much water and no other planet in the solar system did? Also, how did our barometric pressure get just right for the temps and seasons so water works on this planet in all 3 phases (solid liquid gas)? If these phase transition did not happen, there would be major problems for life. Which brings me back to early earth.

The other planets are either too hot for water ice and vapor (mercury, Venus) or cold enough for ice but too small (mars) to hold onto water vapor. Colder planets and moons do have varying amounts of water ice and vapor but the gas giants don't have a surface for bodies of water/ice to exist on.

From wikipedia for ganymede and the outer planets:
Ganymede is composed of approximately equal amounts of silicate rock and water ice
Uranus's atmosphere .....contains more "ices" such as water, ammonia and methane, along with traces of hydrocarbons
[Neptune's] mantle is equivalent to 10 to 15 Earth masses and is rich in water, ammonia and methane
[Jupiter's] atmosphere contains trace amounts of methane, water vapor, ammonia, and silicon-based compounds

Why is the existence of ice (solid phase) on earth important for life? Life seems to flourish most in the tropical regions of earth where ice never occurs. If earth were completely ice free why would there be major problems for life? (Here's a hint, global warming is mostly an economic and logistical problem not a biological problem.)

Early earth was hot, the barometric pressure was low because the atmosphere was forming. So with the boiling point of water low, how did water evaporate (turn into gas) and phase back to liquid when the conditions favored it being gas only?

View Post

The atmosphere thickened and the earth cooled to the point where water could accumulate as a liquid.

#43 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 April 2011 - 12:28 PM

1. Oxygen is produced from hydrogen by stars

2. Then water is produced by hydrogen combining with oxygen
Then rain occurs whenever enough water vapor accumulates in the air.
Then plants developed

3. Stars make oxygen atoms which is what is in H2O and CO2. Plants make Oxygen gas (O2) from CO2 and H2O.  Plants are completely unnecessary for the existence of water, as evidenced by water being found in places where plants have never existed like the moon, mars, ganymede, interstellar space etc.


4. All the elements in the universe heavier than hydrogen and helium were produced by fusion in stars.

5. Water is capable of shielding from UV which means photosynthetic bacteria can survive underwater without an ozone layer.

6. Photosynthetic bacteria converted enough CO2 into O2 for Ozone to accumulate in the upper atmosphere.... ....Life didn't exist when the earth's atmosphere was forming so this is not a problem.

View Post


1. By what process? AllI know is that stars undergo fusion of two hydrogens to form a helium.. Never heard of stars creating oxygen in chemistry, (nor of the process or chemical reaction to do so).

2. Yep.. Except it was photosyntetic bacteria that developed before plants did.

3. I believe that your entire post hinges on the assumption that stars can create a myriad of elements, (and that somehow these elements defy the stars gravity and fly to Earth... :D )

4. How do you know this? Or is this an assumption-based "fact"? Can you or any scientist recreate the process and experiment it.

5. But how deep will the organism need to be to gain such protection?

6. I hope you see how contradictory your two sentences are here.... How does a photosynthetic bacteria survive without an ozone layer in the first place?? hmmm :lol:

#44 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 24 April 2011 - 02:42 PM

Stars make oxygen atoms which is what is in H2O and CO2. Plants make Oxygen gas (O2) from CO2 and H2O.  Plants are completely unnecessary for the existence of water, as evidenced by water being found in places where plants have never existed like the moon, mars, ganymede, interstellar space etc.

For whoever is wondering, he is talking about nucleosynthesis. This does not resolve the problem that Ike presented however. I'll come back later to explain the problems with his hypothesis.

#45 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 24 April 2011 - 03:56 PM

1. Is this a scientific fact? Or are you just saying "this may have occured"... If it is a "fact" then please state evidence for it.


A good example is the blood clotting system we have. This system evolved in sea creatures. In fact, there are elements in their blood clotting system which are different from our system in that they are missing some elements we have. For example, one element of the human clotting system, factor 12 does not exist in dolphins and whales. The puffer fish is missing the entire contact phase system. So different animals and environments, can indeed miss some of parts of our systems.
Ken Miller on Blood Clotting

2. Really? What is your evidence? Evolved into what? Considering the plethora of examples that did not evolve over these millions of years then according to what you said these SHOULD be extinct... But they are not.


There are a few examples, but there are many more of species that have disappeared in the fossil record to be replaced with simmilar looking organisms, or with nothing at all. There have been 5 mass extinctions in which around 44-95% of earths species have gone extinct, the most famous being the extinction of the dinosaurs which killed off 85% of all species on earth. In fact, 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.

We only find most of the species that are alive today in the upper rocks (with several exceptions). You will not find rabbits, lions, humans, or whales in the precambrian or devonian rocks.
Species Diversity and Extinction

3. Actually it does, since they defy evolutionary predictions, thus it is new evidence that argues against evolution.. Saying it does nothing is ignoring the evidence, (A common tactic with evolutionists). REAL science follows the evidence whereever it leads, it has no pre-concieved ideas about the conclusion.

I suggest you check out this thread.. (Apologies to Calypsis as it was he / she who created it)

http://www.evolution...topic=4202&st=0

It isn't just one fossil... Crocodiles, fish, sea-stars, sharks, lizards, dragonflys, crabs, lobsters and the Coelacanth

Its pretty hard to argue against these fossils which defy evolutionary predictions, (and are found across a range of different types of animals)...


These species were adapted to their ecological niches so they stayed pretty much the same. If they were to move to new niches, they would face competition from those who were already well adapted to these. Evolution is not an unlimited process and has some real limits imposed by genetics, the environment, and natural selection. Sometimes it takes some time to find the right combination of genes natural selection would approve of to evolve.


4. Really? Can you show your evidence of this... Just saying it will not make it true.


Easy. Humans have evolved much more than chimpanzees from their common ancestor. Hominids first evolved their ability to walk and then sort of stayed the same for a while. Then they started evolving bigger brains starting with homo habilis to homo erectus and finally to modern humans.

5. It seems this is a re-vamp of punctuated equilibrium.... At least this guy admits that there are problems with the gradualistic evolution approach...

"Dr Greene, a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, said current evolutionary theory, which assumed biological lineages evolved by the slow accumulation of adaptive mutations, did not tally with the fossil record. "
Did you know that these TE's require a protein called transposase... How did transposase "evolve"? How did these organisms survive without it initially?

View Post


I agree with Dr. Green. Although the structure of the fossil record shows a progression from simpler to complex forms proving common descent, the method by which things become complex is not even and constant at all. In fact many species go into evolutionary stasis until picking up their evolution again.

This is why I believe that while a constant evolution happens in some cases, this is not always the case. This is why a punctuated equilibrium view of evolution is far more accurate than a dogmatic rule of constant evolution which is too disconnected from what we see in the real world and does not factor in the nitty gritty of the environmental and genetic conditions of evolution.

#46 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 April 2011 - 05:44 PM

1. Is this a scientific fact? Or are you just saying "this may have occured"... If it is a "fact" then please state evidence for it.

A good example is the blood clotting system we have. This system evolved in sea creatures. In fact, there are elements in their blood clotting system which are different from our system in that they are missing some elements we have. For example, one element of the human clotting system, factor 12 does not exist in dolphins and whales.

View Post


Here's the thing Dan; You have absolutely NO evidence that any of this isn’t how it's always been. Therefore you aren’t providing evidence/facts (as was asked for), you are merely providing “opinions”, and “a priori” opinions at that.

Your statements like “This system evolved in sea creatures”, is nothing more than a “faith statement”. So, unless you are going to provide “facts/evidence” as asked, don’t submit answers as if they were. If you ARE going to submit your opinions (or the mere opinions of others), admit such.

These dishonest postings will cease!

#47 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 April 2011 - 07:04 PM

Natural selection removes genetic and morphological diversity within a population not the complexity of the physical components of each individual member.  So natural selection will not remove the liver any time soon, it will simply shrink the quantity of different types of human livers we see, removing those that function poorly.

View Post

http://www.medscape....warticle/464174
Check out Wilson's disease, Alpha-1-AT Deficiency, and Progressive Familial Intrahepatic Cholestasis. These are liver mutations that are late onset, obviously after S@xual maturity. Second, they cause breakdowns in needed functions, obviously decreasing fitness. Third, there are no beneficial functions occurring in it's place. Fourth, this is a decrease in information, the mutations are bringing about a change, but it is not beneficial, so it is not an increase in information--it is a decrease. A prime example of most non-silent, or as you say 'neutral' mutations.

That being said natural selection is not 'removing' liver disease out of the population as you would claim. Please give better evidence, since you seem to believe this process was resposible for the evolution of life. I don't see anything that closely resembles this in your example.

Actually, most mutations are neutral but out of the ones that have an effect on an organism, most are negative.  However, a few are positive and those will be naturally selected, and those with bad mutations will be less likely to pass on their genes.

View Post

Genetic diseases are passed on at given percentages. However, we have no new organs forming in our population. Can you give us an allele frequency in the current human population of a forming organ, like I can give you a percentage of sickle cell anemia--a break down of a more efficient blood cell. The beneficiality of sickle cell in malarial areas has been called environmental specialization, but has no overall fitness increase. And it is selected for in both non-malarial and malarial areas. The beneficiality of this disease is thus subjectively rated.

Sometimes evolution has to happen in leaps and bound.  For example, sometimes a combination of two mutations is required to change the body in the way that natural selection will select.  Many times it just takes one mutation at a time.  Remember that the evolution of any given structure such as the flagellum does not happen in one single generation, but over a long period of time with transitional forms being somewhat beneficial so they are selected.

View Post

You are speaking a hypothetical prediction, as though it is fact. No one saw the flagellum form, yet you speak in a manner of complete conclusion. This is not science at all--but dogmatic hypothetical conjecture.

#48 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 24 April 2011 - 08:18 PM

1. By what process? AllI know is that stars undergo fusion of two hydrogens to form a helium.. Never heard of stars creating oxygen in chemistry, (nor of the process or chemical reaction to do so).

2. Yep.. Except it was photosyntetic bacteria that developed before plants did.

3. I believe that your entire post hinges on the assumption that stars can create a myriad of elements, (and that somehow these elements defy the stars gravity and fly to Earth...  :) )

4. How do you know this? Or is this an assumption-based "fact"? Can you or any scientist recreate the process and experiment it.

5. But how deep will the organism need to be to gain such protection?

6. I hope you see how contradictory your two sentences are here.... How does a photosynthetic bacteria survive without an ozone layer in the first place?? hmmm ;)

View Post


1) There are various processes where atoms are fused into oxygen in start. For a start:
http://en.wikipedia....e-alpha_process
C + He → O + γ (+7.162 MeV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
N + H → O + γ + 7.35 MeV

2) Yes, and water existed prior to and independently of either plants or bacteria. That's the whole point where Ikesters argument fails. Water does not require oxygen from photosynthesis in order to exist. I was providing Ikester the order in which things happened, which was what he asked.

3 and 4) Look up nucleosynthesis. All elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were at one point created in a star via fusion. They get scattered when the star dies and explodes. One of the pieces of evidence for this is that the distribution of elements in the universe matches the distribution of elements that is produced in stars.
http://en.wikipedia....Nucleosynthesis
And yes, we can perform fusion in particle accelerators or research reactors.

5) That depends on the clarity of the water and the level of shielding considered necessary.
http://people.seas.h...sorp_water.html
Notice that the the penetration depth of UV (the region to the left of the yellow line) is smaller than the penetration of the visible spectrum (the region used for photosynthesis) and that the smaller the wavelength (small wavelength=more damaging) the greater the absorption factor.
From http://earthobservat..._radiation3.php
it appears that at least 90% of UVB is absorbed within the first 10-20 meters of ocean water. Photosynthesis can occur in the ocean at depths of up to 200 meters down. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Photic_zone

6) There is nothing contradictory in pointing out that the earth's atmosphere formed prior to life, and that the abundance of oxygen in the current atmosphere is due to photosynthesis converting CO2 in the atmosphere into O2. Changing the composition of an atmosphere doesn't mean that an atmosphere didn't exist before the change. Bacteria survived by living deep enough for UV not to kill them (see 5).

#49 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 24 April 2011 - 08:23 PM

Okay, I'm back to explain why nucleosynthesis does not resolve the dilemma that Ike presents. Astronomy and astrophysics are my favorite parts of Science.

Nucleosynthesis is a nuclear reaction. In nuclear reactions and also nuclear synthesis, sub atomic particles are conserved, but atoms are not.

Numbers, what you are advocating is nothing more than a dream, a fairy tale. Atheists have this tendency to pretend that we have everything figured out. If you have had an education in Science at all or have read anything but talkorigins or other atheist organizations, you would know that the kinks of all the theories have not been anywhere near worked out. It's time to take a long due trip to reality. Let's take a look at a webpage from Idaho State University:

"Although humans do not have any final idea of how the simplest subatomic particles of matter are actually created"

That is right, from a naturalistic standpoint, we don't know how sub atomic particles are created. So, we really should stop pretending that we do, shouldn't we? What does this mean? Any theory regarding how sub atomic particles are created are not empirical as you are advocating it to be. From now on, you have no excuse for this charade. Stop reading atheist propaganda and start getting an education in Science if you want to be an expert in any field in Science.

So what do schools teach about star formation? I'll go ahead and finish the quote:

"Although humans do not have any final idea of how the simplest subatomic particles of matter are actually created, we do know that matter and energy are interchangeable."

Right, because the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created or destroyed but is interchangeable.

"We also know that matter is transformed in stars, thus we consider all matter in the universe to be created in stars or to have gone into the formation of stars. "

This is an assumption, but there is nothing wrong with this statement because at the very beginning of the paragraph they admitted that they don't know how subatomic particles are created.(But you pretend that it is fact?) Also note that we have never observed a star form.

"We also know that matter is transformed in stars, thus we consider all matter in the universe to be created in stars or to have gone into the formation of stars. Most scientists studying the big bang generally believe that nuclei of only hydrogen and helium were created in the big bang. These two elements were the dominant components of the earliest stars. Elements heavier than He were synthesized later inside stars by nuclear fusion."

This is a far different tone than the one that atheist evangelists are implying. I'll cover an issue with the big bang nucleosynthesis model later referencing secular peer reviewed literature so that you can't accuse me of posting "creationist propaganda."

"Most scientists studying the big bang generally believe that nuclei of only hydrogen and helium were created in the big bang. These two elements were the dominant components of the earliest stars. Elements heavier than He were synthesized later inside stars by nuclear fusion."

Now, this is stated as a belief. It isn't stated as fact as you and your atheist evangelists are implying. There is a sharp contrast in what you guys are saying and what real scientists(not atheist evangelists) are saying.

This is a general statement to all evo evangelists who like to flood Creationist pages and argue with Creationists pretending that they are the ignorant masses:

Anyone who is educated in Science and is intellectually honest knows that stellar evolution is not taught as empirical fact. But rather this sort of ideology that you are presenting is a result of suppressing the truth that there is a God and that you will be held accountable. You take ideas from Science and then insert it into your pseudo-religion of naturalism and then pretend that you are the ones who are educated and that everyone else is ignorant or is an idiot. This is not the case. I would like to be the first to welcome you to reality.

Reference:

http://wapi.isu.edu/...larSys/mod2.htm

I'm going to address some of the issues with some of the claims made by ISU.

Before we talk about nucleosynthesis in stars in detail, we should look at the first supposed case of nucleosynthesis in a naturalistic world view. The Big Bang.(As is covered by the site to an extent as well.) Some of the observations of the composition of stars aren't quite kosher with any of The Big Bang models. For starters, an abundance of lithium isotopes in metal poor stars. This isn't kosher with The Big Bang theory's models. There are however, ideas to fix this issue but none are considered to be factual yet.

The standard big bang model predicts 6Li/7Li ~ 10–5. However, the 7Li abundance is a factor of three lower than predicted by theories of nucleosynthesis in the big bang.

Scientists do offer a possible solution to the problem. They summarize that decaying supersymmetric particles may have affected the synthesis of light elements in the Big Bang. However, while the idea may sound convincing, it is based on unproven physics.

In summary, you really aren't even in a position to challenge the issues that Ike has listed because we don't have an accurate model of nucleosynthesis when pertaining to the big bang.

As far as your idea of nuclear synthesis from stars such as the sun goes, our sun will NEVER be able to produce any element past carbon, from a secular standpoint. Scientists don't really fully understand the process of nucleosynthesis in stars. So to make these grandiose claims about stars forming all of these elements as if it is fact is a rather silly charade.



References:

http://wapi.isu.edu/...larSys/mod2.htm

http://www.eso.org/s...no122-32-35.pdf

#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 April 2011 - 08:36 PM

1) There are various processes where atoms are fused into oxygen in start.  For a start:
http://en.wikipedia....e-alpha_process
C + He → O + γ (+7.162 MeV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
N + H → O + γ      + 7.35 MeV

2) Yes, and water existed prior to and independently of either plants or bacteria.  That's the whole point where Ikesters argument fails.  Water does not require oxygen from photosynthesis in order to exist.  I was providing Ikester the order in which things happened, which was what he asked.

3 and 4) Look up nucleosynthesis.  All elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were at one point created in a star via fusion.  They get scattered when the star dies and explodes.  One of the pieces of evidence for this is that the distribution of elements in the universe matches the distribution of elements that is produced in stars.
http://en.wikipedia....Nucleosynthesis
And yes, we can perform fusion in particle accelerators or research reactors.

5) That depends on the clarity of the water and the level of shielding considered necessary. 
http://people.seas.h...sorp_water.html
Notice that the the penetration depth of UV (the region to the left of the yellow line) is smaller than the penetration of the visible spectrum (the region used for photosynthesis) and that the smaller the wavelength (small wavelength=more damaging) the greater the absorption factor.
From http://earthobservat..._radiation3.php
it appears that at least 90% of UVB is absorbed within the first 10-20 meters of ocean water.  Photosynthesis can occur in the ocean at depths of up to 200 meters down. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Photic_zone

6) There is nothing contradictory in pointing out that the earth's atmosphere formed prior to life, and that the abundance of oxygen in the current atmosphere is due to photosynthesis converting CO2 in the atmosphere into O2.  Changing the composition of an atmosphere doesn't mean that an atmosphere didn't exist before the change.  Bacteria survived by living deep enough for UV not to kill them (see 5).

View Post


1. Actually that cycle requires there already be existing carbon in the star.... Where did this carbon initially come from? Furthermore, since it is a cycle then there will be no excess oxygen to send to the Earth since it is used up in more revolutions of the cycle.

2. And for water to form there needs to be oxygen yes? Which defies the logic that was used for the Miller-Urey experiment whereby NO oxygen was present for life to begin... (evos go on to state that the oxygen is created via plants and photosynthesising bacteria, this is what my lecturers said)

3 +4. I asked for evidence not a wikipedia article.. Furthermore you have not attempted to answer how these elements get from the sun to the Earth... Considering that gravity is in effect and that since space doesn't have random gases floating about it is a fair call to say that there is no way that your hypotheis could work in reality.

5. So how do these early cells remain at the proper depth? Did they employ a system of ballasts, (which indicates complexity in an assumed to be "simple" organism).

6. and that was a faith statement. Just because something could happen, doesn't necessary mean that it did... Until it is proven, the null hypothesis says no

#51 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 24 April 2011 - 08:37 PM

The triple-alpha process is not relevant in normal (main sequence) stars like the Sun because their central temperatures are too low. Theoretically the temperature would be high enough in a red giant. However, it would be used up in the cycling in the stars.

You may point out that such elements could be dispersed through the universe via a supernova but that is an extremely poor mechanism for the Earth to obtain oxygen and is astronomically improbable and a far cry to an empirical solution.

#52 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 24 April 2011 - 08:41 PM

1. Actually that cycle requires there already be existing carbon in the star.... Where did this carbon initially come from? Furthermore, since it is a cycle then there will be no excess oxygen to send to the Earth since it is used up in more revolutions of the cycle.

You are correct.



3 +4. I asked for evidence not a wikipedia article.. Furthermore you have not attempted to answer how these elements get from the sun to the Earth... Considering that gravity is in effect and that since space doesn't have random gases floating about it is a fair call to say that there is no way that your hypotheis could work in reality.

View Post

Wikipedia is a tool used by atheist evangelist that they use to pretend that their ideas are in coherence with scientific literature. They will normally quote from scientific literature but only from the parts of it that favors their view, and not the problems with the theories that are mentioned in scientific journals. This whole "rational atheist" movement is a joke.

#53 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 April 2011 - 09:22 PM

1. A good example is the blood clotting system we have.  This system evolved in sea creatures.  In fact, there are elements in their blood clotting system which are different from our system in that they are missing some elements we have.  For example, one element of the human clotting system, factor 12 does not exist in dolphins and whales.  The puffer fish is missing the entire contact phase system.  So different animals and environments, can indeed miss some of parts of our systems.
Ken Miller on Blood Clotting

2. There are a few examples, but there are many more of species that have disappeared in the fossil record to be replaced with simmilar looking organisms, or with nothing at all. 

3. There have been 5 mass extinctions in which around 44-95% of earths species have gone extinct, the most famous being the extinction of the dinosaurs which killed off 85% of all species on earth.  In fact, 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. 

4. We only find most of the species that are alive today in the upper rocks (with several exceptions).  You will not find rabbits, lions, humans, or whales in the precambrian or devonian rocks.

Species Diversity and Extinction

5. These species were adapted to their ecological niches so they stayed pretty much the same.  If they were to move to new niches, they would face competition from those who were already well adapted to these. 

6. Evolution is not an unlimited process and has some real limits imposed by genetics, the environment, and natural selection.  Sometimes it takes some time to find the right combination of genes natural selection would approve of to evolve. 

7. Easy.  Humans have evolved much more than chimpanzees from their common ancestor.  Hominids first evolved their ability to walk and then sort of stayed the same for a while.  Then they started evolving bigger brains starting with homo habilis to homo erectus and finally to modern humans.

8. I agree with Dr.  Green.  Although the structure of the fossil record shows a progression from simpler to complex forms proving common descent, the method by which things become complex is not even and constant at all.  In fact many species go into evolutionary stasis until picking up their evolution again. 

9. This is why I believe that while a constant evolution happens in some cases, this is not always the case.  This is why a punctuated equilibrium view of evolution is far more accurate than a dogmatic rule of constant evolution which is too disconnected from what we see in the real world and does not factor in the nitty gritty of the environmental and genetic conditions of evolution.

View Post


......

1. Ken Miller is assuming that since dolphins don't need factor 12 then all organisms don't.... Did he test this on an organism that does require factor 12?
What if he takes away one of the ones he doesn't mention?? Will it still work then?

I find it really frustrating how scientists DO NOT self-analyse and criticise their own hypothesises...

What was the pathway Miller proposed? Considering all he said was it is there... and did not go into detail on what it actually is.. He admits that specific interactions are required... This is the main thrust of ID..


2. How do you know this, what is your evidence?

3. Is this 99% of actual species found or 99% of proposed species including the many many many imaginary transitional forms of which we have no evidence for.

4. Perhaps.. But what can you conclude from that? All you can claim is that we don't find rabbits, lions etc in pre-cambrian rocks... Anything else is an assumption.

5. I believe I posted a thread that shows the fossils of many different species are the same as their modern equivalent.. Considering that evolution is meant to be in effect, this fossil evidence should not occur, (as it demonstrates no change over millions of years)... No change means no evolution of that species... And since there is no progression of traits from one to the next, then it seems that these organisms appeared fully formed.

6. Wow! You are the first person to admit that evolution has limits ;) Most claim that with enough time anything can happen. I concur there are limits, and it is these limits that give evidence against evolution occuring.. Since all we see is change within a species, not change to become a new species.

7. Really? Where is the evidence?

8. Yes the fossil record does give evidence against Darwinistic gradualistic evolution.

9. Puntuated equilibrium has its own flaws, like mutation rate, % of good and bad mutations. Which means that increasing the mutation rate for PE to occur would increase the amount of negative mutations since the % is that the majority is negative.

Most single base mutations are not stable, due to the change of a single base, the coefficients of each base is changed and the DNA unzips since A only binds to T and C only binds to G, visa versa.. I assume unzipping the DNA length will be bad for the bacteria... :) Those that do remain fixed will encounter further problems, like below.

Base pair additions / deletions, will change how the DNA is read

AAT TCG GCG CGT ATT
TTA AGC CGC GCA TAA

add in a CG at the start =

CAA TTC GGC GCG TAT T
GTT AAG CCG CGC ATA A

This fundamentaly shifts the codon sequence and hence it will be read in totally different way, also bypassing stop codons as well as creating new stop codons.. From this example you can see how just one slight change can drastically change the shape of a protein, (and thus render it inoperable for its specific task)

Horizontal gene transfer, I have recently found out in Microbiology that this is mediated via proteins, hence it is not a random mutation.. (it implies more of a design concept).. and should not be a part of evolution, (as per random mutations + natural selection)

#54 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 April 2011 - 09:30 PM

You are correct.
Wikipedia is a tool used by atheist evangelist that they use to pretend that their ideas are in coherence with scientific literature. They will normally quote from scientific literature but only from the parts of it that favors their view, and not the problems with the theories that are mentioned in scientific journals. This whole "rational atheist" movement is a joke.

View Post


Thanks. Its amusing when just simple things can tear the whole hypothesis apart... Gravity in this case, and the fact that it is a cycle...

Yeah I have noticed that alot of evolution videos on youtube use classical music... like as if it will make it a more intellectual video... Not sure if that is part of the movement, but you are correct it is a joke

#55 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 25 April 2011 - 01:48 AM

6) There is nothing contradictory in pointing out that the earth's atmosphere formed prior to life, and that the abundance of oxygen in the current atmosphere is due to photosynthesis converting CO2 in the atmosphere into O2.  Changing the composition of an atmosphere doesn't mean that an atmosphere didn't exist before the change.  Bacteria survived by living deep enough for UV not to kill them (see 5).

View Post

Numbers,
While I appreciate your knowledge of particle physics, current science has cyanobacteria (blue green algae) as responsible for the oxygen atmosphere. I believe they live more toward the water's surface don't they. Besides, in my book there would have been huge problems with greenhouse gases in the first atmosphere. I don't know how they expect an ocean to form with the heat of the planet in the first atmosphere. It's a horrible model.

#56 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 April 2011 - 08:15 AM

3 and 4) Look up nucleosynthesis.  All elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were at one point created in a star via fusion. They get scattered when
the star dies and explodes. 

One of the pieces of evidence for this is that the distribution of elements in the universe matches the distribution of elements that is produced in stars.http://en.wikipedia....Nucleosynthesis
And yes, we can perform fusion in particle accelerators or research reactors.

View Post


Have you, or any scientist observed a star exploding? or tested it etc

If not then what you claim here is an assumption, furthermore it is believed that when a star explodes a black hole is formed which would suck all the elements in anyway....

"Distribution of elelments in the univers matches the distribution of elelments produced in stars"

Now this really is a bold statement to make, since many of the elements are not accounted for in the processes that COULD have happened in the Sun to fuse into them... Furthermore the rates are unknown as well as the concentrations hence this "evidence" is just wind.. There is no logical way anyone can know what you just claimed, you've based this on your own faith.

#57 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 25 April 2011 - 08:55 AM

Merging responses to several posts

Actually that cycle requires there already be existing carbon in the star.... Where did this carbon initially come from? Furthermore, since it is a cycle then there will be no excess oxygen to send to the Earth since it is used up in more revolutions of the cycle.


One way to make carbon is the fusion of 3 helium atoms. This is the same link I already gave you. It may help you if you read the articles, they contain the answers to your questions. http://en.wikipedia....e-alpha_process
He + He → Be
Be + He → C

From the triple apha page I already linked.
This creates a situation in which stellar nucleosynthesis produces large amounts of carbon and oxygen but only a small fraction of these elements is converted into neon and heavier elements

And for water to form there needs to be oxygen yes? Which defies the logic that was used for the Miller-Urey experiment whereby NO oxygen was present for life to begin... (evos go on to state that the oxygen is created via plants and photosynthesising bacteria, this is what my lecturers said)

Water is formed in space, not on earth, when it combines with hydrogen which is the most common substance in the universe. Molecular Oxygen is what was absent from the atmosphere (not to be confused with Oxygen atoms which were part of chemical compounds like water). O2 is so reactive that it won't exist while there are other elements like Hydrogen/carbon/iron etc. for it to react with (it forms H2O or CO2 or various other oxides instead of existing as O2). An atmosphere can only contain O2 after all the various oxygen sinks are full.

I asked for evidence not a wikipedia article.. Furthermore you have not attempted to answer how these elements get from the sun to the Earth... Considering that gravity is in effect and that since space doesn't have random gases floating about it is a fair call to say that there is no way that your hypotheis could work in reality

They don't come from our sun, that would be impossible since our sun hasn't died yet. Heavy elements come from stars that have exploded. Where are you getting the idea that space doesn't have random gases floating around? Ever hear of the interstellar medium? nebulae? gas clouds?

So how do these early cells remain at the proper depth? Did they employ a system of ballasts, (which indicates complexity in an assumed to be "simple" organism).

Some bacteria are able to change their bouyancy so that would be a possiblity. A simpler answer would be to just live on the sea floor. (see below for stromatolites link)

and that was a faith statement. Just because something could happen, doesn't necessary mean that it did... Until it is proven, the null hypothesis says no

Actually it's simple logic. If there's a region of the ocean that is uninhabitable, anything that lives in the ocean must therefore not live in that uninhabitable region.
Granted, this assumes the validity of the creationist argument that UV was lethal at ocean's surface, but I was feeling generous.

Numbers,
While I appreciate your knowledge of particle physics, current science has cyanobacteria (blue green algae) as responsible for the oxygen atmosphere.  I believe they live more toward the water's surface don't they. 

Not necessarily.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16239195
We investigated the distribution of Planktothrix, as well as other cyanobacteria, through the water-column during a Planktothrix mass development at 10-16 m depth

There's also stromatolites which are formed by mats of cyanobacteria living on the sea floor.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Stromatolite

Besides, in my book there would have been huge problems with greenhouse gases in the first atmosphere.  I don't know how they expect an ocean to form with the heat of the planet in the first atmosphere.  It's a horrible model.

View Post

There's something that I think you and Ikester aren't realizing. Water vapor is a gas and therefore counts toward atmospheric pressure.

Look at a phase diagram for water and notice that as pressure goes up (more water vapor in the air) the state of water approaches liquid. For an oceans worth of water vapor, the atmospheric pressure would be roughly similar to the pressure at the bottom of the ocean (mass is the same whether its liquid or gas, it'd just be spread out a bit more after factoring in dry land). For a more specific answer you'd need to tell me what temperature you think the earth had, that would have prevented condensation and how much water you think would be in the atmosphere at that point. If you can find a temperature where condensation is impossible you'll also need to explain why you think the earth never cooled below that point.


Have you, or any scientist observed a star exploding? or tested it etc

Yes, they are called nova or supernova, you can find pictures of them online if you look. We can see the radioactive decay of elements formed during the explosions such as Cobalt detections from SN-1987A.

If not then what you claim here is an assumption, furthermore it is believed that when a star explodes a black hole is formed which would suck all the elements in anyway....

Only stars above the Chandrasekhar limit form black holes and the upper layers of the star gets blasted away prior to the formation of the black hole which allows elements to escape.

Distribution of elelments in the univers matches the distribution of elelments produced in stars"

Now this really is a bold statement to make, since many of the elements are not accounted for in the processes that COULD have happened in the Sun to fuse into them... Furthermore the rates are unknown as well as the concentrations hence this "evidence" is just wind.. There is no logical way anyone can know what you just claimed, you've based this on your own faith.

If you read the article I linked you'd have seen a chart showing the relative abundances of elements in the solar system with an explination for the various peaks and dips relating to the rate of synthesis in stars.

#58 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 25 April 2011 - 11:02 AM

Merging responses to several posts
Water is formed in space, not on earth, when it combines with hydrogen which is the most common substance in the universe.

There is no evidence to suggest that our water came from space. There is also ice on the moon, of course there is water in space, this isn't news to us.


They don't come from our sun, that would be impossible since our sun hasn't died yet.  Heavy elements come from stars that have exploded.  Where are you getting the idea that space doesn't have random gases floating around?  Ever hear of the interstellar medium? nebulae? gas clouds?
Some bacteria are able to change their bouyancy so that would be a possiblity.  A simpler answer would be to just live on the sea floor. (see below for stromatolites link)

To leave a chemical signature on the Earth, the supernova explosion must, according to the current theories of astrophysics, have taken place quite close to Earth, within eight parsecs. If it had taken place much further away, then our solar wind would have shielded us from that supernova explosion. Only a close explosion would have enough force to leave a chemical signature on Earth.

When a star goes supernova, it blasts most of its material into space with great force. When the remnants of that blast made up of plasma, and stellar dust – meet the solar wind, a fight ensues. If the supernova explosion took place nearby, then its blast remnant will likely be fast and dense enough to overwhelm the solar wind. In this way, the remnant – containing certain chemicals like 60Fe can reach the inner solar system. But if the supernova was far away, then the odds are stacked in the solar wind’s favor, and many of the chemicals are held back.

Scientists have a hypothesis that attempts to resolve this problem. When the remnant meets the solar wind, the plasma does get held back but the iron that the plasma contains can actually escape out of the plasma, and continue on into the inner solar system.

Their path to Earth depends on the size of the grains, how much charge they carry on their surface, and the velocity at which the grains travel. Most scientists summarize that at a velocity of 100 kilometers per second, the remnants can easily reach Earth.

This sounds like a problem for Creationists and a score for Evolutionists. Not really. This is VERY theoretical astrophysics. Scientists freely admit that they had to make some assumptions about the density of the iron to get this hypothesis to even sound plausible. In the end, it is still a figment of imagination and is far from empirical Science like you keep trying to point it out to be. Let me welcome you to reality, again. I recommend reading some books like Astrophysics for Dummies so that you can actually understand what you are parroting from other sites.

Reference:

http://www.sciencedi...2f&searchtype=a

#59 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 April 2011 - 11:11 AM

1. Water is formed in space, not on earth,

2. Molecular Oxygen is what was absent from the atmosphere (not to be confused with Oxygen atoms which were part of chemical compounds like water). 

3. O2 is so reactive that it won't exist while there are other elements like Hydrogen/carbon/iron etc. for it to react with (it forms H2O or CO2 or various other oxides instead of existing as O2).  An atmosphere can only contain O2 after all the various oxygen sinks are full.

4. Heavy elements come from stars that have exploded. 

5. Some bacteria are able to change their bouyancy so that would be a possiblity. 

6. A simpler answer would be to just live on the sea floor. (see below for stromatolites link)

7. Actually it's simple logic.  If there's a region of the ocean that is uninhabitable, anything that lives in the ocean must therefore not live in that uninhabitable region.
Granted, this assumes the validity of the creationist argument that UV was lethal at ocean's surface, but I was feeling generous. 

8. If you read the article I linked you'd have seen a chart showing the relative abundances of elements in the solar system with an explination for the various peaks and dips relating to the rate of synthesis in stars.

View Post

As you may have noticed I am not an astrophysicist I am a Biologist... (like this thread was intended to be about in the first place)

1. If this is a fact as you claim, then where is your empirical evidence?

2. Again where is your empirical evidence

3. Yet there is an abundance of O2 and H2 in our atmosphere... According to you all of this should combine to form water, (until one runs out).... Yet there is oxygen in the atmosphere which defies your logic.

4. Again, empirical evidence needed to make a "fact" claim

5. And as I said this would introduce complexity, (apart from photosynthesis) in a cell that is assumed to be the pre-cursor for cellular life... Does this not demonstrate to you the level of complexity that is required for life to occur.. This is in direct contradiction to evolution in which each part / function "evolved" over a slow time... SO I ask you, was it the photosynthesis / bouyancy that evolved first... and how did the cell survive without the other at the time...

6. Right... so photosyntesis can occur on the ocean floor.... 100's of m or even km under the surface... You have a conundrum here, either its too low and cannot photosynthesise or it is too high and gets fryed by the UV light that is not filtered by the aparant lack of oxygen (and thus ozone) in the atmosphere.

7. You did not address my comments.. "and that was a faith statement. Just because something could happen, doesn't necessary mean that it did... Until it is proven, the null hypothesis says no"

In other words the logic fallacy "appello probabilitatem"... You cannot claim something as a fact UNTIL you have empirical evidence for it.. Period.

8. I would rather YOU post the evidences for this chart since it is you who is making the claim... (This way you are accountable, rather than palming it off to a link)

#60 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 25 April 2011 - 11:43 AM

4. Again, empirical evidence needed to make a "fact" claim

There isn't any evidence for his claim. It is only theoretical astrophysics. Unfortunately this guy along with many other evo evangelists don't understand it. Rather they read talk origins and parrot what they read. They state things that are unproven in science as if it is some sort of fact that correlates with their pseudo religion, therefore giving it credibility because it is the "scientific" outlook on things. In reality, it is just taking chosen pieces out of scientific literature and then ignoring the problems that the same literature mentions. I said that the "rational atheist" movement is a joke. I will go further and say that it is not a community that knows anything about science, rather, it is a circus act.

They tend to state things that are still unproven as fact then state that Creationists are stupid and uninformed, when in reality, they don't understand anything that they are copying and pasting from their "atheist" sites that are using selective quoting from "scientific literature." I am going to start looking at the references of talkorigins articles and expose how often that stupid site "quote mines" in secular peer reviewed journals to show how misleading and idiotic the site itself is.

They don't care about Science, they only care about denying God and bringing people to their side so that they can feel better about their folly. They are doing a major disservice to the scientific community by quoting their theoretical literature as if it is fact because it makes the honest scientists look like liars.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users