Jump to content


Photo

"no Evidence" For God Or Creation, The Atheist Claims?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

#61 OmneVivumExVivo

OmneVivumExVivo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Immunology, microbiology, biochemistry... Biology in general, really.
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Wisconsin

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:30 PM

The mainstream scientific community is not fond of panspermia, most of the evidence is usually held back from the public. But this story made the news: http://www.space.com...-discovery.html

This isn't evidence of panspermia. Panspermia is the idea that simple microbial life is widespread in the universe and that meteorites and comets carrying microscopic organisms regularly impact planets. The evidence that you brought to the table has only a passing resemblance to panspermia. Your article shows that the CHEMICALS of life may have been brought to earth by meteorites, not that they brought the ORGANISMS themselves.

Cool stuff, nonetheless.

#62 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:35 PM

This isn't evidence of panspermia. Panspermia is the idea that simple microbial life is widespread in the universe and that meteorites and comets carrying microscopic organisms regularly impact planets. The evidence that you brought to the table has only a passing resemblance to panspermia. Your article shows that the CHEMICALS of life may have been brought to earth by meteorites, not that they brought the ORGANISMS themselves.


It is evidence for panspermia. Yes, microorganisms, small particles, water molecules, bacteria and eukaryotic cells and even viruses have all been found on or encased in debris of meteorites from outer space which have hit earth. This has been well documented, an organism would not survive when entering the earths atmosphere becuase of the heat so don't be expecting that is what panspermia claims, but it has been shown that microorganisms have survived and DNA building blocks becuase they have been encased in the rocks. An estimation on particles entering earth from space is about 1000 tons a year that was data collected in 1978, It may be much more than that now. Most of the public do not know about this information.

#63 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 15 November 2011 - 09:34 PM

It is evidence for panspermia. Yes, microorganisms, small particles, water molecules, bacteria and eukaryotic cells and even viruses have all been found on or encased in debris of meteorites from outer space which have hit earth. This has been well documented, an organism would not survive when entering the earths atmosphere becuase of the heat so don't be expecting that is what panspermia claims, but it has been shown that microorganisms have survived and DNA building blocks becuase they have been encased in the rocks. An estimation on particles entering earth from space is about 1000 tons a year that was data collected in 1978, It may be much more than that now. Most of the public do not know about this information.


...... You do realise that even if the microorganisms are encased in rock the heat from impact would kill them anyway hence I question your claim of being "well documented" lets see the evidence and how well they deal with this issues... Since this IS all hypothetical.

Furthermore I would question the viability of the organism in the rock. It would need to be a lithotroph, however there would be the requirement of a renewing resource since
1. the organism is trapped within the rock
2. the organism utilizes one way transfers in order to generate energy meaning that initial resource will be a limiting one unless is renewable. Fortunately for lithotrophs on Earth the ecosystems and natural processes allow for these resources to be renewed... ie- Lava vents re-newing minerals.

How can such resources required for the organisms be renewed whilst encased in rock.

"Obviously, something this big hitting the Earth is going to hit with a lot of energy! Let's use the energy unit of 1 megaton of TNT (=4.2× 1015 Joules) to describe the energy of the impact. This is the energy one million tons of dynamite would release if it was exploded and is the energy unit used for nuclear explosions. The largest yield of a thermonuclear warhead is around 50--100 megatons. The kinetic energy of the falling object is converted to the explosion when it hits. The 10-kilometer object produces an explosion of 6 × 107 megatons of TNT (equivalent to an earthquake of magnitude 12.4 on the Richter scale). The 1-kilometer object produces a milder explosion of "only" 6 × 104 megatons (equivalent to an earthquake of magnitude 9.4 on the Richter scale).

On its way to the impact, the asteroid pushes aside the air in front of it creating a hole in the atmosphere. The atmosphere above the impact site is removed for several tens of seconds. Before the surrounding air can rush back in to fill the gap, material from the impact: vaporized asteroid, crustal material, and ocean water (if it lands in the ocean), escapes through the hole and follows a ballistic flight back down. Within two minutes after impact, about 105 cubic kilometers of ejecta (1013 tons) is lofted to about 100 kilometers. If the asteroid hits the ocean, the surrounding water returning over the the hot crater floor is vaporized (a large enough impact will break through to the hot lithosphere and maybe the even hotter asthenosphere), sending more water vapor into the air as well as causing huge steam explosions that greatly compound the effect of the initial impact explosion."
http://www.astronomy.../solfluf/s5.htm

So death from explosion if on land or autoclaved if hits water, take your pick... Either way the organisms are dead.

#64 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:44 PM

So death from explosion if on land or autoclaved if hits water, take your pick... Either way the organisms are dead.


It doesn't make sense does it? An asteroid hits and kills dinosaurs on the other side of the planet, while tiny little bacteria survive the inferno at ground zero. :huh:



Thanks.

#65 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 15 November 2011 - 10:05 PM

It doesn't make sense does it? An asteroid hits and kills dinosaurs on the other side of the planet, while tiny little bacteria survive the inferno at ground zero. :huh:



Thanks.


And they say Creationists need lots of faith.... :lol:

#66 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:38 AM

It doesn't make sense does it? An asteroid hits and kills dinosaurs on the other side of the planet, while tiny little bacteria survive the inferno at ground zero. :huh:


C'mon man your killing me here. My sides hurt.. pls no more I wish to live ;)

I think the entirety of the arguement here can be summed up in this way. Unless you can find all the components "required" to form DNA within the meteor then you don't in fact have components "of" DNA. To infer that there are components of DNA we would have to see setions of what is understood as "being" arranged as DNA.
A bit-o-logic and reason here;
There is clay down by the river that posesses all the components "required" to form clay pots and we don't refer to it as a form of pottery... however, we find shards of pottery all the time which is clay based and inferred to be remnants of pottery. So when achaeologists find a few grains of sand that could concievably "become" a component in the clay that forms pottery they don't hit the newsstands with assertions that it was a part of pottery do they? That would be a very unscientific stretch of reason. One must first find the arrangement of DNA structure to infer DNA otherwise you are simply holding a couple of the components with the possibility of use for becoming DNA and nothing more.

This is clean logic with no bias. They found some arrangements of "simple" atoms that could... someday.... eventually...possibly be used in DNA. They did not find any DNA in the meteors or anything that could by any stretch be inferred to be components of DNA. Naturally occurring simple combinations of atoms occur, how many simple forms can occur is up to debate. When they find a meteor that has all four of the components required to possibly build DNA then I want to know... when they find a short section of actual DNA comprised of all these components then I will call in the reporters myself and I will go house to house announcing it. I promise.

Till that time finding a few grains of sand does not pottery make.

#67 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 November 2011 - 06:45 AM

No not may have, they have been found and tested. They found a large number of nucleobases such as Adenine and Guanine (molecules) they have been found in meteorites which are the same as found in dna on earth. The Christian theist would need to explain why these molecules (DNA building blocks) are found in space, when there is no mention of life existing in space in the Bible.


I see that you are totally ignoring my posts (52 & 53). I would suggest that you re read them before attempting to refute them with a mere waving of the hand. Your original post stated that “scraps” were found. AND the link you provided was extremely vague with non-committal language strewn throughout.

#68 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:18 AM

am I missing something here? You were there were you watching God create the genetic code and Dna? What you have is not 100% objective proof. I know Hindu creationists who say Brahman essentially created the DNA, I know ancient astronaut theorists who say extraterrestrials created the DNA, I know new agers who say the origin of DNA has the origins in some universal consciousness (personally that makes more sense that any god creating anything), I also know Darwinists who say the DNA came about by accident. These are all metaphysical positions, we are out of the realm of objectivity here.


I see you are attempting to cherry-pick my post in order to make it say something you can attempt to refute. So I’ll repost it in its entirety so that you have nothing to run from in your disingenuous post.

“DNA scraps have been found on Meteorites”??? Really??? Can you provide links to said evidence? I’d like to take a look at that…

Having said that, the question isn't metaphysical at all, nor does the objective proof need to be ‘objectively 100%’ for this litmus test. There could indeed be a very large amount of evidence supporting a hypothesis, thus giving said hypothesis traction. For example, if everything the New Testament has to say about Jesus is true, than we have unequivocal evidence that God is proven! Further, if God is proven, then God not only created the universe, but DNA as well, and we have 100% objective proof that God did indeed create the genetic code and DNA to create life! Now if you want to argue against that… Okay… Though I doubt I would have posited the question that way, I understand what he was asking. Therefore your answer was far less than the OP asked for (i.e. speculative language).

Further, basing your claim that “religions such as Judaism or Islam have nothing to say about life outside of earth” in no way negates the possibility that God may well have created life outside Earth, so your assumption is nothing more than an example of the logical fallacy “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”, and even “argumentum ex silentio”… Simply because something wasn’t stated, in no way negates its possibility. In fact, the question you posit causes a much larger problem for the materialistic atheist/agnostic than it does for the theist or theistic evolutionist (as BOTH are creationists).

Therefore, to your last question: “what would the Christian explanation for DNA found on a meteorite be?” I would say “So what! This isn’t a problem for the Bible or the Theist!”


And Now I’ll pick apart your less than honest reply:

You said:

am I missing something here?


And your above response was apparently directed toward your edited and cherry-picked (and therefore dishonestly equivocated on your part) portion of my rebuttal to your fallacious post:

and we have 100% objective proof that God did indeed create the genetic code and DNA to create life




So yes, you purposefully missed (and misrepresented) what I said, because I ACTUALLY said:

There could indeed be a very large amount of evidence supporting a hypothesis, thus giving said hypothesis traction. For example, if everything the New Testament has to say about Jesus is true, than we have unequivocal evidence that God is proven! Further, if God is proven, then God not only created the universe, but DNA as well, and we have 100% objective proof that God did indeed create the genetic code and DNA to create life!


I prefaced the entire statement with “if everything the New Testament has to say about Jesus is true”, I then went on to make a hypothetical case as an example only; which of course I can use as a physical case, because I can provide the historical facts in data form. But that was not the point here.

You then went on to make an onerous and totally misleading accusation (in a question form) based upon your cherry-picking (equivocation) of my post:

You were there were you watching God create the genetic code and Dna?


To which I can easily demolish (again) your dishonest accusation with the fact that I prefaced my statement with: “if everything the New Testament has to say about Jesus is true”, and thus re-expose your folly. But, I can also simply use it again and say: If everything the New Testament has to say about Jesus is true, then we already have empirical evidence from the one who did it, AND have 100% objective proof! But that was never my intent!

The rest of your fallacious post is moot because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with my post, due mainly to your cherry-picking of my post. Therefore, your deceptive post moved you right out of the realm OF “objectivity”.

#69 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:48 AM

It is evidence for panspermia.

Actually, no, it is not “evidence” for panspermia. It is nothing more than a basis for a hypothesis. In order for it to be evidence, you’d have to provide empirical evidence that life on this planet arose from such, and survived and macro evolved. But none of this has ever ‘evidenced’, therefore you are postulating an inaccuracy.



Yes, microorganisms, small particles, water molecules, bacteria and eukaryotic cells and even viruses have all been found on or encased in debris of meteorites from outer space which have hit earth.

And yet this hypothesis has never been empirically evidenced to have produced life. And is therefore rendered as moot in the objective conversation of evidence.

This has been well documented, an organism would not survive when entering the earths atmosphere becuase of the heat so don't be expecting that is what panspermia claims, but it has been shown that microorganisms have survived and DNA building blocks becuase they have been encased in the rocks. An estimation on particles entering earth from space is about 1000 tons a year that was data collected in 1978, It may be much more than that now. Most of the public do not know about this information.

Well documented or not, none of it meets your initial premise of evidence for panspermia. And until you have provided such “empirical evidence”, you are doing nothing more than postulating a hypothesis as a fact. And this is disingenuous at best.

If you want to assert any of the above as hypothesis, that is fine. But if you continue to push it as fact and evidence, you will be exposed at every turn (or worse)…

#70 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 16 November 2011 - 08:51 AM

Well documented or not, none of it meets your initial premise of evidence for panspermia. And until you have provided such “empirical evidence”, you are doing nothing more than postulating a hypothesis as a fact. And this is disingenuous at best.

If you want to assert any of the above as hypothesis, that is fine. But if you continue to push it as fact and evidence, you will be exposed at every turn (or worse)…


I'd also like to reiterate that I have asked for this documentation since if logic serves me well, any organism riding to Earth from an asteroid would be obliterated from the impact. Furthermore there is an impasse of logic

Small asteroid used- Smaller explosion on impact. However heat from passing through atmosphere will be easier to transfer to the core due to the small size thus cooking the organisms. Furthermore most small asteroids are broken up before they even reach Earth.

Large Asteroid used- Redundant size means heat transfer will not cook the organisms encased. However large size will result in a huge explosion thus killing the organisms on impact.

Perhaps this eventuality did not strike the evolutionists promugulating the hypothesis... Perhaps they envisioned that some asteroids gently float down to the ground... Or that heat transfer in rock is nill so that the core will not cook the organisms :huh::blink:
The more I look at evolutionary ideas the more I see that there is little logic or common sense to them.... So (jokingly), this begs the question, what do you call common sense when it isn't common? :P

#71 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 16 November 2011 - 06:17 PM

stupidity.

#72 OmneVivumExVivo

OmneVivumExVivo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Immunology, microbiology, biochemistry... Biology in general, really.
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Wisconsin

Posted 17 November 2011 - 05:29 PM

C'mon man your killing me here. My sides hurt.. pls no more I wish to live ;)

I think the entirety of the argument here can be summed up in this way. Unless you can find all the components "required" to form DNA within the meteor then you don't in fact have components "of" DNA. To infer that there are components of DNA we would have to see sections of what is understood as "being" arranged as DNA.
A bit-o-logic and reason here;
There is clay down by the river that possesses all the components "required" to form clay pots and we don't refer to it as a form of pottery... however, we find shards of pottery all the time which is clay based and inferred to be remnants of pottery. So when archaeologists find a few grains of sand that could conceivably "become" a component in the clay that forms pottery they don't hit the newsstands with assertions that it was a part of pottery do they? That would be a very unscientific stretch of reason. One must first find the arrangement of DNA structure to infer DNA otherwise you are simply holding a couple of the components with the possibility of use for becoming DNA and nothing more.

If I understand Shaddow's claims correctly, he's asserting that a variety of organisms and selfish replicating entities(viruses, prions, viroids, etc.) have come in from space, including bacteria, viruses, and even eukaryotes.

I'm still waiting for evidence, but I'm sure he either has something that he read and extrapolated from, or (I'm hoping this second one is the case, just because it would be so darn interesting!) he found a source none of us have seen yet that confirms his view.

#73 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:48 AM

If I understand Shaddow's claims correctly, he's asserting that a variety of organisms and selfish replicating entities(viruses, prions, viroids, etc.) have come in from space, including bacteria, viruses, and even eukaryotes.
I'm still waiting for evidence, but I'm sure he either has something that he read and extrapolated from, or (I'm hoping this second one is the case, just because it would be so darn interesting!) he found a source none of us have seen yet that confirms his view.


I believe you already provided a reply earlier regarding the reference to the evidence that he provided in his post;

The mainstream scientific community is not fond of panspermia, most of the evidence is usually held back from the public. But this story made the news: http://www.space.com...-discovery.html


The entirety of the assertion of DNA being found was all hype to directly infer that DNA could arrive from space "if" components or building blocks could arrive. The part that remains unanswered is how the blocks could ever be arranged into the form of DNA. No matter how many simple components are found or how many methods can be determined to be capable of forming these simple components there will always be the brick wall of how they get arranged in a functional form. Of course, there would also be the question of what could translate the DNA to effect the actual use of the information it contained.

I did however find this on a search for such evidence;

Biologia.— Microbes in rocks and meteorites : a new form of life unaffected by time,
temperature, pressure. Nota di Giuseppe Geraci, Rosanna del Gaudio e Bruno D’Argenio,
presentata (*) dal Socio B. D’Argenio.

An interesting consequence of these findings, among others, is the support to the hypothesis that life came from outside Earth with the additional indication that it was already present in those materials that accreted to form the solar planetary system.
http://www.lincei.it/pubblicazioni/rendicontiFMN/rol/pdf/S2001-01-04.pdf

I will read this further to see what it really means.

#74 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 January 2012 - 05:41 AM



The mainstream scientific community is not fond of panspermia, most of the evidence is usually held back from the public. But this story made the news: http://www.space.com...-discovery.html


The entirety of the assertion of DNA being found was all hype to directly infer that DNA could arrive from space "if" components or building blocks could arrive. The part that remains unanswered is how the blocks could ever be arranged into the form of DNA. No matter how many simple components are found or how many methods can be determined to be capable of forming these simple components there will always be the brick wall of how they get arranged in a functional form. Of course, there would also be the question of what could translate the DNA to effect the actual use of the information it contained.

I did however find this on a search for such evidence;

Biologia.— Microbes in rocks and meteorites : a new form of life unaffected by time,
temperature, pressure. Nota di Giuseppe Geraci, Rosanna del Gaudio e Bruno D’Argenio,
presentata (*) dal Socio B. D’Argenio.

An interesting consequence of these findings, among others, is the support to the hypothesis that life came from outside Earth with the additional indication that it was already present in those materials that accreted to form the solar planetary system.
http://www.lincei.it...S2001-01-04.pdf

I will read this further to see what it really means.


What never ceases to amaze me is that both you and shadow (amongst others who attempt to support models like panspermia as fact) continually endeavor to pass off mere opinion as verity by positing links bereft of substantiation needed to do so.

So, if you would, provide within the link you have submitted, the facts/evidences that support your assertion for panspermia. Shadow failed to do so in his link; somehow he thought by merely providing a link, his job was done. But, upon further scrutiny, his link was exposed as “mere opinion” as well.

#75 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 17 January 2012 - 07:55 PM

question, what do you call common sense when it isn't common? Posted Image


More like, what do you call common sense when it doesn't make sense? Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users