Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158373 is a reply to message #158366] |
Sat, 04 June 2005 12:28   |
Weirdo
Messages: 369
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
Altough I'm a religious man, I don't really trust this source. I haven't watched the movie completly.
Sentences like this is what made me wonder.
| Quote: |
The Bible is the only holy book in the world that is scientifically accurate. In addition, scientific foreknowledge demonstrates that the Bible is truly the Word of God.
|
Shouldn't this topic be more for the Hot Topics.
Of Topic: Does anyone know where the quote button is. I had to manually type the quotes.
Size doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158726 is a reply to message #158406] |
Mon, 06 June 2005 16:07 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| GoArmy44 wrote on Sat, 04 June 2005 19:24 |
I am not too big on science, but I know what spontaneous generation is, and saying that life came from a lightning strike and some gas kinda disproves thier agrument.
|
So you know, the primordial soup theory and spontaneous generation are two different things.
- Spontaneous Generation is the idea that, for instance, maggots can appear on rotting meat. Francisco Redi disproved this, if you care.
- The primordial soup theory states that chemically-laden soup way back when the earth was quite different was hit by lightning, producing enough amino acids to produce protocells. Amino acids produced by lightning has been proven in laboratory conditions. To be fair, you can make just about anything you want by shocking a chemical liquid with lightning.
On the topic of this movie, I got about 1/6 through it. I've seen all this before. They bend random scientific snippets, like the second law of thermodynamics into having different meanings.
I wonder what Steven Jay Gould thinks of this.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158740 is a reply to message #158726] |
Mon, 06 June 2005 18:03 |
 |
GoArmy44
Messages: 265
Registered: October 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Mon, 06 June 2005 18:37 |
| GoArmy44 wrote on Sat, 04 June 2005 19:24 |
I am not too big on science, but I know what spontaneous generation is, and saying that life came from a lightning strike and some gas kinda disproves thier agrument.
|
So you know, the primordial soup theory and spontaneous generation are two different things.
- Spontaneous Generation is the idea that, for instance, maggots can appear on rotting meat. Francisco Redi disproved this, if you care.
- The primordial soup theory states that chemically-laden soup way back when the earth was quite different was hit by lightning, producing enough amino acids to produce protocells. Amino acids produced by lightning has been proven in laboratory conditions. To be fair, you can make just about anything you want by shocking a chemical liquid with lightning.
On the topic of this movie, I got about 1/6 through it. I've seen all this before. They bend random scientific snippets, like the second law of thermodynamics into having different meanings.
I wonder what Steven Jay Gould thinks of this.
|
So, the primordial soup theory says that life comes from non-living substances?
spontaneous generation
n : a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter [syn: abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny]
Reconcilia Rem Publicam!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158755 is a reply to message #158726] |
Mon, 06 June 2005 20:56 |
 |
DarkDemin
Messages: 1483
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Mon, 06 June 2005 19:07 |
| GoArmy44 wrote on Sat, 04 June 2005 19:24 |
I am not too big on science, but I know what spontaneous generation is, and saying that life came from a lightning strike and some gas kinda disproves thier agrument.
|
So you know, the primordial soup theory and spontaneous generation are two different things.
- Spontaneous Generation is the idea that, for instance, maggots can appear on rotting meat. Francisco Redi disproved this, if you care.
- The primordial soup theory states that chemically-laden soup way back when the earth was quite different was hit by lightning, producing enough amino acids to produce protocells. Amino acids produced by lightning has been proven in laboratory conditions. To be fair, you can make just about anything you want by shocking a chemical liquid with lightning.
On the topic of this movie, I got about 1/6 through it. I've seen all this before. They bend random scientific snippets, like the second law of thermodynamics into having different meanings.
I wonder what Steven Jay Gould thinks of this.
|
Yum Campbell's soup of God jizz. That is scientific twisting right there folks.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158780 is a reply to message #158740] |
Tue, 07 June 2005 04:53 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| GoArmy44 wrote on Mon, 06 June 2005 21:03 |
So, the primordial soup theory says that life comes from non-living substances?
spontaneous generation
n : a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter [syn: abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny]
|
You missed the point of what I said. Spontanteous generation is more upon the lines of whole creatures appearing for no reason at all. The primordial soup theory has been proven in laboratories to produce biological chemicals like amino acids that can combine to form growing protocells. And then, over about a billion years time, it's quite likely these protocells turned into you and me.
| DarkDemin |
Yum Campbell's soup of God jizz. That is scientific twisting right there folks.
|
Did you take Biology as a freshman?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158928 is a reply to message #158366] |
Tue, 07 June 2005 18:39 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
*gets 'that sinking feeling' that both sides are speaking to each other on completely different wavelengths*
Spontaneous generation is NOT the same. Spontaneous generation assumes that a new life form can simply pop into existence. Out of nowhere. With no stimulus for change. Hence the word "spontaneous," which is defined as "Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated." or "Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint." In other words, Spontaneuous generation is when something brings ITSELF into existence, without the assistance of an outside force. Not God, not electrostatic discharge, not a freshly baked pie on grandma's windowsill. Nothing. Something out of nothing, rather.
Primordial Soup is (was) a mass of organic (but not living) matter. BAM! Lightning strikes the Primordial Soup. A reaction occurs, forming more complex proteins out of less complex amino acids (proteins, as we all know, are the building blocks of life- every known living organism has 'em). Over time, these proteins group together. Eventually, DNA pops up. When all is in order, BAM! some other stimulus (presumably a shocking one) causes everything to begin ticking...voila, life.
The two are not one in the same.
The only comment I can think of on that video is that it really doesn't prove anything- it is extremely biased towards one side of the argument, and it was created for the purpose of proving one theory right while proving another wrong (in layman's terms, it has an agenda- you might recognize the filmmaking techniques as ones which are used by a *cartain other* filmmaker who claims that his works are *documentaries*...*cough*MichaelMoore*cough*). It does not use the Scientific Method- if it did, it would gather data THEN draw conclusions. Instead, it draws a conclusion THEN collects data to support it. See the difference?
*EDIT* Oh shit, I actually agree with SFE...that's a new feeling.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
[Updated on: Tue, 07 June 2005 18:40] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158938 is a reply to message #158929] |
Tue, 07 June 2005 20:06 |
 |
ghostSWT
Messages: 262
Registered: December 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
No simple video will ever change peoples minds about what theory is right. I personally believe in "Evolution", and the only thing that will convince me about creationism and god is if I see god for my self and he can make some miracles happen just in front of me...
As for all the mathematical probabilities that were in the video so what 1/10^40 is not that bad seeing how many galaxys/stars/planets.... if probability for life was 1/5 then we would of found it by now but it's not. Also the chances of wining the lottery are let's say 1/10^6 which is a lot smaller then the chances of life coming from nothing but still people win it all the time. So even if lottery was 1/10^40 after millions of years and billions of people playing it I'm 100% sure someone will win it.
Also I can prove using simple 8th grade math that you can't get from a car to the light pole 10 feet away from the car. Does that make it true or impossible to do? Nope, I'm sure all of you can actually make it 10 feet but mathematically it's impossible. There is a live that connects the car and the pole, the line also has infinite points... Now to get from the car to the pole you have to go threw the 1/2 way point, then there will be another 1/2 way point between that and pole, and so on and so on so no mater how close you get to the pole there will be a 1/2 way point(infinite points on a line). So math can be used to prove some things that are logically NOT true.
And as for all the examples they used saying that evolution is incorrect, just cause we haven't found a way to prove it yet doesn't mean it's not true. Show me I scientific example that proves that god created all living things, show me god...
And lastly they said that all the things in the bible are scientific, and that's just crap http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html << has some examples of things in the bible that are scientifically untrue and contradictory to what was stated in the movie.
[Updated on: Tue, 07 June 2005 20:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158952 is a reply to message #158366] |
Wed, 08 June 2005 00:26 |
 |
Doitle
Messages: 1723
Registered: February 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator/Captain |
|
|
Actually Ghost that's 100% correct. It's not some flawed 8th grade science as you seem to think. It IS impossible to go anywhere or touch anything. We are always no where and we are always untouced. We never reach, or touch anything. Carbon will back me up on this. You are correct in your statement that you pass the midpoint. But the real thruth is, we never touch a thing, our body is comprised of atoms that just don't touch. Tiny spaces between them. When you pet your dog, the atoms in your hand are getting close to the atoms of the dog, but they never touch. The reason being that the center of anything that exists, IS nonexistant. Spaces smaller than the planck length do not exist. There is an identity for distance known as R or 1/R. When you approach something, and your distance gets infinately small, approaching 1 the planck length. 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1, Then it flips and goes 1/.5, 1/.25. Uh oh? What happened? 1/.5 is 2. 1/.25 is 4. You see, as you got closer, you hit the planck length and began to get farther away. This coupled with what I explained earlier. Proves that you really cannot go anywhere, touch anything, or arrive at any destination.
[Updated on: Wed, 08 June 2005 00:28] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158967 is a reply to message #158952] |
Wed, 08 June 2005 04:48 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Woah, there's a planck's length? I thought there was only a planck's constant.
Doitle, while we're on the topic, can you be inside something, like an airport? Or arrive at a destination 5x5 foot square? And if there is no distance less than planck's constant, why doesn't putting your finger a planck's constant away from another object count as touching it, since operationally there is nothing there?
Sorry I might not be able to get my tone across right after I wake up, but so you know, I don't mean to be confrontational.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Evolution vs Creationism [message #158990 is a reply to message #158928] |
Wed, 08 June 2005 09:40 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
(kinda off-topic, but somewhat related)
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 07 June 2005 21:39 |
Primordial Soup is (was) a mass of organic (but not living) matter. BAM! Lightning strikes the Primordial Soup. A reaction occurs, forming more complex proteins out of less complex amino acids (proteins, as we all know, are the building blocks of life- every known living organism has 'em). Over time, these proteins group together. Eventually, DNA pops up. When all is in order, BAM! some other stimulus (presumably a shocking one) causes everything to begin ticking...voila, life.
|
| Me in a thread on the RA:APB forums over a year ago more or less about the same topic |
| Ilya86 @ May 26 2004, 03:21 PM |
The guy talkinga bout the lightning being bull crap....
you realize that this has been tried and proven?
when they did it, they got proteins, and so on.
|
| Vladivostok |
Started with the basics of proteins being created, then proteins, the advanced proteins, then maybe some living after a long period of time. I believe in that
|
If I am not mistaken, you both refer to the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis which is basically the primordial soup model of the origin of life. The Miller-Urey experiment set out to test this hypothesis to see if inorganic molecules could actually form organic molecules such as simple sugars and proteins with the addition of heat and electricity. The experiment produced amino acids, fatty acids, hydroxy acids and amide products among a range of organic polymers. No proteins or sugars, though, and this was after a week of running a continuous discharge of 60,000 volts of electricity with the supposed gases of the early Earth atmosphere in a concentrated place. Does a bolt of lightning strike in the same place for a whole week with all the required molecules held in one place during that entire time? If such a process HAD actually occurred, it would have taken billions upon billions of years for the first protein to ever show up! However, the oldest known bacteria fossil is 3.5 billion years old, meaning life was created much earlier than the primordial soup model would allow.
|
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Wed, 08 June 2005 09:41] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 18 14:56:01 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03615 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
. 2nd button on the right.
