wtf?

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Creationism addendum:
Also incorporates the belief that the formation of this intelligent designer is somehow an easier process than the formation of the Universe from various chemicals, whose actions are dictated by predictable, nonrandom processes (gravity for instance).

But how would that creature be bound to the laws of the physical realm if he is a spirit?

Do "spirits" have their own set of laws? Which laws are they exempt from, and how would you know? If you can simply discard these laws at will, then would it not be acceptable to also say that cause and effect didn't exist in the "time" preceding the Big Bang? It's been theorized that the Big Bang was an eruption of both space and time, thus causality as we understand it would not have existed.

Originally posted by: invidia
I still believe in the Greek Gods. But, the Roman Gods, ehh.......

Some day, in a thousand years (maybe less), they'll include the stories of Jesus and Allah right alongside those of Ra and Zeus.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Creationism addendum:
Also incorporates the belief that the formation of this intelligent designer is somehow an easier process than the formation of the Universe from various chemicals, whose actions are dictated by predictable, nonrandom processes (gravity for instance).

But how would that creature be bound to the laws of the physical realm if he is a spirit?

You missed his point. Belief in a creator is a much larger assumption than belief in abiogenesis. You are attempting to explain the existence of a complex molecule by conjuring up a vastly more complex designer.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Does anyone actually believe this creationism bullshit?

Honestly? The idea that this was all designed is MUCH more compelling than the idea that it all magically happened. I stir shit in flasks all day. I put a lot of work into getting even the most trivial of reactions to work. To say that somehow, somewhere, conditions existed where life could be spawned, and further than that, THRIVE and replicate, is laughable. I want what those people are smoking.

I hope you don't really work in a UCLA lab.

Hahahahaha. Why?

Because you're object to evolution is so absurdly ridiculous. Abiogenesis (what you appear to object to) is not part of evolutionary theory and even if you believe that a divine being created the first cell, it takes true "doublethink" to deny evolution.

Btw, in case it wasn't clear, creationism means young earth creationism, not intelligent design.

Try that again, please?

Lol...

Abiogenesis is unrelated to evolutionary theory so objecting to abiogenesis is rather meaningless in the context of evolution.

Ok, without abiogenesis, you have no evolution according to the theory. And the question is?

Just listen to the theory: One time, at some place, under some conditions, life spontaneously formed. For no reason. Not only did it form, it kept going. Despite ALL the life we've observed in our recorded history, and the fact that abiogenesis has never been seen, we're going to use that to start the story.

It's called hand waving. Does that even SOUND like common sense to anyone else?

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
No Oxygen? Why not?

Ok, then you have a reducing atmosphere. Same problem. So you have metal hydrides, sulfides, etc. How is that better for propgation of life? All your organic molecules are presumably formed from CO2. They are then reduced, ostensibly to carbohydrates. Esters and Organic acids are reduced under such conditions, and the basis for metabolism of most creatures on this planet is negated (ATP hydrolysis, fatty acid synthesis, etc).

Having a reducing environment does not make for more gentle conditions, just different reactivity. Throw some LAH in water for a demonstration :-D

Life probably formed in a CO2 rich atmosphere, IIRC.

That's the problem. It doesn't matter if you remember, because no body knows. This isn't even science. It's assumptions and conjecture. The basis of science is a testable hypothesis. Unless you were there, it doesn't leave much for testing, now does it?

Scientists HAVE created the molecules that we believe are the basis of life in a lab. I guess it was not that lab you work in.

Please. I create the molecules of life all the time. I do NOT, however, create life itself. There is the problem. You can have all the ingredients for life, and not have life.

Imagine someone who dies. They try to resuscitate him, but fail. Why? Why does he die? He has EVERYTHING he needs to live, and yet does not.

I can throw all 20 amino acids together in a flask, add some acid (or whatever the hell else you feel is necessary) and not come up with an enzyme.

People make the mistake of saying "we have evidence that the molecules of life were here" and extrapolate that to mean "we found life!"

as i said before...

The funniest thing is, creationists bash evolution, but provide no evidence for their own theory, but while evolutionists also bash creationists, they turn up almost incontrovertible evidence for their own theory.

BOOM Headshot

:beer:

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
No Oxygen? Why not?

Ok, then you have a reducing atmosphere. Same problem. So you have metal hydrides, sulfides, etc. How is that better for propgation of life? All your organic molecules are presumably formed from CO2. They are then reduced, ostensibly to carbohydrates. Esters and Organic acids are reduced under such conditions, and the basis for metabolism of most creatures on this planet is negated (ATP hydrolysis, fatty acid synthesis, etc).

Having a reducing environment does not make for more gentle conditions, just different reactivity. Throw some LAH in water for a demonstration :-D

Life probably formed in a CO2 rich atmosphere, IIRC.

That's the problem. It doesn't matter if you remember, because no body knows. This isn't even science. It's assumptions and conjecture. The basis of science is a testable hypothesis. Unless you were there, it doesn't leave much for testing, now does it?

Scientists HAVE created the molecules that we believe are the basis of life in a lab. I guess it was not that lab you work in.

Please. I create the molecules of life all the time. I do NOT, however, create life itself. There is the problem. You can have all the ingredients for life, and not have life.

Imagine someone who dies. They try to resuscitate him, but fail. Why? Why does he die? He has EVERYTHING he needs to live, and yet does not.

I can throw all 20 amino acids together in a flask, add some acid (or whatever the hell else you feel is necessary) and not come up with an enzyme.

People make the mistake of saying "we have evidence that the molecules of life were here" and extrapolate that to mean "we found life!"

as i said before...

The funniest thing is, creationists bash evolution, but provide no evidence for their own theory, but while evolutionists also bash creationists, they turn up almost incontrovertible evidence for their own theory.

BOOM Headshot

:beer:

Evolution is not abiogenesis.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
No Oxygen? Why not?

Ok, then you have a reducing atmosphere. Same problem. So you have metal hydrides, sulfides, etc. How is that better for propgation of life? All your organic molecules are presumably formed from CO2. They are then reduced, ostensibly to carbohydrates. Esters and Organic acids are reduced under such conditions, and the basis for metabolism of most creatures on this planet is negated (ATP hydrolysis, fatty acid synthesis, etc).

Having a reducing environment does not make for more gentle conditions, just different reactivity. Throw some LAH in water for a demonstration :-D

Life probably formed in a CO2 rich atmosphere, IIRC.

That's the problem. It doesn't matter if you remember, because no body knows. This isn't even science. It's assumptions and conjecture. The basis of science is a testable hypothesis. Unless you were there, it doesn't leave much for testing, now does it?

Scientists HAVE created the molecules that we believe are the basis of life in a lab. I guess it was not that lab you work in.

Please. I create the molecules of life all the time. I do NOT, however, create life itself. There is the problem. You can have all the ingredients for life, and not have life.

Imagine someone who dies. They try to resuscitate him, but fail. Why? Why does he die? He has EVERYTHING he needs to live, and yet does not.

I can throw all 20 amino acids together in a flask, add some acid (or whatever the hell else you feel is necessary) and not come up with an enzyme.

People make the mistake of saying "we have evidence that the molecules of life were here" and extrapolate that to mean "we found life!"

because, it's probably an extremely rare occurance, simple enough to grasp...

ok, even if it's extremely rare, shouldn't we have seen it? somewhere?

no? we can't? Maybe it's a bad idea then....

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Do "spirits" have their own set of laws? Which laws are they exempt from, and how would you know? If you can simply discard these laws at will, then would it not be acceptable to also say that cause and effect didn't exist in the "time" preceding the Big Bang? It's been theorized that the Big Bang was an eruption of both space and time, thus causality as we understand it would not have existed.

I think I grasp your concept. Is it that the Big Bang occurred in a "time" or realm before the advent of the physical laws that bind matter to this dimension and that these laws were a direct result of the event known as the Big Bang?

 

[sandorski]

Silly people. The Earth is 6 Days old! All references beyond 6 days including your Memories were placed there by God to test your Faith!!

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
No Oxygen? Why not?

Ok, then you have a reducing atmosphere. Same problem. So you have metal hydrides, sulfides, etc. How is that better for propgation of life? All your organic molecules are presumably formed from CO2. They are then reduced, ostensibly to carbohydrates. Esters and Organic acids are reduced under such conditions, and the basis for metabolism of most creatures on this planet is negated (ATP hydrolysis, fatty acid synthesis, etc).

Having a reducing environment does not make for more gentle conditions, just different reactivity. Throw some LAH in water for a demonstration :-D

Life probably formed in a CO2 rich atmosphere, IIRC.

That's the problem. It doesn't matter if you remember, because no body knows. This isn't even science. It's assumptions and conjecture. The basis of science is a testable hypothesis. Unless you were there, it doesn't leave much for testing, now does it?

Scientists HAVE created the molecules that we believe are the basis of life in a lab. I guess it was not that lab you work in.

Please. I create the molecules of life all the time. I do NOT, however, create life itself. There is the problem. You can have all the ingredients for life, and not have life.

Imagine someone who dies. They try to resuscitate him, but fail. Why? Why does he die? He has EVERYTHING he needs to live, and yet does not.

I can throw all 20 amino acids together in a flask, add some acid (or whatever the hell else you feel is necessary) and not come up with an enzyme.

People make the mistake of saying "we have evidence that the molecules of life were here" and extrapolate that to mean "we found life!"

because, it's probably an extremely rare occurance, simple enough to grasp...

ok, even if it's extremely rare, shouldn't we have seen it? somewhere?

no? we can't? Maybe it's a bad idea then....

lets see, have we not seen another god appear? wait, we can't? must be a bad idea! but wait, evolution takes bilions of years! of course we can't see it! and refer to my above post

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Ok, without abiogenesis, you have no evolution according to the theory. And the question is?

Wtf are you talking about? Honestly. You can have evolution without abiogenesis.

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Just listen to the theory: One time, at some place, under some conditions, life spontaneously formed. For no reason.

What do you mean by "no reason"?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: joshsquall
The world will be so much better when people realize both ideas can co-exist.

No, I think it would be much better if we stuck to teaching about science in our science classes instead of sky fairies.

Where did you go to school that your science teachers taught you about creationism? Sounds like more of a teacher issue than a system-wide issue.

My comments were more towards the ultra conservative Christian belief set. I think most (non-delusional) non-Christians admit that they don't know where all of the matter in the universe came from. Ultra conservative Christians tend to think evolution is the exact opposite of their beliefs, when they couldn't be more wrong. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin matter or even the origin of life.

They didn't and that's my point! I don't want the fundies teaching this fucking nonsense to my son. :|

 

[uclaLabrat]

We haven't seen another god because all our bases are belonging to him....


I thought you just said evolution isn't abiogenesis?

We already agreed we CAN see evolution.

Now you're saying abiogensis takes billions of years? Shouldn't, it should only take a few seconds. It's just a reaction. If you reaction takes a billion years, your yield must suck.

It'd be a bitch of a way to get a Ph. D.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
No Oxygen? Why not?

Ok, then you have a reducing atmosphere. Same problem. So you have metal hydrides, sulfides, etc. How is that better for propgation of life? All your organic molecules are presumably formed from CO2. They are then reduced, ostensibly to carbohydrates. Esters and Organic acids are reduced under such conditions, and the basis for metabolism of most creatures on this planet is negated (ATP hydrolysis, fatty acid synthesis, etc).

Having a reducing environment does not make for more gentle conditions, just different reactivity. Throw some LAH in water for a demonstration :-D

Life probably formed in a CO2 rich atmosphere, IIRC.

That's the problem. It doesn't matter if you remember, because no body knows. This isn't even science. It's assumptions and conjecture. The basis of science is a testable hypothesis. Unless you were there, it doesn't leave much for testing, now does it?

Scientists HAVE created the molecules that we believe are the basis of life in a lab. I guess it was not that lab you work in.

Please. I create the molecules of life all the time. I do NOT, however, create life itself. There is the problem. You can have all the ingredients for life, and not have life.

Imagine someone who dies. They try to resuscitate him, but fail. Why? Why does he die? He has EVERYTHING he needs to live, and yet does not.

I can throw all 20 amino acids together in a flask, add some acid (or whatever the hell else you feel is necessary) and not come up with an enzyme.

People make the mistake of saying "we have evidence that the molecules of life were here" and extrapolate that to mean "we found life!"

because, it's probably an extremely rare occurance, simple enough to grasp...

ok, even if it's extremely rare, shouldn't we have seen it? somewhere?

no? we can't? Maybe it's a bad idea then....

We have.. Protobionts.

Basically, you put a bunch of chemicals into a flask. And out of it, something pops out. Its a membrane, And amazingly enough, the environment inside the membrane is different from the environment outside. And holy crap, its actually doing some things associated with life. primitive forms of respiration, keeping a intact different environment on the inside, and even sometimes.. reproduction.

We have NO idea why it happens. All we know is that, it happens.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Do "spirits" have their own set of laws? Which laws are they exempt from, and how would you know? If you can simply discard these laws at will, then would it not be acceptable to also say that cause and effect didn't exist in the "time" preceding the Big Bang? It's been theorized that the Big Bang was an eruption of both space and time, thus causality as we understand it would not have existed.

I think I grasp your concept. Is it that the Big Bang occurred in a "time" or realm before the advent of the physical laws that bind matter to this dimension and that these laws were a direct result of the event known as the Big Bang?

Something along those lines. These "laws" are things which we observe, which just happen to be properties of what happened, just as one would observe the temperature of a liquid using a thermometer; they're properties as well. Try to push your hand through a solid object. The electric repulsion of the electrons in their orbits prevents you from accomplishing this. This reaction is simply a property of the electrons and their charge. Like charges repel. This particular realm which came from that singularity seems to obey certain things which we refer to as "laws."

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
We haven't seen another god because all our bases are belonging to him....


I thought you just said evolution isn't abiogenesis?

We already agreed we CAN see evolution.

Now you're saying abiogensis takes billions of years? Shouldn't, it should only take a few seconds. It's just a reaction. If you reaction takes a billion years, your yield must suck.

It'd be a bitch of a way to get a Ph. D.

Nature doesn't have "goals." It just does things, and results happen.
Abiogenesis may not take billions of years. It may just take a lot of tries for it to happen. Or it may take a set of circumstances which we do not yet know of, but which were present long ago. We're trying to duplicate in just a few centuries what may well have taken nature billions of years to accomplish.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: joshsquall
The world will be so much better when people realize both ideas can co-exist.

No, I think it would be much better if we stuck to teaching about science in our science classes instead of sky fairies.

Where did you go to school that your science teachers taught you about creationism? Sounds like more of a teacher issue than a system-wide issue.

My comments were more towards the ultra conservative Christian belief set. I think most (non-delusional) non-Christians admit that they don't know where all of the matter in the universe came from. Ultra conservative Christians tend to think evolution is the exact opposite of their beliefs, when they couldn't be more wrong. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin matter or even the origin of life.

They didn't and that's my point! I don't want the fundies teaching this fucking nonsense to my son. :|

Is someone threatening to? Or are you just being unrealistically paranoid about the indoctrination of your child?

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Ok, without abiogenesis, you have no evolution according to the theory. And the question is?

Wtf are you talking about? Honestly. You can have evolution without abiogenesis.

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Just listen to the theory: One time, at some place, under some conditions, life spontaneously formed. For no reason.

What do you mean by "no reason"?

If you have no life, how do you have evolution, pray tell?

(Ignores obvious south park reference)


All reactions, everything in the known universe, requires a reason, usually energetic. If it's spontaneous, it gives off heat, or creates disorder. If it's not spontaneous, it requires energy input.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
I thought you just said evolution isn't abiogenesis?

We already agreed we CAN see evolution.

Yes. I was under the impression that you believed the earth was 6000 years old. If not then this debate is over.

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
Now you're saying abiogensis takes billions of years? Shouldn't, it should only take a few seconds. It's just a reaction. If you reaction takes a billion years, your yield must suck.

The reaction itself may be fast, but it also may be extremely difficult to reproduce. I believe it was one billion years before life formed on earth.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
If you have no life, how do you have evolution, pray tell?

You keep missing the point. Evolution explains the progression of life, not the creation of life.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
If you have no life, how do you have evolution, pray tell?

You keep missing the point. Evolution explains the progression of life, not the creation of life.

Exactly what I'm saying and what most people fail to understand.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Something along those lines. These "laws" are things which we observe, which just happen to be properties of what happened, just as one would observe the temperature of a liquid using a thermometer; they're properties as well. Try to push your hand through a solid object. The electric repulsion of the electrons in their orbits prevents you from accomplishing this. This reaction is simply a property of the electrons and their charge. Like charges repel. This particular realm which came from that singularity seems to obey certain things which we refer to as "laws."

Then if it were possible for an element such as the Big Bang to "exist" before "erupting," why is the prospect of a living element that exists behind this realm so ridiculous?

Also, wouldn't this require the acceptance of the Big Bang to be a faith, considering that science is concerned with causes and effects existing in physical reality; and the Big Bang being outside of this reality, unprovable by scientific means?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Something along those lines. These "laws" are things which we observe, which just happen to be properties of what happened, just as one would observe the temperature of a liquid using a thermometer; they're properties as well. Try to push your hand through a solid object. The electric repulsion of the electrons in their orbits prevents you from accomplishing this. This reaction is simply a property of the electrons and their charge. Like charges repel. This particular realm which came from that singularity seems to obey certain things which we refer to as "laws."

Then if it were possible for an element such as the Big Bang to "exist" before "erupting," why is the prospect of a living element that exists behind this realm so ridiculous?

Also, wouldn't this require the acceptance of the Big Bang to be a faith, considering that science is concerned with causes and effects existing in physical reality; and the Big Bang being outside of this reality, unprovable by scientific means?

The Big Bang has hard scientific evidence behind it. The only problem we have is that calculating the Big Bang itself would require the unification of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, something we have not done yet

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Something along those lines. These "laws" are things which we observe, which just happen to be properties of what happened, just as one would observe the temperature of a liquid using a thermometer; they're properties as well. Try to push your hand through a solid object. The electric repulsion of the electrons in their orbits prevents you from accomplishing this. This reaction is simply a property of the electrons and their charge. Like charges repel. This particular realm which came from that singularity seems to obey certain things which we refer to as "laws."

Then if it were possible for an element such as the Big Bang to "exist" before "erupting," why is the prospect of a living element that exists behind this realm so ridiculous?

Also, wouldn't this require the acceptance of the Big Bang to be a faith, considering that science is concerned with causes and effects existing in physical reality; and the Big Bang being outside of this reality, unprovable by scientific means?

The Big Bang was the beginning of existence. We have no evidence for the existence of anything before the Big Bang. Any theory that attempts to explain what existed before/caused the Big Bang is pure conjecture. Why put faith behind an arbitrary guess?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: joshsquall
The world will be so much better when people realize both ideas can co-exist.

No, I think it would be much better if we stuck to teaching about science in our science classes instead of sky fairies.

Where did you go to school that your science teachers taught you about creationism? Sounds like more of a teacher issue than a system-wide issue.

My comments were more towards the ultra conservative Christian belief set. I think most (non-delusional) non-Christians admit that they don't know where all of the matter in the universe came from. Ultra conservative Christians tend to think evolution is the exact opposite of their beliefs, when they couldn't be more wrong. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin matter or even the origin of life.

They didn't and that's my point! I don't want the fundies teaching this fucking nonsense to my son. :|

Is someone threatening to? Or are you just being unrealistically paranoid about the indoctrination of your child?

You tell me if I'm being unrealistically paranoid. These stupid "theories" popped up about 4-5 years ago and it seems that stories come up in the news more and more frequently. Hell, there's an entire theme park dedicated to this nonsense somewhere in the wasteland of this country between the east coast and the west coast.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
because, it's probably an extremely rare occurance, simple enough to grasp...

ok, even if it's extremely rare, shouldn't we have seen it? somewhere?

no? we can't? Maybe it's a bad idea then....

Ya, because the conditions on earth today are exactly like they were some 4 billion years ago right? So obviously everything should act exactly as it did back then. And even if they weren't, we could certainly divine those conditions and conduct all the proper experiments perfectly. Because there's never a hard road, right? Well, theory disproved! :roll:

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat
If you have no life, how do you have evolution, pray tell?

(Ignores obvious south park reference)

All reactions, everything in the known universe, requires a reason, usually energetic. If it's spontaneous, it gives off heat, or creates disorder. If it's not spontaneous, it requires energy input.

Do you consider crystals formed by God since its formed in an ordered non-chaotic pattern?