I got a good lol out of this site

[Defeatist Elitist]

Abiogenesis, aka chemical evolution. the one that assumes that there was no oxygen in the atmosphere and those conditions allowed for amino acids to be formed. and this was tested by miller and urey correct? well from what I read they were only able to produce about half of the necessary amino acids for life and some of them were actually the wrong kinds and therefore useless.

You don't actually need to have all of the amino acids for life be generated. It's good enough to get something that is sort of living, and things can sometimes progress from there. Regardless, the experiment produced 23 different amino acids, and there are only 21 amino acids found in modern eukaryotes, so clearly they produced far more than could concievably be required for life.

it assumed that the atmosphere was not oxidizing, but was made of methane. while it did produce those amino acids, it failed to take into account that amino acids easily break apart under natural sunlight, therefore they would not have been able to for a protein, much less an organism.

How do you figure this? As far as I know it is completely possible for amino acids to survive in natural sunlight, but if you can point me to scientific literature that firmly opposes that, I will accept your position. It still doesn't help you, because they could have developed in a location where they were not subject to much sunlight, like a cave or someshit.

and if this theory were true, how could we have oxygen in the atmosphere today and not then? how did it change?

Holy fuck you really have no idea. The fact is, once we have organisms, the organisms could break down oxygen containing compounds to release oxygen into the atmosphere.

also amino acids and polypeptide chains are more likely to break apart in water than they are to form. water being the primordial soup which all life was supposed to originate from.

Certainly much of this shit is unlikely, but considering the time scales involved it is almost guaranteed to happen.

the other big thing is that proteins don't form from amino acids without dna.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Edited December 31, 2011 by Defeatist Elitist

[Jack of the Dead]

Double-knockout mice.

Irreducibly complex means the organism is not hindered by losing that. while that can still live in a controlled environment, it still won't cut it. but yeah, that is an interesting example, but it's doesn't explain away Irreducible complexity.

[Jack of the Dead]

You don't actually need to have all of the amino acids for life be generated. It's good enough to get something that is sort of living, and things can sometimes progress from there. Regardless, the experiment produced 23 different amino acids, and there are only 21 amino acids found in modern eukaryotes, so clearly they produced far more than could concievably be required for life.

How do you figure this? As far as I know it is completely possible for amino acids to survive in natural sunlight, but if you can point me to scientific literature that firmly opposes that, I will accept your position. It still doesn't help you, because they could have developed in a location where they were not subject to much sunlight, like a cave or someshit.

Holy fuck you really have no idea. The fact is, once we have organisms, the organisms could break down oxygen containing compounds to release oxygen into the atmosphere.

Certainly much of this shit is unlikely, but considering the time scales involved it is almost guaranteed to happen.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

ok. This is an atricle written by Dr. Jerry Bergman on abiogenesis. that's what I just read.

[Defeatist Elitist]

ok. This is an atricle written by Dr. Jerry Bergman on abiogenesis. that's what I just read.

Answers in genesis is not a legitimate source of scientific information, and that article comes from a journal that is most definitely not scientific and peer reviewed. In other words, that has absolutely zero scientific merit. It also contains outright lies.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Defeatist Elitist

[Jack of the Dead]

Answers in genesis is not a legitimate source of scientific information, and that article comes from a journal that is most definitely not scientific and peer reviewed. In other words, that has absolutely zero scientific merit.

you want to read it first before you make a judgement?

[Defeatist Elitist]

you want to read it first before you make a judgement?

You fucking don't understand science, do you? You really don't. Nothing from a non peer reviewed scientific source really holds any merit whatsoever. It's as simple as that. That is how science works, if it's not a reputable source, it can bloody well fuck off. I have read the article before, but I don't need to because it lacks the credibility and credentials, and it fails the conditions I set out.

[Jack of the Dead]

and you don't get the fact that it has sources and credentials to back it up. read it and decide for yourself.

[Balcerzak]

Irreducibly complex means the organism is not hindered by losing that. while that can still live in a controlled environment, it still won't cut it. but yeah, that is an interesting example, but it's doesn't explain away Irreducible complexity.

Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"

What.

I don't see "must not hindered by removal", I see "removal equals complete failure".

[Defeatist Elitist]

and you don't get the fact that it has sources and credentials to back it up. read it and decide for yourself.

NO IT DOESN'T. That isn't how science works. Answers in genesis is not a legitimate source of scientific literature. That paper is not from a legitimate source of scientific literature, therefore it isn't science, it's as simple as that. Fucking learn what you're talking about.

Here, I'll throw you a bone.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Defeatist Elitist

[Jaybee]

ALRIGHT LET'S SEE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank Tim Wallace, Bert Thompson, Wayne Frair, Clifford Lillo and John Woodmorappe for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

The first guy gets me an automated car dealer, and an ice hockey player. Awesome.

The second guy is a creationist lol

The third guy is also a creationist

I have no fucking idea who the fourth person is

The fifth person is a creationist

So yeah, nice bullshit.

[eclipse]

. . .and here I thought this would be a funny site. . .

[Defeatist Elitist]

ALRIGHT LET'S SEE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first guy gets me an automated car dealer, and an ice hockey player. Awesome.

The second guy is a creationist lol

The third guy is also a creationist

I have no fucking idea who the fourth person is

The fifth person is a creationist

So yeah, nice bullshit.

To be fair, he has citations in footnotes, but again, not being from a legitimate scientific source it's entirely probable that he is making shit up, quote mining and being generally intellectually dishonest.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Defeatist Elitist

[Jaybee]

i cba to edit

Also, Answers in Genesis is a site based around THE BELIEF OF CREATIONISM. That's not scientific at all. Hell, that's as far from "scientific" as you can ever get, so try finding something RECENT that actually has good credentials.

[peener weener]

I love how the article attempts to give abiogenesis shit by pointing out the small odds it had of happening and claiming only half the compounds necessary were found, the first statement irrelevant because the experiment attempted to replicate something that happened within a ludicrously large timeframe in an enormous space inside a small flask within a short time frame (and it was successful for all its intents and purposes) and the second being a lie.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I love how the article attempts to give abiogenesis shit by pointing out the small odds it had of happening and claiming only half the compounds necessary were found, the first statement irrelevant because the experiment attempted to replicate something that happened within a ludicrously large timeframe in an enormous space inside a small flask within a short time frame (and it was successful for all its intents and purposes) and the second being a lie.

Yeah, this is an excellent example of why articles from sources like this are literally not worth shit.

[Jack of the Dead]

yeah bal my bad. (anyway, i see it as a back up mechanism in case the original system fail. points to design for me)

as for everyone else, that guy is a doctor who has taught biology for a number of years of his life at quite a few universities. you would think he knows what he's talking about. therefore goodnight. I am officially done.

[peener weener]

The rest of the article was pretty much an explanation of abiogenesis using quotation marks in strategic places to make it look silly.

[peener weener]

OH SHIT THE GUY WAS A DOCTOR GUESS I'M WRONG

[Defeatist Elitist]

as for everyone else, that guy is a doctor who has taught biology for a number of years of his life at quite a few universities. you would think he knows what he's talking about. therefore goodnight. I am officially done.

First of all, nice job ignoring everything we've said, secondly, by that logic you should immediately accept evolution because the overhelming majority of scientists are completely in support of evolution and abiogenesis, and this is even more overwhelming in the field of biology, but nice try anyway.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

first statement [was] irrelevant because the experiment attempted to replicate something that happened within a ludicrously large timeframe in an enormous space inside a small flask within a short time frame (and it was successful for all its intents and purposes)

Dear Answers In Genesis,

I have recenty noted your attempt to reproduce the events leading up to the creation of life as viewed by the theory of abiogenesis in a small flask in a short time, which is obviously sufficient to disprove the odds of it happening over 2/3 of the earth's surface over a period of millions of years.

Inspired by your grand work, I have decided to perform a similar experiment. For the last two months, I have observed a 2 mile x 2 mile region of the sky nearby, checking for any of all signs of the hand of God falling from heaven and creating life. Against all odds (and my hypothesis), I found that there was insufficient evidence to say that this occured. While I will be attempting my experiment again (as this CANNOT be!), it suggests that creationism is simply bullshit; on a positive note, this is good news for one of my references, who shovels much of it for a living.

Again, I thank you for your work. Keep it up!

With Love and Devotion,

Kngt_Of_Titania

[Phoenix]

I must comment before this thing gets locked

Don't really care about the other stuff, just wanted to comment on what started this argument. The 6 days thing.

If God created the sun on the fourth day, how had four days passed?

I'm willing to bet four 'days' was actually four thousand years ... at least.

In the same way that days are different depending on what planet you are in the universe, as an example, maybe the days that Genesis refers to are a different time unit than the time unit used by humans.

Probably.

But the earth was "formless and empty" at the start of creation and couldn't have begun rotating until the second or the third day.

So there's no way the sun could have been there first and God just said 'Let there be light' and the clouds opened up? Doesn't say anything about the earth being made first. I'm pretty sure the first verses are told from an 'Earth' perspective, just like most everything else. If you look at it from an Earth perspective, it's a little different from a 'thing' creating spree.

EDIT: Couldn't->Could

Edited December 31, 2011 by Phoenix

[peener weener]

Dear Answers In Genesis,

I have recenty noted your attempt to reproduce the events leading up to the creation of life as viewed by the theory of abiogenesis in a small flask in a short time, which is obviously sufficient to disprove the odds of it happening over 2/3 of the earth's surface over a period of millions of years.

Inspired by your grand work, I have decided to perform a similar experiment. For the last two months, I have observed a 2 mile x 2 mile region of the sky nearby, checking for any of all signs of the hand of God falling from heaven and creating life. Against all odds (and my hypothesis), I found that there was insufficient evidence to say that this occured. While I will be attempting my experiment again (as this CANNOT be!), it suggests that creationism is simply bullshit; on a positive note, this is good news for one of my references, who shovels much of it for a living.

Again, I thank you for your work. Keep it up!

With Love and Devotion,

Kngt_Of_Titania

...I don't think you got it. Or maybe I don't get your post.

[Freohr Datia]

@Phoenix

I always have heard some theory that the "days", at least compared to how God supposedly made the animals, were not to be taken literally. I heard in my biology class, but I haven't looked it up, that the order that things supposedly evolved was the same order as God supposedly brought them forth in the days. And so it could've been that days were just... would you call it a figure of speech? XD Idk.

But when we heard about evolution and the age of the Earth and I used to still be Christian, this is what made me think that what if God only works through what could physically happen? Cause this is when I didn't want to believe just yet that he didn't exist because I've been raised as a Christian (idk why I keep saying that though because I think my family is actually Catholic XD) and I didn't want to just throw everything I had been raised upon away.

But while I was thinking that, I was also considering how there are many many many religions and also many Holy Books out there. Man wrote those and who knows how much of what they wrote could possibly have been a lie? And if one of them was the true book, how could we know which one was?

So after that I thought well maybe none of them are true, but there still is a god perhaps and the way he made everything was nothing like what people say. Maybe he made the animals through evolution and maybe he made the universe through the big bang, or any other way.

Although I'm probably the only person out there who could easily switch to these beliefs, idk if it'd be easier for any other religious person. I'm just hoping I could be helpful, for Jack at least. And everyone is gonna pounce on me and ask why I would help him but I've never supported people should be trying to force their beliefs on others (wait but is that what I'm doing right now? =o) and it's everyone ganging up on one person because this one person happens to think differently. It shouldn't harm anything if he does think that way.

[Zanarkin]

Although I'm probably the only person out there who could easily switch to these beliefs.

There is actually a lot of people that think that god actually made all of that happen. Of course I don't agree with the need for gods but atleast they don't go about denying evolution/big bang theory

[Jack of the Dead]

I said I was done, but I guess not.

Evolution still doesn't make sense. I heard all you said. I understood it. but it still doesn't work. How did the big bang occur? my understanding is that infinite matter exploded and everything just happened to fall into the right place at the right time. the earth just happened to fall the exact distance from the sun to be able to support life. it was not too far so as to be too cold and it was not too close and too hot. then according to abiogenesis, over thousands of years amino acids were able to join together and for complex proteins needed for life without any guidance whatsoever. I have not seen a working model of this today. the only models I have seen of a protein being formed was using DNA to do so.

defeatist said earlier that you can get something that is kind of alive and things will go from there. and you're right. there are around 20 amino acids that are necessary for life. however, there are also left and right handed versions of these amino acids. in order for it to work, all the amino acids need to be left handed. miller's experiments produced both left and right handed amino acids. right handed amino acids hurt the processes of left handed amino acids and vice versa. but I also remember something from chemistry. oxygen and ozone are two things in our atmosphere that help to block some of the harmful radiation from the sun. now, if the atmosphere was rich in methane and ammonia, not oxygen and ozone, what stopped the UV rays, x rays, and gamma rays from destroying the cells and amino acids that may have been formed? yeah. maybe it was in a cave, but wouldn't the cave be blocked from any kind of warmth that was also necessary for this to work?

again, if it wasn't in the cave and covered 2/3 of the earth, why wouldn't it be killed by the solar radiation?

And I still haven't seen an example of a protein that has been made without Dna. millers experiments showed that it was possible to get these, but it did not show that it was possible to make the proteins.

even wiki now says that the conditions in the atmosphere for this were not present. saying that the early atmosphere has less than 5% nof the necessary compunds.

also here's a little anomaly for you to think about. Dinosaurs were supposed to be extinct by the time man came around right? then how does the bible have a record of an animal that much resembles that of a dinosaur?

the "behemoth" was a giant creature with a tail that sways like a cedar tree. it had incredibly strong bones and enormous muscles. (job 40:15-20) what animals in the world do you know of that fit that description? brontosaurus? and job is the oldest book in the Bible. how can it be that man knew about dinosaurs if they were lost and buried for millions of years?

as for the thousand year day,

adam and eve were created on the 6th day. and the seventh day was after that. even if he was completed on the last year of the 6th thousand year day, adam still had 1000 more years to go. adam was to have lived 930 years, and would have died well before the actual fall of man. the thousand year day doesn't fit in with christianity.