New Questions--moral perspective

Didn't I tell you earlier that ignoran, arrogant insults are a waste of time and energy?Don't make assumptions about the people you're talking to. I DID used to be an evolutionist, and I understand thoroughly what Darwin's viewpoint is.Also, I believe you are debunking the abiogenesis discussion without any serious thought.First of all, yes the Miller Experiment DID in fact take place in 1953. Nevertheless, didn't Einstein's theory of relativity come out earlier? Didn't Willard Libby create the concept of carbon dating in the late 1940's? Didn't Charles Lyell write about the geologic column in the 1830s? I understand that there is no relevant connection here, but my argument is that you are telling me that using material from the 1950's is wrong or outdated when in fact the majority of "evidence" that supports your theory was developed much earlier and has since been undergoing slight modifications.Anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent. Well now, the idea that life can arise from nonliving matter is VERY important to the theory of evolution (afterall, if it can in any way be utterly proven that spontaneous generation of life is scientifically impossible, then isn't the entire theory of the evolution of life at stake?) Correct me if I'm wrong, but life arising from nonliving matter is the foundation of the origin of life on earth, according to the radical Darwinist. Therefore, biogenesis (the origin of life) is crucial in determing whether or not evolution is a valid theory.Now then, with that established, and all "fallacious arguments" aside, life cannot arise in the presence of oxygen, right? What I mean is, as soon as a macro-molecule catalyzes into an amino acid--a basic first-step to the formation of life--then the amino acid would be destroyed in the presence of O2 (oxygen in the gaseous state). So, if oxygen is present in our atmosphere, then elaborate for me on how it was possible for the first living organism to arise and escape the principles of oxidization.Thanks,
Servant

Also, before I forget,genetic mutations rarely if ever produce beneficial variation. That is to say, evolution requires beneficial mutations to lead to the production of more complex animals, right? But no beneficial mutation has yet been observed.Genetics is a complex topic (and I will freely admit that it is not my area of expertise on the creation/evolution topic) but with or without transitional fossils, there would still have to be demonstrated genetic variations leading to new species, let alone leading to HIGHER species and more complex organisms.

So you keep saying, but then why did you mistate it so completely? You may very well have been an evolutionist, but you show no signs of any kind of authentic biological instruction. No, my argument is that you're making the Miller Experiment out to be the be-all-end-all of abiogenesis research, and it's not. There's been over 50 subsequent years of research into the subject, none of which you appear familiar with. You can try to discredit the experiment all you like but within the limits of what it set out to prove - that organic molecules can come from inorganic processes - the experiment was successful, groundbreaking, and unassailiable.Did you have a comment on the abstract I cited? I thought it was very interesting. Not at all. Evolution works regardless of where that first life comes from. The theory doesn't change if the first living thing came from Earth, or from Mars, or from God. It's still the same theory no matter what.If you want to disprove evolution then you have to prove that the mechanisms of evolution can't give rise to the diversity of species on Earth. You're just using abiogenesis as a smokescreen. Since oxygen on Earth is the result of living photosynthesis, what makes you think oxygen would be present at the formation of life? This appears to be a poorly-concieved objection.

Wait, which is it? Do they rarely occur or do they never occur?Well, the answer is that they do occur: Are Mutations Harmful?so I don't understand your objection. Perhaps you're misinformed? There's more than enough evidence of mutations leading to greater complexity. Of course, no single mutation can lead to a new species. It takes reproductive isolation and an accumulation of mutations to result in speciation.

Matter isn't living or non-living. The hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc that compose living tissue is identical to those types of atoms in non-living objects. Life can be reduced to chemical reactions.
The early atmosphere is theorized to have little free oxygen. The majority of atmospheric oxygen is the waste product of photosynthesis.The very reactivity of free oxygen requires a way of releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere to maitain O2 levels.That aside, evolutionay proccess doesn't care wether life was generated by abiogenis, god, pink space bunnies, green aliens, etc. The fossil and genetic evidence is what supports the ToE. Abiogenesis is an intersting topic, but as I previously said, the theory of evolution doesn't require or deal with abiogensis.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there seems to be a problem here.Once again, the communication process is broken down.Okay, I actually EXPECTED you to tell me that primitive atmosphere had little or no free oxygen. But the problem with that is this:Without oxygen, you don't get the creation of ozone, which blocks an excess of UV light from entering our atmosphere. And as you may know, UV light is responsible for the destruction of Ammonia. And without ammonia, you cannot have life arise from nonliving matter (being as ammonia has to be included according to the researchers of earth's primitive atmosphere). So, WITH oxygen (as we have established already) you cannot create life from nonliving matter because the first self-replicating protein would oxidize and therefore self-destruct in the presence of oxygen. On the other hand, WITHOUT O2 in the atmosphere you could not get the necessary components for spontaneous generation.Also, there are two possible theories that we are talking about here: Either God created the universe or he didn't. Now, abiogenesis IS a relevant topic because the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution believe in atheistic evolution (darwinsism). And so, if it can be demonstrated that the HAD TO HAVE BEEN divine intervention, then that would damage greatly the scientists out there who don't believe in Theistic evolution.Furthermore, STOP assuming that I know nothing of evolution (I have only been writing in this particular site for a couple days... i have only written a total of a few pages' worth of text, and you falsely keep assuming that i know nothing of Evolution). Mind you, this IS IN NO WAY a contest to see who is smarter (i would freely admit that I am not as intelligent as you in the broadest sense... after all, it is those who humble themselves before God who will be spared from hell). Anyway, my point is this: you have to try and discredit me by insulting my intellect... something you know very little about. so knock it off, please.Now then, beneficial mutations among bacteria are not evolutionary mutation. what i mean is this: a scrambling of the genetic code to create a new line of bacteria that is resistent to certain diseases does in no way prove speciation, an increase in complexity, or any form of evolutionary build-up. Bacteria may become resistent to certain viruses and contamination through mutations; however, such mutation does not indicate origin of the species nor does it indicate that this mutating, over a long period of time, creates new species or genuses. Also, you failed to point out any type of speciation or observable increases in complexity of an organism (and buffing of bacteria would not count as an increase in complexity--it is still the same species of bacteria with the same number of chromosomes and practically the same genetic code).After all, if a human were to be born with 47 chromosomes, rather than the usual 46, what does that indicate? As far as medical science can tell, any increase in the number of chromosomes of humans results in severe handicaps (Down's Syndrome--a severe form of mental retardation and deformity of the brain--is the result of a 47th chromosome). Thus an example of an "increase in complexity" that is devastating to a person.--Servant

Before I forget, It is 3:00 in the morning here and I am somewhat tired. I did not sleep well last night and need this weekend to recuperate.So I will be signing off now.Also, Because of my inordinarily busy schedule, I will not have time for daily posts to this website, so I apologize in advance for any time that one of your replies may go unanswered for a few or more days.I will try to keep in touch as frequently as I can. Thank you for your insight. I understand that there is much turmoil among creationists and evolutionists (I only hope that you could humble yourselves as I have made a prevailing effort to do and discuss this topic without the unnecessary "you don't know this" ... "do your research" ... "give me quotes" attitude).Thanks again for the time,--Servant

Except that it's very likely that the first living thing came into existence near the bottom of the sea.So, so much for your UV light. It simply doesn't penetrate at that depth. I would hardly call 55% a "vast majority". And that's just looking at the biologists. It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on data. Specifically, the data of the repeated mistakes and inaccuracies you promulgate in regards to the theory. No, of course not. It's a contest to see who can support their position with evidence. And what's becoming increasingly clear is that you're pretty unaware of the evidence for evolution, yet you feel totally comfortable criticising the theory. Personally that bespeaks of a level of personal arrogance that I simply find unbelievable. We've said nothing about your intellect. Simply your education. It's possible that you're smarter than all of us put together. But it's obvious that we're considerably better informed on these scientific issues than you. Observed Instances of SpeciationComplexity? What's that? How would you measure it in an organism? Yet, the very same increase in "complexity" - additional copies of chromosomes - in plants lead to bigger, stronger plants with larger, jucier fruit. So clearly some "increases in complexity" are beneficial.

Humble?You've taken a position against a theory that you've made very clear that you don't understand. How is that humble? That's the very height of arrogance!

Actually I would suggest that this is needed only at the end of a trail of digging into the evidence.A better approach would be to recognize that it isn't very convincing to see a single line quote saying "there isn't enough..." or "it isn't right...." or whatever without that source referring to the reasons why they have reached the conclusion they have.In other words, I'm not going to be convinced by an assertion of a conclusion. I want to see the "paper trail" of how and why someone arrived at the conclusion so I can decide if it makes sense myself.In that process there may have to be references to the original research to fill in the underlying evidence or it may not be necessary.

Could we ask that you use the supplied UBB codes to make your posts a bit easier to follow.You used " " to mark off what you are responding to. That is fine but there are tools available to make it a bit easier and most regular posters are used to them.Click on UBB code is ON to the left of the edit window when you are created a post and all the details will be shown.To create a "quote" that you are replying to use:[.qs] and [./qs] around the quote this produces when you remove the dots (.)

quote:

---

Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom).

---

Over half of all Americans polled believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, too.Just because lots of people think something doesn't make it tru. It means that people believe what they want to believe.

quote:

---

Therefore, you might as well save the time and energy it takes to pour your ignorance and arrogant insults into your replies,

---

quote:

---

Truly, the most ignorant, arrogant, and prideful people I have ever met are Darwinsists, namely the people on this particular site.

---

Um, can you please explain to me how Saviormachine's reply was in any way ignorant or arrogant?

quote:

---

Evolution, as even admitted by Gould, Darwin, Asimov, and many other evolutionists, is nothing more than a theory. It is unproved.

---

Yep.Just like the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory of Matter, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System are also "nothing more than theories" and are also unproved.A "theory" is as strong a statement one can make in science; it doesn't get any more confirmed than a theory.Nothing is ever proved in science. This is the notion of tentativity.

quote:

---

Honestly, neither Biblical creationism nor Darwinian evolutionism can be proven by science ("Science" = knowledge through demonstrated evidence and observation). Therefore, if any evolutionist, atheist, or otherwise anti-creationist has an ounce of honesty and integrity, he would freely admit that BOTH viewpoints have to be taken by faith.

---

Do you think that there isn't any observed or inferred evidence at all which has led us to conclude that germs cause disease, that matter is made up of atoms, or that the planets of our solar system orbit the sun?Do you think that scientists take these concepts on faith, in exactly the same way that Hindus take the existence of Vishnu on faith?

quote:

---

After all, with all other points thrown aside, there is no other way that i can think of to say it: Darwinian evolution (origin of life from nonliving matter

---

Wow, another strawman.Evolutionary Biology does not address the origin of life. Evolutionary Biology applies only after life arrives on the planet. Various abiogenesis and panspermia theories about the origin of life are much less supported than the ToE. MUCH less supported.You know, it would probably be a good idea to read some science-based books and websites and give the Creationism sites a rest for a while.The disinformation you have been fed has been refuted probably hundreds of times on this site alone. Please, take the trouble to learn what scientist say, IN CONTEXT, not just isolated quotes.

quote:

---

and progression from simpler to more complex organisms) has never been proven.

---

Again, nothing is ever proven in science.

quote:

---

in fact, the Miller experiment (I'm POSITIVE you have heard of it) only proved that life cannot be created in the presence of oxygen (or else it would oxidize and self-destruct).

---

Since Miller's experiment is irrelevant to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, I will not comment upon it.

quote:

---

In stead of waving an arrogant finger at creationists and demanding that they "prove" their theory before they can teach it, why don't you get down off your platform and try to prove YOUR OWN theory beyond a reasonable doubt (by the way, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means creating an argument that cannot be refutted with even our BEST understanding of science).

---

Done.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-07-2004]

---

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

Also, before I forget...
I am a devoted Christian and have spent much of my adult life studying and arguing evolution with friends and family members of different faiths.

---

Then I am shocked that you still don't know what the scientific meaning of "theory" is after years of talking about them.Furthermore, you still don't know that the various origins of life theories have nothing to do with the validity of the theory of how life changed once it got here.These are basic, basic concepts that one must understand to even hope to get the science right.

quote:

---

I have talked with enough evolutionists out there to know that they simply DON'T know how to prove their theory to the open world (otherwise there would not be so much back-and-forth conflict among scientists).

---

Um, you don't know any professional scientists, do you?Science is a very contentious profession. Not because people are angry and yell at each other, but because people disagree all the time about the interpretation of evidence and what conclusions can be made from inference.However, all of this discussion is the way consensus is reached.While individual scientists may argue about the exact mechanisms[/b] of HOW Evolution occurred, there hasn't been any disagreement on IF evolution has occurred (and continues to be observed) for 100 years or so.

quote:

---

Therefore, I would find it impossible for anybody on this website to impress me with their knowledge of science, so don't try.

---

Gee, there are several actual professional scientists on this board.It's too bad you have already decided to discount everything they say, even though you could learn a lot from them, as many of us have.Hmm, what was that you were saying about arrogance and ignorance?

quote:

---

Furthermore, evolutionists often try to the tactic of drawing attention away from the topic by resorting to personal attacks (doubting the credibility of a creationist,

---

Well, pointing out that the credentials of a given Creationist are lacking in a particular subject, this is not a personal attack. This is just another reason to not give their views in that subject as much consideration as someone who is an expert in that subject.I mean, would you consider the opinion of your dentist to be more or less weighty than your auto mechanic's on the subject of the internal combustion engine?

quote:

---

The truth is, however, that the fossil record is complete as it ever will be (we are finding less and less fossils of different varieties).

---

Really?Please cite your source for this information.Please, not religious sites; an article or three from a professional, peer-reviewed Paleontology journal would be ideal.Hell, I'd even accept a Scientific American Article.