Evolutionists Must Read:
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: bethany, Ok
Originally posted by hflu
1. I don't know. I would think fossilization very rarely happens. We are probably lucky it happened at all. Fossills give us a sliver of a big piture, but comparing fossil body plans and traits to those found later in the fossil record and present day animals, we can piece together the course of evolution over time. Numbers of fossils don't really matter. The first time someone found a 100 million year-old fossil with four legs, and matched it by direct comparison to modern whales, the brain just starts to think that there must of been some sort of change over time that explains the fossil evidence. So, with only one fossil, a scientific thought can start. No need for billions.
1. I don't know. I would think fossilization very rarely happens. We are probably lucky it happened at all. Fossills give us a sliver of a big piture, but comparing fossil body plans and traits to those found later in the fossil record and present day animals, we can piece together the course of evolution over time. Numbers of fossils don't really matter. The first time someone found a 100 million year-old fossil with four legs, and matched it by direct comparison to modern whales, the brain just starts to think that there must of been some sort of change over time that explains the fossil evidence. So, with only one fossil, a scientific thought can start. No need for billions.
There is a lot more to "theory" than a "scientific thought" based on filling in a lot of holes with imagination.
Originally posted by hflu
3. Spontaneous generation is an old theory of life origins through time. I thought we were debating evolution. At any rate, organ formationis a matter of gradual change over time. The genome of an animal is constantly mutating on a small scale. Chemically, that means as DNA is replicated, mistakes are made, and these mistakes tranlate into slightly different proteins that were coded for by the original DNA. Picture a small patch of cells on an animal long ago (maybe jelly fish-like) that, through mutation, develop the capacity to respond to light. This is not far fetched because there are several bacteria living today that respond to light by virtue of having many copies of one protein called bacteriorhodopsin. So it wouldn't be unheard of if a patch of cells on an animal "come up" through mutation and by chance, the ability to respond to light. This response may trigger a chemical release by the cell that modifies the behavior of the animal. This behavior modification may give an advantage to this animal, whose progeny then inherent the ability to grow this patch of cells. The progeny, however, also mutate, and further modifications over time can produce an eye. As far as everything needing to evolve at once to produce an eye, take a look in an embryology text and see the pictures of the development of a chicks or mouse eye. You'll see how gradual changes come together to form the functioning eye. Everything just doesn't appear at once.
3. Spontaneous generation is an old theory of life origins through time. I thought we were debating evolution. At any rate, organ formationis a matter of gradual change over time. The genome of an animal is constantly mutating on a small scale. Chemically, that means as DNA is replicated, mistakes are made, and these mistakes tranlate into slightly different proteins that were coded for by the original DNA. Picture a small patch of cells on an animal long ago (maybe jelly fish-like) that, through mutation, develop the capacity to respond to light. This is not far fetched because there are several bacteria living today that respond to light by virtue of having many copies of one protein called bacteriorhodopsin. So it wouldn't be unheard of if a patch of cells on an animal "come up" through mutation and by chance, the ability to respond to light. This response may trigger a chemical release by the cell that modifies the behavior of the animal. This behavior modification may give an advantage to this animal, whose progeny then inherent the ability to grow this patch of cells. The progeny, however, also mutate, and further modifications over time can produce an eye. As far as everything needing to evolve at once to produce an eye, take a look in an embryology text and see the pictures of the development of a chicks or mouse eye. You'll see how gradual changes come together to form the functioning eye. Everything just doesn't appear at once.
You're glossing over huge points to make jumps over the holes. Once again, how did the first primitive, single cell a) feed, b) how did it reproduce? How do mutations (which are virtually always harmful to the organism) that are "on the way" to forming some adaptive organ find others with the SAME recessive mutation to replicate, at each step of the way? Why don't computer models of evolution based on the laws of probability do it? (at least not nearly at the same rate) Why are all of the mutations we see today either not adaptive, or even fatal? To think that hydrogen atoms make their way to humans requires more faith than a belief in God.
Secondly, even if I accept that these "adapatations" could happen so quickly, there still is not enough time. If we take the earth's orbit around the sun, reverse the process through time, even factoring in the slow degeneration of the orbit, and the stronger gravitational pull as it gets closer to the sun, we find that the earth is destroyed IN the sun long before we get to 65 billion years.
Third, once again, how does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all matter goes from order to disorder, not the other way around?
Originally posted by hflu
5. Whoa, lot's here. Current theory posits that the primordial Earth probably contained "soup" of organic molecules, like acids and bases that contain carbon. It doesn't seem like a stretch in the mind of many organic chemist that this soup could contain the building blocks for ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is a facinating chemical, because it was found within the last few decades that RNA can mediate chemical reactions by itself (we used to think that only proteins could do that). So RNA, which looks alot like DNA, including being made up of 4 different bases) over time could have reacted and changed until it became a large molecule that could make copies of itself. I know that this may sound far fetched, but I can't cover it all right here. The theory is known as the "RNA world" and you can type that into Google and get more info. Anyway, RNA copies itself, makes mistakes, and evetually you get a variety of molecules that can synthesize other molecules, like proteins and fats. So you get the beginnings of self replication that can be contained by special molecules that form things like membranes. Then your on your way to a cell. This piecemeal approach to cellularity relied on the organic materials floating around from the original soup. Again, its a matter of time. No cell simply appeared, cells arose gradually, "feeding" on the rich material around them. Sexual reproduction comes into play way way down the line from the origins of the first cell. The topic is too long to debate, I'll leave that as a follow-up question.
5. Whoa, lot's here. Current theory posits that the primordial Earth probably contained "soup" of organic molecules, like acids and bases that contain carbon. It doesn't seem like a stretch in the mind of many organic chemist that this soup could contain the building blocks for ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is a facinating chemical, because it was found within the last few decades that RNA can mediate chemical reactions by itself (we used to think that only proteins could do that). So RNA, which looks alot like DNA, including being made up of 4 different bases) over time could have reacted and changed until it became a large molecule that could make copies of itself. I know that this may sound far fetched, but I can't cover it all right here. The theory is known as the "RNA world" and you can type that into Google and get more info. Anyway, RNA copies itself, makes mistakes, and evetually you get a variety of molecules that can synthesize other molecules, like proteins and fats. So you get the beginnings of self replication that can be contained by special molecules that form things like membranes. Then your on your way to a cell. This piecemeal approach to cellularity relied on the organic materials floating around from the original soup. Again, its a matter of time. No cell simply appeared, cells arose gradually, "feeding" on the rich material around them. Sexual reproduction comes into play way way down the line from the origins of the first cell. The topic is too long to debate, I'll leave that as a follow-up question.
Originally posted by hflu
7. First, your misleading-many plants rely on insect pollination, but the vast majority do not. The fossil record shows us what species populated the earth before insects show up. Not surprisingly, they are not even flowering plants. Flowering plants arrive later in the fossil record, and before the rise of insects, they generally resemble plants today that rely on wind for pollination. Unfortunately, you hit upon one of the supports for evolution. True flowering plants really take off in the fssil record right at the time that insects develop flight and are the dominant forms of life.
7. First, your misleading-many plants rely on insect pollination, but the vast majority do not. The fossil record shows us what species populated the earth before insects show up. Not surprisingly, they are not even flowering plants. Flowering plants arrive later in the fossil record, and before the rise of insects, they generally resemble plants today that rely on wind for pollination. Unfortunately, you hit upon one of the supports for evolution. True flowering plants really take off in the fssil record right at the time that insects develop flight and are the dominant forms of life.
What about systems such as respiration and circulation, as I have mentioned before, each component of which is vastly intricate and complicated in and of itself, that HAVE TO work almost instantly for the organism to survive? It is impossible for each of the components to have developed incrementally, and they (heart, lungs, viens, arteries, liver, etc) certainly didn't sprout up alltogether. Did they sprout up alltogther in TWO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS SIMULTANEOUSLY, then somehow find each other to continue reproducing their mutant offspring? Do lab animals with a mutated extra limb, for instance, have offspring with the same mutation? ???
Lastly, where is the fossil evidence, and what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects themselves?
Originally posted by hflu
9. Pretty silly comment, reflecting more on social ills than science. I'll bite though, and if you read the answer to the origin of cells, you'll see that reproduction, the ability to make copies, is the first step to life. There can be no other first step.
9. Pretty silly comment, reflecting more on social ills than science. I'll bite though, and if you read the answer to the origin of cells, you'll see that reproduction, the ability to make copies, is the first step to life. There can be no other first step.
Originally posted by hflu
10. Now, in the 21st Century, do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
-Yes, under the right conditions. That means we may be alone in this whole universe of billions and billions of stars.
10. Now, in the 21st Century, do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
-Yes, under the right conditions. That means we may be alone in this whole universe of billions and billions of stars.
The "missing link" has never been found, and that brings up another question in my mind:
Why do all primates have the same number of chromosones- but WE do NOT?
Last edited by Broncozilla; Dec 22, 2003 at 11:17 PM.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,259
Likes: 0
From: Florida Hill Country
Quote "Broncozilla- So where did the "soup" of molecules and acids and bases come from? I'm not educated enough in biology to say for sure, but I'm far from convinced that they merely assembled themselves into complex codes like RNA by chance."
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
From: suthern elinoees
Wow, is this fun or what?
I don't believe this has been discussed yet but what about the law of entropy? How do evolutionists explain that?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-157a.htm
I don't believe this has been discussed yet but what about the law of entropy? How do evolutionists explain that?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-157a.htm
Senior User
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
From: Maryland/D.C. Area
It's funny how entropy is used to dispel the origin of life when it really is the foundation of life itself. That article is kind of misleading, especially when he brings up tornadoes and whirlpools. Entropy is the measure of disorder, and yes, a system's entropy (disorder) will increase over time. This concept can be generalized into things we are more familiar with. Iron ore is at its lowest energy level and high entropy. Someone comes along, digs it up, adds a whole lot of energy to it, and makes steel out of it. Then someone makes a pickup out of the steel, and if it's a Chevy, what happens? The Chevy is a highly ordered structure, with low entropy, right down to the metal it is made of. The steel starts to oxidize as soon as it as made. Order naturally moves to disorder, and before you know it, a new chevy is a rusting, falling apart piece of junk (I saw it happen before my eyes with a 78 Blazer I owned).
Your cells are entropy reducing machines, right down to the nature of the replication of your DNA itself. The linking of two molecules together, like adding a base to a DNA chain, or sticking amino acids together to form a protein are energetically unfavorable reactions. Cells utilize energy to do these processes, and energy takes fuel. Your cells, and you are in a constant battle against the law of entropy. Energy is derived from fuel, and used to maintain and build upon a highly unfavorable energetic state we call a cell, or more specifically, life. Everything that is alive around you is utilizing fuel to decrease entropy and increase the order of the molecules that make it up. If a person dies, the flow of fuel stops and the molecules that were made by using energy decay to their lowest ground state, and you disintegrate, and you become, eventually highly disordered.
So, picture life as somone pushing a large stone up an infinite hill. A constant stream of energy is needed to keep pushing, or even stand still. Once the person quits, the stone succumbs to the inevitable law of gravity and tumbles back down the hill, releasing all the energy the person put into it.
Now, I have no idea how all this relates to tornados, I don't think it does. As for the sun, it's a candle that's burning. It will eventually burn up its wax and go out. Again, I don't see how this relates to cells and replication.
So, look around you. Every living thing you see is there because, within itself, it is maintaining a constant state of order. Entropy is lower within the confines of the body of an ant. besides the ability to replicate chemicals, entropy is the stuff of life.
Your cells are entropy reducing machines, right down to the nature of the replication of your DNA itself. The linking of two molecules together, like adding a base to a DNA chain, or sticking amino acids together to form a protein are energetically unfavorable reactions. Cells utilize energy to do these processes, and energy takes fuel. Your cells, and you are in a constant battle against the law of entropy. Energy is derived from fuel, and used to maintain and build upon a highly unfavorable energetic state we call a cell, or more specifically, life. Everything that is alive around you is utilizing fuel to decrease entropy and increase the order of the molecules that make it up. If a person dies, the flow of fuel stops and the molecules that were made by using energy decay to their lowest ground state, and you disintegrate, and you become, eventually highly disordered.
So, picture life as somone pushing a large stone up an infinite hill. A constant stream of energy is needed to keep pushing, or even stand still. Once the person quits, the stone succumbs to the inevitable law of gravity and tumbles back down the hill, releasing all the energy the person put into it.
Now, I have no idea how all this relates to tornados, I don't think it does. As for the sun, it's a candle that's burning. It will eventually burn up its wax and go out. Again, I don't see how this relates to cells and replication.
So, look around you. Every living thing you see is there because, within itself, it is maintaining a constant state of order. Entropy is lower within the confines of the body of an ant. besides the ability to replicate chemicals, entropy is the stuff of life.
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: bethany, Ok
Originally posted by hflu
It's funny how entropy is used to dispel the origin of life when it really is the foundation of life itself. That article is kind of misleading, especially when he brings up tornadoes and whirlpools. Entropy is the measure of disorder, and yes, a system's entropy (disorder) will increase over time. This concept can be generalized into things we are more familiar with. Iron ore is at its lowest energy level and high entropy. Someone comes along, digs it up, adds a whole lot of energy to it, and makes steel out of it. Then someone makes a pickup out of the steel, and if it's a Chevy, what happens? The Chevy is a highly ordered structure, with low entropy, right down to the metal it is made of. The steel starts to oxidize as soon as it as made. Order naturally moves to disorder, and before you know it, a new chevy is a rusting, falling apart piece of junk (I saw it happen before my eyes with a 78 Blazer I owned).
Your cells are entropy reducing machines, right down to the nature of the replication of your DNA itself. The linking of two molecules together, like adding a base to a DNA chain, or sticking amino acids together to form a protein are energetically unfavorable reactions. Cells utilize energy to do these processes, and energy takes fuel. Your cells, and you are in a constant battle against the law of entropy. Energy is derived from fuel, and used to maintain and build upon a highly unfavorable energetic state we call a cell, or more specifically, life. Everything that is alive around you is utilizing fuel to decrease entropy and increase the order of the molecules that make it up. If a person dies, the flow of fuel stops and the molecules that were made by using energy decay to their lowest ground state, and you disintegrate, and you become, eventually highly disordered.
So, picture life as somone pushing a large stone up an infinite hill. A constant stream of energy is needed to keep pushing, or even stand still. Once the person quits, the stone succumbs to the inevitable law of gravity and tumbles back down the hill, releasing all the energy the person put into it.
Now, I have no idea how all this relates to tornados, I don't think it does. As for the sun, it's a candle that's burning. It will eventually burn up its wax and go out. Again, I don't see how this relates to cells and replication.
So, look around you. Every living thing you see is there because, within itself, it is maintaining a constant state of order. Entropy is lower within the confines of the body of an ant. besides the ability to replicate chemicals, entropy is the stuff of life.
It's funny how entropy is used to dispel the origin of life when it really is the foundation of life itself. That article is kind of misleading, especially when he brings up tornadoes and whirlpools. Entropy is the measure of disorder, and yes, a system's entropy (disorder) will increase over time. This concept can be generalized into things we are more familiar with. Iron ore is at its lowest energy level and high entropy. Someone comes along, digs it up, adds a whole lot of energy to it, and makes steel out of it. Then someone makes a pickup out of the steel, and if it's a Chevy, what happens? The Chevy is a highly ordered structure, with low entropy, right down to the metal it is made of. The steel starts to oxidize as soon as it as made. Order naturally moves to disorder, and before you know it, a new chevy is a rusting, falling apart piece of junk (I saw it happen before my eyes with a 78 Blazer I owned).
Your cells are entropy reducing machines, right down to the nature of the replication of your DNA itself. The linking of two molecules together, like adding a base to a DNA chain, or sticking amino acids together to form a protein are energetically unfavorable reactions. Cells utilize energy to do these processes, and energy takes fuel. Your cells, and you are in a constant battle against the law of entropy. Energy is derived from fuel, and used to maintain and build upon a highly unfavorable energetic state we call a cell, or more specifically, life. Everything that is alive around you is utilizing fuel to decrease entropy and increase the order of the molecules that make it up. If a person dies, the flow of fuel stops and the molecules that were made by using energy decay to their lowest ground state, and you disintegrate, and you become, eventually highly disordered.
So, picture life as somone pushing a large stone up an infinite hill. A constant stream of energy is needed to keep pushing, or even stand still. Once the person quits, the stone succumbs to the inevitable law of gravity and tumbles back down the hill, releasing all the energy the person put into it.
Now, I have no idea how all this relates to tornados, I don't think it does. As for the sun, it's a candle that's burning. It will eventually burn up its wax and go out. Again, I don't see how this relates to cells and replication.
So, look around you. Every living thing you see is there because, within itself, it is maintaining a constant state of order. Entropy is lower within the confines of the body of an ant. besides the ability to replicate chemicals, entropy is the stuff of life.
Without GM, the iron ore stays just that- iron ore. Or, it could actually begin to degrade if you leave it alone, I guess.
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,540
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles safe and warm
Originally posted by Broncozilla
The whole thing suggests an outside intelligent influence, get it?
The whole thing suggests an outside intelligent influence, get it?
The suggestion of an outside intelligence was made to you and you buy it, plain and simple. To believe one's own mind came to this inescapable conclusion by itself is folly.
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: bethany, Ok
Originally posted by sinjin
No I don't get it.
The suggestion of an outside intelligence was made to you and you buy it, plain and simple. To believe one's own mind came to this inescapable conclusion by itself is folly.
No I don't get it.
The suggestion of an outside intelligence was made to you and you buy it, plain and simple. To believe one's own mind came to this inescapable conclusion by itself is folly.
Folly, it surely is not. I came to creationism after buying the evolution B.S. all of my life because it was presented to me in our educational institutions as pure science.
We could go round and round with this last post of yours. Let me see- it would go something like this:
No I don't get it.
The suggestion of hydrogen atoms becoming men if you leave them alone long enough was made to you and you buy it, plain and simple. To believe one's own mind came to this inescapable conclusion by itself is folly.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,540
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles safe and warm
Broncozilla,
I don't claim to have arrived at the conclusion that evolution is the only acceptable explanation on my own, granted. I accept the science that points to it as the likely way things have happened. I have even as a child always wondered about the similarities between many lifeforms and evolution seems to explain this. I don't think I could have come up with creation mythology on my own but I've heard many a religious type say that the existence of a Creator is obvious and substatianted by their own experience and logic.
I don't claim to have arrived at the conclusion that evolution is the only acceptable explanation on my own, granted. I accept the science that points to it as the likely way things have happened. I have even as a child always wondered about the similarities between many lifeforms and evolution seems to explain this. I don't think I could have come up with creation mythology on my own but I've heard many a religious type say that the existence of a Creator is obvious and substatianted by their own experience and logic.
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: bethany, Ok
Originally posted by sinjin
Broncozilla,
I don't claim to have arrived at the conclusion that evolution is the only acceptable explanation on my own, granted. I accept the science that points to it as the likely way things have happened. I have even as a child always wondered about the similarities between many lifeforms and evolution seems to explain this. I don't think I could have come up with creation mythology on my own but I've heard many a religious type say that the existence of a Creator is obvious and substatianted by their own experience and logic.
Broncozilla,
I don't claim to have arrived at the conclusion that evolution is the only acceptable explanation on my own, granted. I accept the science that points to it as the likely way things have happened. I have even as a child always wondered about the similarities between many lifeforms and evolution seems to explain this. I don't think I could have come up with creation mythology on my own but I've heard many a religious type say that the existence of a Creator is obvious and substatianted by their own experience and logic.
However, when you are a child, you tend to believe things when they come from authority figures and texts. While it did not make sense to me when I really thought it out, (the vague concept made sense, until I examined it closer) as a child I figured, "Well, they're scientists , they wear white lab coats and have sliderules, and have a magic understanding of that complicated and magical discipline of science, and they know what they're talking about."
I've also found the endless details that these scientists come up with about, dinosaurs, for instance, with their scale texture, color, diet, habits, etc. (constantly revised as time goes by, of course) to be ludicrous. They don't know.
Last edited by Broncozilla; Dec 23, 2003 at 11:56 AM.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,259
Likes: 0
From: Florida Hill Country
Originally posted by Broncozilla
Thank you for so elequently making my point for me.
Thank you for so elequently making my point for me.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,259
Likes: 0
From: Florida Hill Country
Originally posted by NascarNut
Wow, is this fun or what?
I don't believe this has been discussed yet but what about the law of entropy? How do evolutionists explain that?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-157a.htm
Wow, is this fun or what?
I don't believe this has been discussed yet but what about the law of entropy? How do evolutionists explain that?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-157a.htm
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: bethany, Ok
Whistler,
Neither. First of all, you must realize that scientists who believe in creationism, or, whom reject evolution and continue to search for new ideas, exist.
What I feel is at work here is the human ego. Lofty intellectual types, such as scientists, often don't ever like to admit that there is something that they don't know, or can't figure out, so they take their best shot, fill in the holes with theory and conjecture, and call it fact.
I also feel that for some, the idea of a divine creator, to whom they will be held accountable, makes them very uncomfortable. They want to feel in total control of their world, so they put their trust in themselves and other men.
When you seek truth, you must ask yourself:
Are you seeking the solution to a problem; or are you seeking for the appropriate problem that fits your solution?
Neither. First of all, you must realize that scientists who believe in creationism, or, whom reject evolution and continue to search for new ideas, exist.
What I feel is at work here is the human ego. Lofty intellectual types, such as scientists, often don't ever like to admit that there is something that they don't know, or can't figure out, so they take their best shot, fill in the holes with theory and conjecture, and call it fact.
I also feel that for some, the idea of a divine creator, to whom they will be held accountable, makes them very uncomfortable. They want to feel in total control of their world, so they put their trust in themselves and other men.
When you seek truth, you must ask yourself:
Are you seeking the solution to a problem; or are you seeking for the appropriate problem that fits your solution?
Last edited by Broncozilla; Dec 23, 2003 at 12:18 PM.