I'm still confused. Did God say these things to you? Or did the Bible?
Evidence for creationism, Part 2.
- Thread starter negZero
- Start date
- Status
I'm still confused. Did God say these things to you? Or did the Bible?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
And was what he said peer-reviewed by other Gods?
I am now convinced that both evolution and creationism is false. There is only Gulpo.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Gah! Pay your rent, hippie!
sophie
Break My Heart
Well, clearly we know the kind of trash he came from.
I think you have not quite explained why you think this link between nucleaic acid polymerisation and ATP syntethis is so unbreakable, so it is quite hard to explain to you why it is not so. You do know that ATP is not directly involved with nucleaic acid polymerisation? The energy in (most?) living systems comes via ATP (as it does for most reactions in the body) but in the actual reaction the energy is in the triphosphate bond of the nucleotide. In-vitro nucleaic acid synthesis does not use ATP.
I find it easy to imagine another source of this energy, perhaps a reactive phosphate rock in a world that is getting wetter and cooler that reacts with nucleotides in an early ocean, but I know nothing about abiogenesis hypotheses. If it is this stage you are having trouble with perhaps a little more reading would help, I expect I could point you in the right direction.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
I want to say one thing about Sickle Cell Anemia, as there was something about it bothering me but I couldn't think what it was.
I'm currently reading a book called "Life Ascending" by one Nick Lane, a biochemist with a Really Long Title™ at University College London. And in it (during the chapter about S-E-X) he talks about Sickle Cell Anemia, and then it hit me, the problem isn't Genetics it Sexual Reproduction! You see if you get no copies of the gene your blood cannot fight malaria, you get one copy of the gene the blood gets defences against the malaria virus, it is only when you are passe on two copies of the gene that you get the blood vessels shaped so they cause anemia. So instead of disproving genetics and evolution (through the line of "god wouldn't make bad genes") it actually does show how genetics cause mutations and how the less fit mutations are weeded out due to environmental factors (in this case either by malaria or the anemia).
I'm currently reading a book called "Life Ascending" by one Nick Lane, a biochemist with a Really Long Title™ at University College London. And in it (during the chapter about S-E-X) he talks about Sickle Cell Anemia, and then it hit me, the problem isn't Genetics it Sexual Reproduction! You see if you get no copies of the gene your blood cannot fight malaria, you get one copy of the gene the blood gets defences against the malaria virus, it is only when you are passe on two copies of the gene that you get the blood vessels shaped so they cause anemia. So instead of disproving genetics and evolution (through the line of "god wouldn't make bad genes") it actually does show how genetics cause mutations and how the less fit mutations are weeded out due to environmental factors (in this case either by malaria or the anemia).
Zack
99% hot gas
Is there really any evidence besides "Bible says so and so do my parents!!!!11!!"?
sophie
Break My Heart
No. The nearly 100 pages of full lulz are definitely worth the read, however.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
It's no small wonder that this thread keeps veering off. The YEC arguments have been very trite and unconvincing.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
A little OT an a bit of semantics but I feel I should make this clear. Here we are not talking about less fit mutations being weeded out, but an interesting game theory application to the theory of evolution.
There are 2 "selfise genes" competing in the human population (over the last few hundred thousand years). One is for Sickle Cell Anemia (SCA) and one is not (NULL). Every one has 2 of them. 2 copies of SCA (SCA,SCA) is a major loss, basicly you cannot pass on your genes. 1 copy of SCA and one NULL (SCA,NULL) is a minor win, with resitance to malaria. 2 NULL's is lets say neutral. In areas where malaria is the number 1 killer (SCA,NULL) people pass on loads of their genes, including lots of SCA's. In areas where malaria kills noone the loss of the (SCA,SCA) people from the gene pool reduces the frequecy of SCA in the population. These 2 influences cause a varing balance of SCA to NULL accross the world, with the accosiated frequency of Sickle Cell Anemia as a disease.
Berzerker
Deity
A description of Earth before continents and life... A dark, water covered world.
Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
Such a thing never was. There has always been dry land, and the Earth formed after the Sun (thus why we are its satellite). Your "Earth formed 3 AUs out then got asploded back to 1 AU" proposal is physically impossible as has already been described for you many times.
You know what I finally figured out why Berzerker keeps saying the Earth was covered in water. See some scientists believe that Earth 2.5 billion years ago was 97 -98% covered in water due to hotter mantle. Through some land did still exist with the Wopmay Fault Zone being known example of land being above sea level at the time. Though the sun still hanged in the sky so it wasn't a dark water covered world.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Seeing as the sun existed before the earth did, the Earth was no darker then than it was now.
The Earth is already mostly covered with water, but there's no evidence to suggest it was ever completely covered with water, as there was always some landmass.
In fact, the further back you go, the less water there was expressed into the atmosphere and the ocean, because water was trapped as ice in the rocks that formed the earth, and were released into the atmosphere through volcanic activity.
There might have been more landmass back then, as the oceans had not fully formed and plate tectonics would still have created mountain ranges. Although less time would have elapsed and more of the surface would have been flat, thus there might have been more ocean coverage, but the ocean would have been more shallow. Still, dry land would have existed.
What the Bible says is not consistent with basic logic.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
"... which we can test."
Disregarding the right or wrong of this claim. You're free to show me how this is testable. If you can't do this, my question to Trev remains: "What the Bible says is irrelevant if it doesn't lead to data which can be tried to be explained through a model which can be tested.
Name one thing the Bible provides which we can test."
I'm not talking in Swahili, this is simple English.
stuge
Emperor
I beg to differ sir. There's fancy words like "data" and "model", you elitist.
You want proof?
BAM.
- Status
