The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
Hrm, I thought this was common knowledge. I don't even know where to find official publications, it's just been part of my life for so long. So, sorry, I don't have really good links
http://virus.chem.ucla.edu/article.php/invitro - the second paragraph talks about this.
Basically, if you supply all the components of a virus (confirmed to be organic, but non-living, parts) you can get a virus out of the soup.
http://virus.chem.ucla.edu/article.php/invitro - the second paragraph talks about this.
Basically, if you supply all the components of a virus (confirmed to be organic, but non-living, parts) you can get a virus out of the soup.
Samson, diablodelmare has been here about 20 different times, each time making a statement as uninformed, trollish and simple as the last one, and each and every time been shown wrong, resorted to insults, and ending up banned. For the peace of the thread I have reported him this time. Please do not fall for his trolling.
CarlosMM -- If I describe "kind" to you I probably might fall into "taxon". Especially since I am not as versed in definitions as you. "Kind" or "Type" to me are synonomous. A bird is a bird and always has been a bird. A dog is a dog and always has been a dog. A human is a human and always has been a human. God created us as male and female. I accept the Biblical story.
My rejection of evolution is faith based for the most part, but I have read several books which offer scientific evidence, which had a huge part in convincing me as well. As I stated earlier, science alone cannot answer the deep down questions that we wonder about. There is more than science in our makeup. For instance, as I asked before, how is that we all know that murder is wrong. Even serial killers know it, they apparently do not have the capacity to feel remorse.
Sansabas is right, when and if I am able to determine that evolution is as valid as what I believe I could be convinced to change my mind, (don't hold your breath), but it still wouldn't change the belief that God was involved in the process. Still no one can reach back before the beginning of time.
Souron-- at this moment I don't have much of an answer as to your "days" comments. It is my belief however that the Big Bang took place at Genesis 1:1.
Iron Duck-- Your comments are good. I could only address the questions based on what I explained. I don't see anything here that discount creation. Beautiful pictures as well. I just saw a double rainbow earlier this summer. Something that I don't think I have ever seen before. While most of you stand in awe at science, I stand in awe over the Creator, and the beauty of His Creation.
Hope, I didn't leave anyone out. Oh yeal el_machiae (sp-I did it from memory). To me your comments about viruses being created spontaneously still doesn't hold water for me. The necessary components to do so already existed. They didn't come from nothing.
My rejection of evolution is faith based for the most part, but I have read several books which offer scientific evidence, which had a huge part in convincing me as well. As I stated earlier, science alone cannot answer the deep down questions that we wonder about. There is more than science in our makeup. For instance, as I asked before, how is that we all know that murder is wrong. Even serial killers know it, they apparently do not have the capacity to feel remorse.
Sansabas is right, when and if I am able to determine that evolution is as valid as what I believe I could be convinced to change my mind, (don't hold your breath), but it still wouldn't change the belief that God was involved in the process. Still no one can reach back before the beginning of time.
Souron-- at this moment I don't have much of an answer as to your "days" comments. It is my belief however that the Big Bang took place at Genesis 1:1.
Iron Duck-- Your comments are good. I could only address the questions based on what I explained. I don't see anything here that discount creation. Beautiful pictures as well. I just saw a double rainbow earlier this summer. Something that I don't think I have ever seen before. While most of you stand in awe at science, I stand in awe over the Creator, and the beauty of His Creation.
Hope, I didn't leave anyone out. Oh yeal el_machiae (sp-I did it from memory). To me your comments about viruses being created spontaneously still doesn't hold water for me. The necessary components to do so already existed. They didn't come from nothing.
Don't worry on the spelling.
So - if it's not enough that a 'living' organism could spontaneously form from unliving components, then why are you asking if spontaneous generation has ever occured in a lab? I mean, the abiogenesis theory states that the unliving components were there to form into life. Did you want life appearing in a vacuum instead?
Of course, I am easily satisfied if you reject viruses as living. The only people who ever agree whether they are or not, is when they're agreeing with their prof's definition during an exam.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
bgast1 said:
Because most people agree that it would suck if it happened to them?
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
diablodelmar has returned, and so have I, from a week at a cabin in Southern Norway. carlosMM's motion to report for trolling is seconded, in accordance with forum rules:
@ironduck: Could you perhaps put [spoiler][/spoiler] tags around your pictures, perhaps, or at least the largest ones, in order to fix the page formatting without scaling down the pictures?
all of which can be opined to apply, also pursuant to several precedents, such as the forum autocensor and multiple locked posts, indicating that the "knowingly" clause applies only to "knowingly false" as the autocensor removes words without care for intent.
I refer you to the talk.origins Observed Instances of Speciation document, specifically section five, listing speciations where what used to be one group of animals split into two groups that would not breed with one another. Extract:bgast01 said:
@ironduck: Could you perhaps put [spoiler][/spoiler] tags around your pictures, perhaps, or at least the largest ones, in order to fix the page formatting without scaling down the pictures?
bgast1 said:
You seem not to get the point of speciation. In fact, there is no such thing as "just worms"; there are thousands of species of worms, and a lot of diversity. Just because they look the same to us doesn't mean they are the same. And sure, they didn't turn into something radically diverse; that is because it was a 20 year experiment. Given the hundreds of millions of years that life has had, a worm-like creature could evolve into a snake-like creature. But it doesn't happen overnight.
El_Machinae said:
Isn't that generally what Creationism is? The word vacuum is accepted provided that you mean nothing. God existed outside of time and space (of course this defys explanation) a spoke all of everything we see around us into being. Or, are we mincing words here and I don't understand what this thread is all about? Because I don't honestly see how either side can scientifically prove it's point. Which brings me to the point. Intelligent Design can be taught scientifically as well. It isn't about religion vs. science. Why can't both sides be taught along side each other and let the students make up their own mind?
Regardless, (I never took chemistry in high school, it wasn't required back in the day) weren't the compounds necessary to create viruses organic? I'm here to learn just as well. I can't and won't dispute the truth.
bgast1 said:
What would you say if a similar experiment changed things such that Oriental and Black people could still interbreed, but no longer could interbreed with White people?
A strong part of 'kind' is the fact that they're able to interbreed. We call dogs different from cats cause they can't make babies. In fact, I think you specifically alluded to something like this earlier.
The point is that they can no longer breed the 'fish' worm with the 'dog' worm, even though they both came from a common ancestor.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
<sarcastic parody of extreme Creationist argument> Snakes are worms, so no evolution would have taken place even so. </sarcastic parody>
More distinct speciations and differentions take more time. So those are mostly observed in the fossil record, because we have very few projects that track sets of animals for long enough to observe strong speciation - you'd need HOW many generations?
For fossil transitions, try this FAQ page.
Heh, ninjaed twice, but I had a link...
Eran of Arcadia said:
That's just the point that I am making. Worms will not evolve into snakes no matter how much speciation or adaptation takes place. They still remain worms.
Birds started out as birds and they remained birds all throughout time. We did not evolve from apes, we were always human and apes were always apes. I don't believe any amount of time will change this. I think that if the world worked like this, then we would see all sorts of intermediary steps even now. And also wouldn't we see transitional fossils as well. To my knowledge we don't find them.
bgast1 said:
I think that the point of this thread is to show how a literal reading of Genesis didn't occur. Intelligent Design only pops up once in awhile (though doesn't belong in a science class because it answers every question with "God made it that way"), but is tough to discuss scientifically if one posits that Evolution is merely God's plan.
Though, to answer your question, the spontaneous generation of life has never been observed in a vacuum. And yes, the compounds that formed into fucntional viruse were organic compounds (just like crude oil and carbon dioxide are organic); the main point is that they weren't alive when they were put into the mixing pot.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Take the blinders off:bgast1 said:
All species in existence today, are either a) transitional to the next generation, or b) about to go extinct.
Look at any animal and you see an intermediary step. It's just very, very hard to recognize, because we don't see the other end of the transition.
No, birds started out as single celled creatures, then protovertabrates, then fish, then reptiles, then dinosaurs, then virds, and the fossil record shows this. Worm-like creatures (in appearance, not in physiology) became vertebrates. Etc.
Don't worry about posting rarely; we appreciate all the good company we can get.
"Worms" is a much larger group than "primates", yet you accept that worms can change 'type', right? We didn't evolve from apes, though, both apes and humans came from a progenitor species. This species, like the worm, was able to interbreed, but over time separate groups lost that ability. We can't breed with apes for the same reason those two groups of worms can't interbreed either.
Is there any way we could convince you to accept the expert's word that there are a host of transitional fossils? I do believe the massive support for the theory comes from all the transitional fossils that were found.
"Worms" is a much larger group than "primates", yet you accept that worms can change 'type', right? We didn't evolve from apes, though, both apes and humans came from a progenitor species. This species, like the worm, was able to interbreed, but over time separate groups lost that ability. We can't breed with apes for the same reason those two groups of worms can't interbreed either.
Is there any way we could convince you to accept the expert's word that there are a host of transitional fossils? I do believe the massive support for the theory comes from all the transitional fossils that were found.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Interesting link which I will post here for later:
John Conway's Game of Life.
It has analogies to self-replication and large amounts of detail from simple rules and starting conditions.
Specifically, try the F pentomino:
John Conway's Game of Life.
It has analogies to self-replication and large amounts of detail from simple rules and starting conditions.
Specifically, try the F pentomino:
Code:
.OO
OO.
.O.Eran of Arcadia said:
I don't accept this, and I probably never will. It cannot be proven, and it is not observed. If so, I think we would see it in action today on a daily basis.
I think that a literal interpretation of Genesis squares with the evidence just fine and will be proven to be correct in the end. This is something that cannot be proven scientifically with our limited knowledge. I am quite aware that there are seeminly contraditions in the Bible, but I have not read one that cannot be explained satisfactorily to me.
El_machinae--I don't see why you have to say God did it in the classroom. It you teach the Big Bang, Einstein's theory of relativity, take out the obvious proven fraud from the textbooks or at least point it out for what it is (Haeckel's embryo's), and leave it as an alternative theory, the science is still what it is, truth is truth, what is wrong with that? Let the students make their own choice. I'm not even talking about Christianity. Einstein was led by his studies to believe in God, but not the Christian God.
- Status
