So...how were things "created"?

[Scotracer]

Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.

[Cathar1950]

Additionally most theories start out as ideas. For example ; The theory of plate tectonics was started out as an idea called continental drift. Alfred Wegener first suggested and his idea was published in 1915. At first there was no empirical evidence to support the claim and his idea was ridiculed by the scientists of the day. Too bad Wegner wasn't around to serve his serve his high brow debasers the crow they deserved to eat. He was later proved correct as we all know.

What are you implying? Plate tectonics was originally not accepted by the scientists of the day, therefore some religiously based explanation might be right?

He did make the same sort of suggestion with the BB where he claims Christianity was right and science was wrong. Of course he also failed to acknowledge that there were myths of creation long before Jewish or Christians claimed God created the world. The Psalms claim God fought and defeated the Sea or Chaos which is hardly the BB.

[nygreenguy]

There is about as much tangible evidence to support my personal opinion as there is to support abiogenesis is the way life began.

Not true at all. We know life could have started by itself. We know this because of observation. There is nothing similar to support your belief.

Additionally most theories start out as ideas.

So do crackpot beliefs! IT all depends on how you develop the idea

For example ; The theory of plate tectonics was started out as an idea called continental drift. Alfred Wegener first suggested and his idea was published in 1915. At first there was no empirical evidence to support the claim and his idea was ridiculed by the scientists of the day

Heres the thing, you are suggesting he was sitting on his couch someday and suddenly said "i bet the continents used to be connected" This is not how it happened. He used observation to come to this conclusion.

Wegener and his predecessors

The hypothesis that the continents had once formed a single landmass before breaking apart and drifting to their present locations was fully formulated by Alfred Wegener in 1912.[2] Although Wegener's theory was formed independently and was more complete than those of his predecessors, Wegener later credited a number of past authors with similar ideas:[3][4] Franklin Coxworthy (between 1848 and 1890),[5] Roberto Mantovani (between 1889 and 1909), William Henry Pickering (1907)[6] and Frank Bursley Taylor (1908).

For example: the similarity of southern continent geological formations had led Roberto Mantovani to conjecture in 1889 and 1909 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent (now known as Pangaea); Wegener noted the similarity of Mantovani's and his own maps of the former positions of the southern continents. Through volcanic activity due to thermal expansion this continent broke and the new continents drifted away from each other because of further expansion of the rip-zones, where the oceans now lie. This led Mantovani to propose an Expanding Earth theory which has since been shown to be incorrect.[7][8][9]

Some sort of continental drift without expansion was proposed by Frank Bursley Taylor, who suggested in 1908 (published in 1910) that the continents were dragged towards the equator by increased lunar gravity during the Cretaceous, thus forming the Himalayas and Alps on the southern faces. Wegener said that of all those theories, Taylor's, although not fully developed, had the most similarities to his own.[10]

Wegener was the first to use the phrase "continental drift" (1912, 1915)[2][3] (in German "die Verschiebung der Kontinente" " translated into English in 1922) and formally publish the hypothesis that the continents had somehow "drifted" apart. Although he presented much evidence for continental drift, he was unable to provide a convincing explanation for the physical processes which might have caused this drift. His suggestion that the continents had been pulled apart by the centrifugal pseudoforce of the Earth's rotation was rejected as calculations showed that the force was not sufficient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

Now, the scientists dis dismiss him because he didnt have any evidence of how this happened. This is much like darwin and natural selection. He didnt know exactly HOW this happened, but he had evidence that it did happen. In science when people suggest such ideas, but cant say how it happen, they are rightfully dismissed. Its like in math class and you are required to show your work. You may have the right conclusion, but thats useless if you dont understand the process involved.

Too bad Wegner wasn't around to serve his serve his high brow debasers the crow they deserved to eat. He was later proved correct as we all know.

p4jc

And I can almost guarantee he wouldnt hold it against them because its the way science work. We rightfully dismiss ideas that dont have all the evidence to support them.

[Pastor4Jesus]

Yes, and the big difference is that, well abiogenesis, and plate techtonics have this little things known as 'tangible evidence' for it. Even Abiogenesis, which is not a full blown theory , since it does not have a method of finding exactly HOW things did indeed happen has evidence for it.

Do you have any evidence? Do you have any method of getting evidence?

What exactly is the evidence of Abiogenisis. Precisely how was life created? Man you go along real good than you add something that destroys your debate like saying abiogenesis has tangible evidence. You are the Joe Bidden of debate sometimes. At least you try. I wish some of the Christians would come out of their safe little cocoon and get busy here.

~Anyway ~

You know the evidence I use. If course I could claim to use faith just like the scientists that claim there are infinite universes where every conceivable thing can and does happen.

p4jc

[Goat]

Yes, and the big difference is that, well abiogenesis, and plate techtonics have this little things known as 'tangible evidence' for it. Even Abiogenesis, which is not a full blown theory , since it does not have a method of finding exactly HOW things did indeed happen has evidence for it.

Do you have any evidence? Do you have any method of getting evidence?

What exactly is the evidence of Abiogenisis. Precisely how was life created? Man you go along real good than you add something that destroys your debate like saying abiogenesis has tangible evidence. You are the Joe Bidden of debate sometimes. At least you try. I wish some of the Christians would come out of their safe little cocoon and get busy here.

~Anyway ~

You know the evidence I use. If course I could claim to use faith just like the scientists that claim there are infinite universes where every conceivable thing can and does happen.

p4jc

Ok. Although this list is almost a decade out of date (since there is tons and tons of papers that have come out since.. there are these papers

1. Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wchtershuser, 2000 (below).
2. Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
3. Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
4. Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
5. Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
6. Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originofli ... ticles.htm
7. Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/a ... tuffof.jsp

This list was taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

which deals with creationists false claims , and it just so happens your claim on
abiogenesis is on that list.


Oh, speaking of claims, you had a claim 'There are 20 arguments for God', and then make disparaging remarks when I pointed out they were all based on logical fallacies. McCulloch was kind enough to open a thread for each category he could find.. (12, not 20). I noticed you are extremely absent in those threads. Can I assume that you can not back up your claim about the 20 arguments for God?

[McCulloch]

What exactly is the evidence of Abiogenisis.

At one time there was no biological life. Now there is. Therefore, there must have been some process by which life came from non-life.

Precisely how was life created?

I don't know. Do you? Given our common ignorance of this event, is it best to assume that it required divine intervention or to look for a natural process to explain it?

[Scotracer]

A process of abiogenesis has been verified in a lab:

Dr Jack W. Szostak has been working in his lab for many years over the origins of life. He won the 2009 Nobel prize in Physiology/Medicine and his team has come up with some results for abiogenesis.

You can find some of his work here:

http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

And here's a video outlining it:

[Pastor4Jesus]

Yes, and the big difference is that, well abiogenesis, and plate techtonics have this little things known as 'tangible evidence' for it. Even Abiogenesis, which is not a full blown theory , since it does not have a method of finding exactly HOW things did indeed happen has evidence for it.

Do you have any evidence? Do you have any method of getting evidence?

What exactly is the evidence of Abiogenisis. Precisely how was life created? Man you go along real good than you add something that destroys your debate like saying abiogenesis has tangible evidence. You are the Joe Bidden of debate sometimes. At least you try. I wish some of the Christians would come out of their safe little cocoon and get busy here.

~Anyway ~

You know the evidence I use. If course I could claim to use faith just like the scientists that claim there are infinite universes where every conceivable thing can and does happen.

p4jc

Ok. Although this list is almost a decade out of date (since there is tons and tons of papers that have come out since.. there are these papers

1. Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289: 1337-1340. See also Wchtershuser, 2000 (below).
2. Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature 381: 59-61.
3. Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 393-396.
4. Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28: 227-34.
5. Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 29: 273-86.
6. Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originofli ... ticles.htm
7. Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. New Scientist 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/a ... tuffof.jsp

This list was taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

which deals with creationists false claims , and it just so happens your claim on
abiogenesis is on that list.

None of the papers are proof of abiogenesis, they are entirely speculative, if you think otherwise please show paragraphs and sentences. I can claim anything proving it in a lab is different.

p4jc

[Pastor4Jesus]

A process of abiogenesis has been verified in a lab:

Dr Jack W. Szostak has been working in his lab for many years over the origins of life. He won the 2009 Nobel prize in Physiology/Medicine and his team has come up with some results for abiogenesis.

You can find some of his work here:

http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

And here's a video outlining it:

No good. Here is the defining sentence. BTW do you even read these things? If so why do you post something when it is simply a guess or assumption? You might as well of provided the miller experiment as an example of proof of abiogenesis.

From YOUR site; "begin to evolve in a Darwinian fashion, potentially leading to the spontaneous emergence of genomically encoded catalysts and structural molecules.

I highlighted the important words. The word potentially means; po-ten-tial [p tnshl]
adj
1. possible but not yet realized: with a possibility or likelihood of occurring, or of doing or becoming something in the future.

Possible eh? well anything is possible. The paper is just wishful thinking.

p4jc

[Pastor4Jesus]

Oh, speaking of claims, you had a claim 'There are 20 arguments for God', and then make disparaging remarks when I pointed out they were all based on logical fallacies

The reason I made disparaging remarks was because they were not based on logical fallacies, just like the KCA isn't. You claim these fantastic things, such the KCA being a logical fallacy with no proof like someone is going to believe you. Hey the KCA has been on the professional debate circuit for ten years, do you think if it were so simple to claim that it is a logical fallacy case closed that it would not of already been done?

p4jc

[Goat]

None of the papers are proof of abiogenesis, they are entirely speculative, if you think otherwise please show paragraphs and sentences. I can claim anything proving it in a lab is different.

p4jc

I suggest you actually read the claims about abiogenesis, and what you said.

You said there is no 'evidence'..

Yet.. you immediately dismiss 25 papers as 'speculative'

Have you read even one of them?>> Somehow, I doubt it.

You said there was 'nothing'. Something was produced. You shifted goal posts.

And.. you immedately , without review, hand wave all the points made as 'speculative'.

Tisk.. shame on you.