Hi,
This is my first post and Topic on this site, so I'll quickly introduce myself.
My name is Todd, 15 years old live in Sydney and I'm Christian and happily got saved about 2 months ago.
So anyway, I think this is a similar topic to something was put on before but anyway, I'd like to try it again.
I want people on this to state their belief and give evidence for why they think it is right or why they believe in it.
I myself as stated above am Christian, I don't know how many people have heard of this but before that I was an evolutionist, take note of what I say here evolutionists, "I didn't WANT to believe in God, because I was afraid of going to Hell for sinning, so I decided that if I believed there wasn't a God there wasn't a hell to possibly end up going to when I die, so I chose something that ruled God out, it took me ages but after 3 years I realised how pathetic evolution is because although I DID believe in it I never saw any proof of it" So anyway after this, I became Christian and saw proofs of it straight away, I've had a lot of my personal prayers answered and there's easily much proof in the bible with so many fulfilled prophecies and SCIENTIFIC FACTS that support the Bible, so thats my reason for trust in the Lord now, I'd write something longer but I'm tired right now.
Anyway, everyone else, I wanna hear your thoughts
Evidence for your beliefs
Moderator: Moderators
-
commonsense
- Student
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:09 pm
Post #91
prove my point wrong life could not have developed from the atmosphere as it was back then it would produce cyanide which is no basis for the beginning of life and i never said life just appeared gradualism is impossible by irreducible machine
Post #92
There's nothing to be gained by "proving" that any of us are wrong, because since none of us knows the details, we are probably all wrong.commonsense wrote:prove my point wrong life could not have developed from the atmosphere as it was back then it would produce cyanide which is no basis for the beginning of life and i never said life just appeared gradualism is impossible by irreducible machine
It turns out, though, that cyanide isn't an issue. Cyanide is toxic to us now because we use cytochromes, which are the enzymes that are poisoned by cyanide. Since it is clear that the pre-life chemical "things" weren't like what we have now, it seems logical that they weren't bothered by whatever atmosphere was there then. Maybe they even used cyanide as an energy source. If you don't know what was there, you can't very well say that it was impossible for anything to be there.
Gradualism may be impossible or possible, depending on how you define it, and what mechanism you suggest. However, "gradualism" as defined by the anti-evolution camp is not what evolutionists propose anyway--so it's fine if it's impossible. It might help us significantly if you could tell us exactly what you mean when you say "gradualism."
If, when you say "irreducible machine," you mean that life is "irreducibly complex," then I'd have to say that it's actually not. You're buying into an argument that isn't valid, even if it sounds good. That argument says "if you take away half of something that now exists, that something won't work," which is true, but then goes on to say "therefore it could not have evolved" and then concludes "therefore it must have been created by God." The trouble is, things don't evolve by assembling each of their parts, one by one, exactly as those parts exist today. They evolve by having some less complex, less efficient, and probably not-very-good version of the thing show up first. Subsequent evolution increases its complexity, efficiency, and function. And, of course, to say that "we don't know now exactly how X evolved" means that the only possible explanation is "creation" is illogical in the extreme. Another possibility is that we'll find out more in a few years, but the irreducible-complexity folks pretend that this possibility is impossible and cannot exist, so they don't mention it.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
potwalloper.
- Scholar
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
- Location: London, UK
Post #93
commonsense wrote:
www.unt.edu/resource/02cyanidefeature.htm
www.sunderland.ac.uk/~es0scu/extreme.htm
Cyanide degrading microbes have been known about for many years and have been used to detoxify cyanide and cyanide derivatives in mining environments and coke works...prove my point wrong life could not have developed from the atmosphere as it was back then it would produce cyanide which is no basis for the beginning of life and i never said life just appeared gradualism is impossible by irreducible machine
www.unt.edu/resource/02cyanidefeature.htm
www.sunderland.ac.uk/~es0scu/extreme.htm
-
laffysnaffypants777
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:22 pm
Post #94
NyrilAs the Universe is such a system in which trillions of simultaneous trials are being conducted, it was bound to happen sooner or later.
That makes no sense, just look at earth's solar system, how many planets have earth like conditions? The same law of probability that defends cells also is against them, its likely that oxygen would have destroyed the early cells anyway
Things that reproduce asexually evolve much slower than things that do not. Anyone want to make up something on how asexual beings became sexual?
cells that divide their DNA would just be wasting energy if they could not reproduce.
Also, how much stored energy is in cyanide?
potwalloper
Cyanide degrading microbes have been known about for many years and have been used to detoxify cyanide and cyanide derivatives in mining environments and coke works...
For 4.6 billion years?
remember, no cells today are like they were back then, thanks guys
On the subject of evolution, we know that all energy comes from the sun, why then, are there not mixes of plants and animals, think about it. There are plants that supplement their diet with meat, why not animals that can take in sunlight?
according to the theory of evolution, anything is possible with time.
That makes no sense, just look at earth's solar system, how many planets have earth like conditions? The same law of probability that defends cells also is against them, its likely that oxygen would have destroyed the early cells anyway
Things that reproduce asexually evolve much slower than things that do not. Anyone want to make up something on how asexual beings became sexual?
cells that divide their DNA would just be wasting energy if they could not reproduce.
Also, how much stored energy is in cyanide?
potwalloper
Cyanide degrading microbes have been known about for many years and have been used to detoxify cyanide and cyanide derivatives in mining environments and coke works...
For 4.6 billion years?
remember, no cells today are like they were back then, thanks guys
On the subject of evolution, we know that all energy comes from the sun, why then, are there not mixes of plants and animals, think about it. There are plants that supplement their diet with meat, why not animals that can take in sunlight?
according to the theory of evolution, anything is possible with time.
-
potwalloper.
- Scholar
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
- Location: London, UK
Post #95
laffysnaffypants777
Communities of bacteria are now being grown that replicate, mutate and evolve over a period of weeks to adapt to new environments, evolving into new strains before the very eyes of the scientists.
Pioneers of experimental evolutionary biology include Richard Lemski from Michigan State University and Paul Rainey from the University of Oxford in the UK. Lenski's landmark experiments began in the late 1980s with a long-running experiment to look at how strains of E-Coli bacteria evolve to become more competitive than their ancestors. A decade later Lemski's team revealed that a single strain of the leaf-dwelling bacterium Psuedomonas Flourescens differentiates into a variety of different morphs simply by being allowed to grow and reproduce in an environment with several ecological niches.
Micheal Travisano from the University of Houston, Texas has been developing these building blocks of study and has managed to pin down the specific factors involved in a particular evolutionary trajectory at a bacterial level.
Brendan Bohannan from Stanford University has now described microbial evolution experiments that appear to confirm the Shifting Balance Theory. Bohannan's team grew the same strain of E-Coli bacteria in two different environments. The "local" environment was a petri dish with agar. This allowed colonies from the bacteria to interact in two dimensions only. In the second "global" environment microbes mixed freely in a three-dimensional watery world like the contents of a soup.
The researchers isolated two different strains that developed in each environement and pitted them against both their ancestors and against each other. Successive competitions with their own ancestors revealed that strains reared in the "local" environment went on to evolve more slowly than those in the "global" environment. Despite this the slowly evolving strains always came out on top due to genetic evolution in the laboratory caused by natural selection.
The issue of single-celled organisms working in unity to derive evolutionary advantages is well documented and includes bacterial bio-luminescence (where stimulating a single bacterium can immediately cause the entire bacterial population to light up) to the selective development of flagella on only those bacteria in a population that lie on the bottom of the culture - these flagella are then used to move the entire colony most of which did not develop flagella. Single strain, common purpose.
Evolution is occuring around us all of the time at an extremely rapid rate and is now measurable in the laboratory. Remain in denial if you wish - evolution is now measurable and, to a certain extent, controllable.
The first step in the evolution of complex life is to get single-celled organisms to work together. The work that is now being done by evolutionary biologists using lab-based environments is beginning to reveal how this can occur and just how quickly evolution can occur within single-celled organisms in a controlled environment.Things that reproduce asexually evolve much slower than things that do not. Anyone want to make up something on how asexual beings became sexual?
Communities of bacteria are now being grown that replicate, mutate and evolve over a period of weeks to adapt to new environments, evolving into new strains before the very eyes of the scientists.
Pioneers of experimental evolutionary biology include Richard Lemski from Michigan State University and Paul Rainey from the University of Oxford in the UK. Lenski's landmark experiments began in the late 1980s with a long-running experiment to look at how strains of E-Coli bacteria evolve to become more competitive than their ancestors. A decade later Lemski's team revealed that a single strain of the leaf-dwelling bacterium Psuedomonas Flourescens differentiates into a variety of different morphs simply by being allowed to grow and reproduce in an environment with several ecological niches.
Micheal Travisano from the University of Houston, Texas has been developing these building blocks of study and has managed to pin down the specific factors involved in a particular evolutionary trajectory at a bacterial level.
Brendan Bohannan from Stanford University has now described microbial evolution experiments that appear to confirm the Shifting Balance Theory. Bohannan's team grew the same strain of E-Coli bacteria in two different environments. The "local" environment was a petri dish with agar. This allowed colonies from the bacteria to interact in two dimensions only. In the second "global" environment microbes mixed freely in a three-dimensional watery world like the contents of a soup.
The researchers isolated two different strains that developed in each environement and pitted them against both their ancestors and against each other. Successive competitions with their own ancestors revealed that strains reared in the "local" environment went on to evolve more slowly than those in the "global" environment. Despite this the slowly evolving strains always came out on top due to genetic evolution in the laboratory caused by natural selection.
The issue of single-celled organisms working in unity to derive evolutionary advantages is well documented and includes bacterial bio-luminescence (where stimulating a single bacterium can immediately cause the entire bacterial population to light up) to the selective development of flagella on only those bacteria in a population that lie on the bottom of the culture - these flagella are then used to move the entire colony most of which did not develop flagella. Single strain, common purpose.
Evolution is occuring around us all of the time at an extremely rapid rate and is now measurable in the laboratory. Remain in denial if you wish - evolution is now measurable and, to a certain extent, controllable.
Humans take in sunlight - how do you think we generate vitamin D?why not animals that can take in sunlight?
according to the theory of evolution, anything is possible with time.
Post #96
Do me a favor. Go outside at night, on a clear night without clouds, and on a night where the city lights don't blot out the sky (you may need to wait for a power outage). Look up.That makes no sense, just look at earth's solar system, how many planets have earth like conditions? The same law of probability that defends cells also is against them, its likely that oxygen would have destroyed the early cells anyway
There is more in this universe then just our solar system, besides, 1 of the 8 planets in -this- solar system had life. Running with that argument, there should be a hell of a lot of life in this universe.
As for the oxygen, indeed. However the oxygen in the atmosphere (as we know it) didn't exist back then, and as such isn't much of a challenge to the development of life.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20829
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 211 times
- Been thanked: 362 times
- Contact:
Post #97
Which planet might that be? Could you provide some evidence to back up your statement? I have never heard of life ever being found outside of Earth.Nyril wrote: There is more in this universe then just our solar system, besides, 1 of the 8 planets in -this- solar system had life. Running with that argument, there should be a hell of a lot of life in this universe.
-
potwalloper.
- Scholar
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
- Location: London, UK
Post #98
Otseng wrote
I think he could mean the Earth...1 of the 8 planets in this solar system that contains lifeWhich planet might that be? Could you provide some evidence to back up your statement?
-
potwalloper.
- Scholar
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
- Location: London, UK
