[Adam Betts]

http://nytimes.com/2003/02/12/science/12COSM.html

Don't you think it's time for people to write a Newer Testament?

It's a cool news though.

[Cubeoid]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
http://nytimes.com/2003/02/12/science/12COSM.html

Don't you think it's time for people to write a Newer Testament?

It's a cool news though.

"Sign up" ? ... bah!

[Sealobo]

WHAT?! I am not a member?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Science could be wrong... it is all the way you interpret it, 7 days could mean 7 billion yadda yadda yadda. /bible thumper

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Cubeoid:
"Sign up" ? ... bah!

It's free and you get a free cookie too

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sigh.

"Confirmed?"

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA.

greg

[Superchicken]

hehehe

Oh man gota love when people try and disprove something that they can't disprove.

The best way to deal with this discusstion is to recognize that uhh... GOD MAKES THINGS WITH AGE AND HISTORY!

Period

Look at it this way, Adam might have had a belly button we don't know.
But there were TREES not single cells that became trees, there was also a man of some age, not a baby he was able to talk with God and think intiligently... for a human. HE was smart enough to name all the animals hence he was of some age when he was already created.

HENCE the whole things are of such an age argument is pretty moot when you throw a limitless God into the equation. God gave me tallents with computers, digital photography, and many other things and I have the option of using them instead of spending time with God. And I often choose to do that and kick myself later. Science has the same option. God has created an incredibly complex world that we can never stop learning new things about. Just because we can learn things and assume things look a certain way doesn't mean we're right. My desk is flat... and I can never see that the world is in fact a sphere... but we can prove it other ways... simply because things look one way doesn't mean they're that way in fact.

[rampant]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/11feb_map.htm

[Superchicken]

By the way someone did write a newer testimate it's called the book of mormon... however they're a freaky cult that requires you to wear special underwear, they're polly theistic and have have more logic and historical holes in their book than windows has security flaws

[Nimisys]

personally i don't see why creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. god created and nature evolved to fit its enviroment.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by ShortcutToMoncton:
Sigh.

"Confirmed?"

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA.

Is that directed to me or to the article?

BTW, Dennis Overbye is a well-known writer for posting articles with good facts behind them.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
By the way someone did write a newer testimate it's called the book of mormon... however they're a freaky cult that requires you to wear special underwear, they're polly theistic and have have more logic and historical holes in their book than windows has security flaws

the mormon church is not the only church that believes in the book of mormon.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
personally i don't see why creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. god created and nature evolved to fit its enviroment.

This veiw is generally known as theistic evolution.

My only problem with it is that I simply think evolution is such a terribly researched theory... and yet some how it seems to be the intel of life theories. Most people I meet swear by it without understanding ANYTHING about it. I've taken G12 biology and LOVE it, my teacher's an evolutionist but I honestly look at what he knows and just ask like how on earth he could believe a theory that is just so... flawed. There are way to many assumptions. DNA alone is terribly complex even in it's most simple forms. Let alone cells. A fully functional cell is more complicated than lets say a revision D iMac since I'm using one... what is the likely hood that if I ground up a hundreds of revision D iMacs, and threw a bunch of energy in that we'd get anything that could run Mac OS?
it'ss 0! Technically there might bea probability of 1 in 1 to the 5000 power... or uhh however you do those crazy decimal numbers (sorry I do suck at math but I'm good at bio) but it just wouldn't happen. And a cell is more complicated than that even in it's simplest of forms. And then after this you have to have it continue to recreate it'self accurately and not simply kill it'self off. Or get killed off by having a rock fall on it or it get to hot in the sun or something. Although most groups think evolution started in the water or something. Even then how bout not get smashed by a rock or something.
ANYWAY, and then after that you have to go from single celled to multicelular. And thten there's evidence that the earth's magnetic feild is reducing in power or something progressively which suggests the earth can only be something like 20 000 years old max and so on and so forth.

Ultimately the theory uses probailities that for ANYTHING else would be looked at an laughed out of the room!

I don't mind if you don't believe in God but never tell me that we evolved from an ameba. If you wanna say from apes then at least you have a shot but something had to create the ape, and ultimately that something had to be God. And God's made it clear how He did it so why have another theory?

Honestly if another theory comes along that when I look into it has validity I'll research some more and then I'll compare it to what the bible says if it is in deed fact I will look at what the bible says in new light and see how it IS correct. This is what theistic evolutionsts do however evolution is far from correct hence why I don't do it.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
By the way someone did write a newer testimate it's called the book of mormon... however they're a freaky cult that requires you to wear special underwear, they're polly theistic and have have more logic and historical holes in their book than windows has security flaws

I've went to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints before and couldn't believe how much they hated other religions. It's almost like a racist. I couldn't drink any caffeine sodas, coffee, most chocolates, etc and yet they provide most of these at christmas party I've noticed that their bible version contain lot of flaws but I'm told that they have special team working on second version that fixed all holes and flaws. They should label it "All New Bible version 2.0!"

I've went to Baptist and Catholics church before and find Baptist to be little better because of its flexibility. They believed that bible is not 100% correct. Currently, I'm an atheist but I still respect religions very much. I'm willing to hear other people's side

[zigzag]

Any chance that this could be the "dark energy"?

[AlbertWu]

the only assumption evolution makes is that there was time.

ever heard "if you give an infinite amount of monkeys on typewriters infinite time, they will eventually produce the works of shakespeare"?

same concept, cept not infinite time, though pretty damn long. 6 billion years or so.

infinte atoms (or damn close, anyway)

and we are close to shakespeare. sort of.

[Superchicken]

yes but that doesn't hold true for biology, you would also need pre created enzymes which are only really ever created by other enzymes and so on and so forth. Seriously it's hard to explain take advanced biology and you'll find out.
And if I left my pile of Rev D iMacs to sit for a long time with a blender going and a lot of heating and cooling peirods I would still never end up with another rev D iMac. It just wouldn't happen.

And also evolution bases it on infinite time, this article states that ultimately without God the only had 13 billion years, now that seems like a lot, but you gota leave not only a few billion years for the cell to create it'self, but for it to also mutate into a multiceular thing and then from there it's almost a peice of cake to becomming all the animals and plants we have now... sure... except we'd also have more middle steps too. Like I said bio chemisty is NOT the same as text it's far more complex. This is like saying that if you played an unlimited number games against IBM's big chess program or whatever they had, and you didn't know how to play and never paid attention you'd win. The probability is that on each time you'd have 1 out of 9 billion million or whatever number chances. Not that you'd win one out of every 9 billion million tries.

And yeah Mormons are also racist their official doctrin teaches that people are born from spirits and what not, and that black people are the re births or something like that of demons where as of course white people are good... of course (David rolls his eyes).
They're in tollorant because they're a cult it's their job if they weren't they wouldn't mannage to hold their ground against groups that acctually have a clue
And yeah the bapitists churches tend to come the closest to ideal scripture interpritation in my experince. The Catholic church relies heavely on tradition being on equal levil as scripture... which we have no evidence Jesus ever taught... infact that veiw was never presant in the early church...

IF you have any questions about doctrin you might wanna check out Carm.org it's a site designed to help Christians respond to the "tough" questions posed to them by most atheists and others who are very admit of their stance. It's a fairly well done site... and my friend swears by it... I havn't read it much though cause in all honesty I rarely get a question that stumps me... atheists tend to only have so many objections and if you're trained in what makes sense you can easily identify what doesn't make sense... similar to counterfeit money people

[Pikeman]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
By the way someone did write a newer testimate it's called the book of mormon... however they're a freaky cult that requires you to wear special underwear, they're polly theistic and have have more logic and historical holes in their book than windows has security flaws

Mormons are not a 'freaky cult'. My girlfriend and her whole family are Mormon, and they are some of the nicest and most normal people I've ever met. My girlfriend and her family are all very smart, well read, and educated people. They are not 'polly theistic', because that would mean they believe in more than one parrot. And if you call Mormons polytheistic, you'd have to call all Christians polytheistic for believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as well. And you speak of logical holes in the Book of Mormon as if there weren't quite a few of those in the Old and New Testements of the Bible...

[itai195]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
yes but that doesn't hold true for biology, you would also need pre created enzymes which are only really ever created by other enzymes and so on and so forth. Seriously it's hard to explain take advanced biology and you'll find out.

So the argument is that God took advanced biology?

I'd have to disagree with the Mormon comments. I have heard that in Utah they can be somewhat intolerant, but so can many other people, to worse levels. All the Mormons I've known have been very nice, down to earth people. My only real problem with their religion is that, like many (all?) other Christian sects, it supports missionary evangelism.

[Pikeman]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
And yeah Mormons are also racist their official doctrin teaches that people are born from spirits and what not, and that black people are the re births or something like that of demons where as of course white people are good... of course (David rolls his eyes).
They're in tollorant because they're a cult it's their job if they weren't they wouldn't mannage to hold their ground against groups that acctually have a clue

Frankly, your complete and utter ignorance about the Mormon faith makes me sick to my stomach.

[AlbertWu]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Seriously it's hard to explain take advanced biology and you'll find out.

i've taken college-level bio courses. explain all you like.

given even a few years, a bunch of atoms, and some random energy, they will naturally bond into chemicals, and some of those chemicals will be organic... things like carbohydrates, amino acids, lipids, etc

all organic molecules follow chemical rules. you don't need to violate any laws of physics to put together a human body.

now take that time scale and multiply it by a billion. a billion chances to form 21 different kinds of amino acids, phospholipids, 9 kinds of nucleotides, and a carbohydrate.

suddenly it doesn't seem all so complex anymore.

then give it a couple more billion years for random chance to arrange those macromolecules. the ones that work survive, the ones that don't... don't.

phospholipids in water will naturally form a membrane. nucleotides will naturally bond, carbon will naturally bond with hydrogen and oxygen to form carbohydrates, and amino acids will naturally stick together to form polypeptides. you don't need a high tech lab to synthesize a cell.

[Superchicken]

OK then, since you acctually have an idea of what you're talking about. Here's the thing, you need tons of energy to form most bonds with carbon. Hence why we need to create ATP, you also need the CORRECT enzymes with the exact set of amino acids to form the propper shape of the enzyme. Now with enzymes already there this is not a problem. However as with all bio chemcial compounds you need to have propper bonding sites, what is the likely hood that even thousand of amino acids bouncing around a cell are likely to all hit eachother at the exact right place and that this will happen within a propper time frame hundreds of times? It's far from likely and far from scientifically plausable. Enzymes do not spotainiously generate. And then after this you would need a set of spontainiously generated DNA molocuels. Essentially cells are terrible terribly complex. As you know. And there are tons of different enzymes, that need to be there for DNA replication to occure and that would need to happen to have life.
There's a reason why we have DNA to create enzymes it's becasue if we didn't have them the reactions neccicary to support life would happen to slowly to work. I don't know of any place where you could just throw a lot of nitrogen, oxogen, hydrogen, carbon, and phosphates togeather and have them even in a thousand years spontainiously create a single enzyme, let alone enough to make a cell.
The theory ignores all logic.

[Superchicken]

Oh and just because Mormons are a cult doesn't mean theyr'e not nice people. Most are very nice, most groups that are effective at condeming people to hell by blinding them to the truth are incredibly nice... that's why people trust them, because they're completely ignorant about the fact that they're working against God.

And I'm not overly knowlegeable about mormonism but I'm also not entirely ignorant. Ask them why Adam was a God... I cant' remember the name of the guy who said it but one of the founders of their group stated that. also Joe Smith had a whole lota other stuff going on... essentially it started out as a scam but people kept it going.

[Teronzhul]

Science proves nothing. Anyone who's taken any entry level science course in any field knows this. All Science does is say that there is a good likelyhood that something like this happened. We weren't there, we don't KNOW.

Religion on the other hand seems to prove everything. One omnipotent entity created everything and thats that. Its all so simple.

Frankly, either answer could be correct. I am not one to say. I don't KNOW. I do find it interesting that someone can conceive that an all powerful creature made everything, but cannot allow that it also might have occured by chance.

Whats worse is that everyone has to be right. GOD EXISTS! NO HE DOESN'T! YES HE DOES! etc etc etc

God exists people : prove it
God doesn't exist people: prove it

This debate is already several thousand years old, and I don't think anything short of either God presenting himself to us, or complete extermination of the human race, is going to end it.

I don't even know why I wrote this, but I did, so I'm clicking the submit button.

[UNTeMac]

When did the thread about the Big Bang become the thread about evolution and Mormonism...to steer us back a little.

Science...(AGAIN I SAY) does not disprove God and cannot therefore prove Him either. The Big Bang theory doesn't even involve God in the first place. It says, based on our current observation, that this is how the universe has evolved over 14 or so billion years. This new data fits our older theory very well, therefore increasing the validity and strength of said theory. It is scientific method at its best. Leave religion and God out of it since He is a moot point according to science.

chicken, if you need science to believe in God then your faith isn't true. If you ignore science that contradicts your faith, then your faith isn't true. The only true faith is "there is a God" since science can't make a judgment on that statement. Science can make judgements on myths when evidence is presented involving those myths. You do not need to prove the bible literally to believe in God. In fact, if you need to do that...you don't really believe in God.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Teronzhul:
Science proves nothing. Anyone who's taken any entry level science course in any field knows this. All Science does is say that there is a good likelyhood that something like this happened. We weren't there, we don't KNOW.

Religion on the other hand seems to prove everything. One omnipotent entity created everything and thats that. Its all so simple.

Frankly, either answer could be correct. I am not one to say. I don't KNOW. I do find it interesting that someone can conceive that an all powerful creature made everything, but cannot allow that it also might have occured by chance.

Whats worse is that everyone has to be right. GOD EXISTS! NO HE DOESN'T! YES HE DOES! etc etc etc

God exists people : prove it
God doesn't exist people: prove it

This debate is already several thousand years old, and I don't think anything short of either God presenting himself to us, or complete extermination of the human race, is going to end it.

I don't even know why I wrote this, but I did, so I'm clicking the submit button.

"Absolute Truths" are unattainable by nature. If you're looking for them, you're gonna be looking for a long time.

Science attempts to answer a question as well as it possibly can. Science isn't afraid to say "I don't know", nor say "We were wrong", nor "It could work EITHER this way OR that way". Science also never said "there is no God".

Religion answers every question with one word and no proof. "God".

I can prove to you God doesn't exist as well as I can prove that gravity does; you can't prove to me that gravity doesn't exist and that God does ("prove" = beyond reasonable doubt in this context, as defined by me).

[simonjames]

Adam Betts - very disappointed with this post. What are you? A closet christian? Posts such as these only inflame the religious (I was going to write 'ignorant' but that would be flame bait) to fight back with copious amounts of faith and bible thumping.

Lets talk about something interesting, happy and tangible for a change. Like - do you have a job your really enjoy going to each and every day? Or what is the success to a happy & long life with the partner of your dreams? Lets be selfish for a while by forgetting about invasions and whether Adam & Eve had belly buttons and talk about what makes us happy.

And no, I haven't been near the medicine cabinet this evening. Just sick of the bog that MacNN seems to be of late.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
i've taken college-level bio courses. explain all you like.

given even a few years, a bunch of atoms, and some random energy, they will naturally bond into chemicals, and some of those chemicals will be organic... things like carbohydrates, amino acids, lipids, etc

all organic molecules follow chemical rules. you don't need to violate any laws of physics to put together a human body.

now take that time scale and multiply it by a billion. a billion chances to form 21 different kinds of amino acids, phospholipids, 9 kinds of nucleotides, and a carbohydrate.

suddenly it doesn't seem all so complex anymore.

then give it a couple more billion years for random chance to arrange those macromolecules. the ones that work survive, the ones that don't... don't.

phospholipids in water will naturally form a membrane. nucleotides will naturally bond, carbon will naturally bond with hydrogen and oxygen to form carbohydrates, and amino acids will naturally stick together to form polypeptides. you don't need a high tech lab to synthesize a cell.

I would like to point out one or two things, that phospholipids in water form micells not LBLs and the macromolecules are very difficult to explain. I am afraid that pure chance and a couple of billion years do not make it statistically likely that we have what we have. Do you realize the theoretical amount of aminocids possible? And was life sprung out of proteins? Did the proteins line up DNA to make life? Was RNA befor DNA? There is nothing simple about our "beginning of life" theories. They assume quite a lot.

[gadster]

The complexity of matter in the universe is most likely a bell curve. Some small areas have no complexity at all, uniform unvaried matter. Most parts of the universe would have moderate complexity. Other small areas would contain incredibly complex patterns of matter.

It's life Jim, just as we know it.

[Zimphire]

How does this disprove the A&E story in any way?

*reads article*

It doesn't.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How does this disprove the A&E story in any way?

*reads article*

It doesn't.

It proves the Big Bang theory, which doesn't exactly support the Genesis stories.

But it doesn't matter, you don't believe in Genesis, do you?

Anyway; A&E has long been known to be a load of crap.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
It proves the Big Bang theory, which doesn't exactly support the Genesis stories.

The BIble doesn't disprove the BBT. I actually think the BBT happened. I just have disagreements as to what caused it.

But it doesn't matter, you don't believe in Genesis, do you?

No, I pick and choose which parts of the Bible I want to believe in.

Anyway; A&E has long been known to be a load of crap.

Really? news to me. Last time I checked (a second ago) no one has disproved it.

What I think you ment is "I don't personally believe in A&E and haven't for awhile"

That I can easily accept.

[Cipher13]

The cause of the big bang is one thing I'm not even going to touch. In short, I have no fcuking clue. Any theories I had couldn't be proven anyway, so... eh.

---

Well, isn't it accepted, even in Catholocism and whatnot that A&E is nothing but a "story"? You called it a "story" yourself.

And yes, it is a load of crap; there's this thing called evolution that everyones talking about now... it's cool.

[Zimphire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cipher13:
[B]Well, isn't it accepted,[quote][b]
Me, being apart of the "Christian Community" I am hear to tell you it is.

even in Catholocism and whatnot that A&E is nothing but a "story"?

Good for them. I am not Catholic.

You called it a "story" yourself.

Just because something is called a story, doesn't mean it's made up Cipher, come on now..

And yes, it is a load of crap; there's this thing called evolution that everyones talking about now... it's cool.

Well it's a good thing the Bible doesn't say anything about man not evolving over the years. What we don't know is, exactly how long it took. We have no physical evidence of man slowly evolving over the years. No fossils evidence. It's almost like man just evolved in a instant from the earth. Hmmm

[invisibleX]

I'll believe you cipher the second you can tell me (beyond reasonable doubt) where gravity came from, how the hell a pretty-damn-orderly universe came out of chaos. Might be time to brush up on the chaos theory before science bites you in the butt.

As for mormons I know a fair bit. They have cleaned up their system alot to keep it going, still biblically wrong but hey, nobodys perfect?

Evolution may actually work with God. Now now, hear me out: First of all, what was the pre-flood world like? Hmm, most figure that it didn't rain and was just pretty humid and a totally even clim because you gotta get the moisture to get that much rain from somewhere. It also works because everthing was apparently very, very nice and life was pretty damn good. Now tell me how a camel is gonna live in the tropics? Now lets ignore all that... what animals did noah load up? Certainly not two of every species that exists today, we know how big the boat was and it was big enough to hold everything. We also have evidence that man walked with the dinosaurs... this could be wrong, could be right. Crucial to living? Not at all.

Science can't prove that God does not exist. Religion cant prove that science is wrong for the simple fact that science is from God. He isn't bound by anything, we are. So yo're trying to use something he is the author of to prove that he doesn't exist.

You're all right, its a standstill. If you don't believe in God you just won't without proof. If you do you won't be swayed by a $50 piece of space junk.

I'll admit, 99% of religions are wrong on atleast some points of doctrine. The only true (and first) church is biblical christianity. Adam, you might be interested to know that it teaches that church is the people, not the building and that to have the lords supper (communion for some) only requires two people (christians), no church required.

Superchicken, we live in the same city, have nearly the same ideas and own the same computer (or atleast work at one)

[invisibleX]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
The cause of the big bang is one thing I'm not even going to touch. In short, I have no fcuking clue. Any theories I had couldn't be proven anyway, so... eh.

---

Well, isn't it accepted, even in Catholocism and whatnot that A&E is nothing but a "story"? You called it a "story" yourself.

And yes, it is a load of crap; there's this thing called evolution that everyones talking about now... it's cool.

You do know that you're pushing a popular belief only because it fits with your life, right? You can't in any way shape or form prove evolution. I really love those areas where a tree trunk is buried across millions of years of rock, priceless. Why evolution cipher? Its easy. Bitch a little and live on. It makes no difference whatsoever.

The BBT has long been known to be a pile of crap, and I don't believe in it. Now cipher, please explain to the class how order can come out of chaos. Everything we create goes to nothing (chaos theory explains that), yet the earth just keeps going and going and going and going...

Its like asking a baby how the energizer bunny does it: they just don't posses the knowledge to answer.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by invisibleX:

I'll admit, 99% of religions are wrong on atleast some points of doctrine. The only true (and first) church is biblical christianity. Adam, you might be interested to know that it teaches that church is the people, not the building and that to have the lords supper (communion for some) only requires two people (christians), no church required.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

given even a few years, a bunch of atoms, and some random energy, they will naturally bond into chemicals, and some of those chemicals will be organic... things like carbohydrates, amino acids, lipids, etc

all organic molecules follow chemical rules. you don't need to violate any laws of physics to put together a human body.

now take that time scale and multiply it by a billion. a billion chances to form 21 different kinds of amino acids, phospholipids, 9 kinds of nucleotides, and a carbohydrate.

suddenly it doesn't seem all so complex anymore.

then give it a couple more billion years for random chance to arrange those macromolecules. the ones that work survive, the ones that don't... don't.

phospholipids in water will naturally form a membrane. nucleotides will naturally bond, carbon will naturally bond with hydrogen and oxygen to form carbohydrates, and amino acids will naturally stick together to form polypeptides. you don't need a high tech lab to synthesize a cell.

Horribly, horribly wrong. Almost humourously so.

greg

[gadster]

Maybe when Adam and Eve ****ed for the first time, it created the Big Bang!

[CheesePuff]

I see no point in believing in the bible and Earth being created in seven days. It's just because we're smarter than other animals so we needed something to do; so we thought about how we got here.

There is much more scientific proof of the big bang theory (or other theories) then their is of god, and along with that heaven (and hell).

I'm not sure of this, but I believe it was scaught who said "it feels like you did before you were born", when referring to what its like after death.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Good for them. I am not Catholic.
[/b] Just because something is called a story, doesn't mean it's made up Cipher, come on now..


Well it's a good thing the Bible doesn't say anything about man not evolving over the years. What we don't know is, exactly how long it took. We have no physical evidence of man slowly evolving over the years. No fossils evidence. It's almost like man just evolved in a instant from the earth. Hmmm [/B]

� "Catholocism and whatnot", that includes you. The 'whatnot' is important. So...?

� Well - I'm certainly not calling evolution a 'story'...

� Err... are you serious? You can't be, right? Where do the dinosaurs fit into Gods great plan? The cyanobacteria? Hmm? They didn't feature in "genesis". We *do* have physical evidence. We *do* have fossils...

We *do* have evidence... Astrolopithecus afarensis? A. Africanus? Homo erectus? H. habilis? We have lots of evidence for Hominid evolution... heh.

Not real well informed, are you?

[boots]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
OK then, since you acctually have an idea of what you're talking about. Here's the thing, you need tons of energy to form most bonds with carbon. Hence why we need to create ATP, you also need the CORRECT enzymes with the exact set of amino acids to form the propper shape of the enzyme. Now with enzymes already there this is not a problem. However as with all bio chemcial compounds you need to have propper bonding sites, what is the likely hood that even thousand of amino acids bouncing around a cell are likely to all hit eachother at the exact right place and that this will happen within a propper time frame hundreds of times? It's far from likely and far from scientifically plausable. Enzymes do not spotainiously generate. And then after this you would need a set of spontainiously generated DNA molocuels. Essentially cells are terrible terribly complex. As you know. And there are tons of different enzymes, that need to be there for DNA replication to occure and that would need to happen to have life.
There's a reason why we have DNA to create enzymes it's becasue if we didn't have them the reactions neccicary to support life would happen to slowly to work. I don't know of any place where you could just throw a lot of nitrogen, oxogen, hydrogen, carbon, and phosphates togeather and have them even in a thousand years spontainiously create a single enzyme, let alone enough to make a cell.
The theory ignores all logic.

A couple of things. First, a photon of light in the visible spectrum (not UV, lets say between 200nm and 400nm) has between 70 and 143 Kcal/mol of energy. (Remember that E=hc/lambda) UV light has even more energy. The average C-C bond in a molecule requires 81 Kcal/mol to homolytically break it. So you are really underestimating the amount of energy available to molecular systems setting out to bake in the sun.

Also you don't seem to take into account the fact that we have (and have almost always had) a very oxidizing atmosphere. Primative atmosphere was mostly sulfurous, but still oxidizing. There is a lot of potential for "random chemical reactions" to make some complex, though random, molecules. People have been able to make simple amino acids by electrical discharge in a nitrogen/oxygen/H2S atmosphere. This is not very magical.

Second: Ribosomes are rather easy to make (in a random chemistry environment) and these show catalytic activity similar to, but not as efficient as, enzymes.

Many reactions involving short peptide like molecules are autocatalytic. This means that as more product is formed, the rate increases (in a steady state model).

In short, the chemistry of life is not terribly difficult to imagine coming from a primordial soup.

The fact that it is as refined as we see it today IS nothing short of miraculous, but the mechanisms are not magical.

The thing that always gets me, is that we live in a chiral world. As a rule, we assume that racemic reactants will return racemic products. But I am aware of a least one example of spontaneous "resolution" in an auto catalytic reaction...not to mention the resolution observed in racemic conglomerates and other crystal structures. Look into Pastuer's experiments where he was able to crystalize the enantiomers of tartrate from each other via a spontaneous resolution during recrystalization.


With regard to ATP, etc. as energy sources: So what? Biological systems have figured out a more refined way to use energy. See my comments above.

What this study does is cast more doubt on the causality of the event. What existed before the Big Bang an where did the energy/matter come from? This is a pretty interesting question for physics now. There was a theory that the BB didn't provide enough energy for the matter to reach escape velocity. In otherwords, the matter couldn't get far enough away from the gravitational center to escape the gravitational pull. The consequences are that the matter would slow down and reverse direction, converging on the center of gravity again. A repeating cycle of Big Bangs. The current data now says that the matter HAS reached escape velocity, and there is no cycling. So, what caused the BB, and where did the matter come from? The religious will continue to say that this might have been the seminal act of creation. I have yet to hear any theories based on data from the physicists. It will be interesting to see what the creative minds come up with.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
There is much more scientific proof of the big bang theory (or other theories) then their is of god, and along with that heaven (and hell).

And that in no way disproves either one.

I'm not sure of this, but I believe it was scaught who said "it feels like you did before you were born", when referring to what its like after death.

How often has scaught died and came back to life?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by invisibleX:
I'll believe you cipher the second you can tell me (beyond reasonable doubt) where gravity came from, how the hell a pretty-damn-orderly universe came out of chaos. Might be time to brush up on the chaos theory before science bites you in the butt.

As for mormons I know a fair bit. They have cleaned up their system alot to keep it going, still biblically wrong but hey, nobodys perfect?

Evolution may actually work with God. Now now, hear me out: First of all, what was the pre-flood world like? Hmm, most figure that it didn't rain and was just pretty humid and a totally even clim because you gotta get the moisture to get that much rain from somewhere. It also works because everthing was apparently very, very nice and life was pretty damn good. Now tell me how a camel is gonna live in the tropics? Now lets ignore all that... what animals did noah load up? Certainly not two of every species that exists today, we know how big the boat was and it was big enough to hold everything. We also have evidence that man walked with the dinosaurs... this could be wrong, could be right. Crucial to living? Not at all.

Science can't prove that God does not exist. Religion cant prove that science is wrong for the simple fact that science is from God. He isn't bound by anything, we are. So yo're trying to use something he is the author of to prove that he doesn't exist.

You're all right, its a standstill. If you don't believe in God you just won't without proof. If you do you won't be swayed by a $50 piece of space junk.

I'll admit, 99% of religions are wrong on atleast some points of doctrine. The only true (and first) church is biblical christianity. Adam, you might be interested to know that it teaches that church is the people, not the building and that to have the lords supper (communion for some) only requires two people (christians), no church required.

Superchicken, we live in the same city, have nearly the same ideas and own the same computer (or atleast work at one)

Ahh, wow. Amazing. I think it is you that needs to brush up on Chaos Theory, Mr. X - I'm quite up to date on it. It seems you heard the name "chaos theory" and decided that it must be about... chaos, as per a dictionary definition; the antonym of order; and nothing more. Educate yourself before you tell me to.

Where did gravity come from? The same place matter came from.

"Science can not prove that God does not exist", blah blah blah. That's the tired and lame argument of Absolute Truths� again, and it really is an insult to anybody who relies on it to make a point.

"Prove to me that China exists! Go on!"
"err.... I can't"

Heh. Pathetic.

Define God, Mr. X. What is your God? A bearded man in the sky? Is God simply the energy that everything is made up from? Is it Chi? Is it some-other-thing-some-cult-made-up? Define it, if you wanna discuss its existence.

I can prove to you that God does not exist mores ( <---- KEYWORD incase you didn't notice) than you can prove that he DOES.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
? "Catholocism and whatnot", that includes you. The 'whatnot' is important. So...?

If you are saying "whatnot" = Christianity then you are wrong.

? Well - I'm certainly not calling evolution a 'story'...

You can indeed tell the story of evolution. I have heard it many times.

? Err... are you serious? You can't be, right? Where do the dinosaurs fit into Gods great plan? The cyanobacteria? Hmm? They didn't feature in "genesis". We *do* have physical evidence. We *do* have fossils...

The Bible never says there wasn't Dinosaurs either. Actually the Bible does talk about Giants that roamed the earth. BTW finding Dinosaur remains doesn't = proof that man has slowly evolved over millions of years.

We *do* have evidence... Astrolopithecus afarensis? A. Africanus? Homo erectus? H. habilis? We have lots of evidence for Hominid evolution... heh.

Again read above. If true evolution did take place, there would be fossil evidence. You'd see part man part some other being. There would be so many of these things they would have had to leave evidence. There is no evidence to support man slowly evolving from a single celled organism over a long period of time. Zilch nada not one. That is what they call the "missing link" in evolution. The one that they are going to find 'any day now" That is why it takes faith to believe in such a thing. I am not saying man hasn't slightly evolved over the years. The Bible doesn't contradict that.

Not real well informed, are you?

Er yeah, you sure proved me wrong.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
"Science can not prove that God does not exist", blah blah blah. That's the tired and lame argument of Absolute Truths? again, and it really is an insult to anybody who relies on it to make a point.

"Prove to me that China exists! Go on!"
"err.... I can't"

Heh. Pathetic.

Pathetic indeed. He has a point, you can't prove otherwise so you try to make rationalizations that just don't add up.

I can prove to you that God does not exist mores ( <---- KEYWORD incase you didn't notice) than you can prove that he DOES.

Please prove to me he doesn't exist.

I think someone is have delusions of granduer.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by invisibleX:
You do know that you're pushing a popular belief only because it fits with your life, right? You can't in any way shape or form prove evolution. I really love those areas where a tree trunk is buried across millions of years of rock, priceless. Why evolution cipher? Its easy. Bitch a little and live on. It makes no difference whatsoever.

The BBT has long been known to be a pile of crap, and I don't believe in it. Now cipher, please explain to the class how order can come out of chaos. Everything we create goes to nothing (chaos theory explains that), yet the earth just keeps going and going and going and going...

Its like asking a baby how the energizer bunny does it: they just don't posses the knowledge to answer.

Oh, get off your goddamn high horse. As if you know the first thing about the motivations for my beliefs. How arrogant of you. It fits with my life, eh? I'm a Roman Catholic. I used to go to Church every Sunday. My family still does.

Maybe I can't, but hell, I'm not an authority on evolution, am I? Evolution has been proven, and I'm sorry, if you don't believe in it, then you're as bad as flat-earthers. Evolution is a fact. Indisputable. What was the rock comment, hmm? Would you like me to go into that in-depth? I was actually considering a geological major. I'd love to go into it with you more.

Evolution is easy? Compared to "God"? God is easy. You believe in nothing; you believe in a figment of your imagination; you believe in something that has been passed on from ignorant soul to ignorant soul over hundreds of years; you have no proof of it, it requires no energy to believe in it, and there is no facet of it that can make it difficult; I believe in science, and every now and then, an old theory gets usurped. Religion? Naw, just keep on believin' in that big old man in the sky! Easy as!

Oh, again, chaos. For you to be worth arguing with, you'd know that order is merely one of chaos' many arms. Without chaos, there cannot be order; without order there cannot be chaos; however, chaos is the parent of order. You also, obviously, have no concept of time. For your beliefs about chaos to be accurate, we'd have to be living in all different periods in time at once... and randomly (or, chaotically, I should say), travelling between them.

EDIT: major typo. First sentence, your = my. Fixed.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If you are saying "whatnot" = Christianity then you are wrong.

Didn't say anything of the sort, now stop avoiding the question and ****ing answer it.

You can indeed tell the story of evolution. I have heard it many times.

Well - the thing is - it isn't as much a "story" as it is a "fact", you see. Sure, the two aren't mutually exclusive; as in this case, it's a fact. As opposed to Genesis, which is a fairy tale to make people like you feel better about their ignorance.

The Bible never says there wasn't Dinosaurs either. Actually the Bible does talk about Giants that roamed the earth. BTW finding Dinosaur remains doesn't = proof that man has slowly evolved over millions of years.

Show me the "giants" passage. I want references.

Oh, and I never, at any stage, said that dinosaur remains = proof of hominid evolution. Don't put words into my mouth to try and discredit my argument

Again read above. If true evolution did take place, there would be fossil evidence. You'd see part man part some other being. There would be so many of these things they would have had to leave evidence. There is no evidence to support man slowly evolving from a single celled organism over a long period of time. Zilch nada not one. That is what they call the "missing link" in evolution. The one that they are going to find 'any day now" That is why it takes faith to believe in such a thing. I am not saying man hasn't slightly evolved over the years. The Bible doesn't contradict that.

And, as I said, there is fossil evidence. Your education level simply doesn't alert you to its existence. Part-man, part-ape - hows that? Guess what - we HAVE them!!! We have man, apes, and we have inbetweens. Shall I list them?

Lemme see... off the top of my head in no particular order: Cro-Magnon, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, Homo sapiens sapiens (us), Astralopithecus afarensis, Astralopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo anteccessor, err... you get the point. I can find you a list if you really want one. Even skeletal comparisons. How about that?

The "missing link"... ahh... a weapon of the mass media, implanted in your skull. There are, indeed, missing links, such as Archeopteryx; but the point is moot, given the evidence we already have.

Er yeah, you sure proved me wrong.

Yes... yes I did. How about that.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Pathetic indeed. He has a point, you can't prove otherwise so you try to make rationalizations that just don't add up.



Please prove to me he doesn't exist.

I think someone is have delusions of granduer. [/B]

Delusions of grandeur? No, not at all. Resorting to personal attacks now, Zim? Ad hominem?

Prove to you he doesn't exist; I will. As soon as you define "God". Like I said before - I can't disprove the existence of something that hasn't been defined.

Hell, I could give you all the evidence in the world for it, and you'd turn around and say "God, by nature, seems non-existant" - which would be a pathetic way out, and something I could easily see you doing.

He has no point.

You say my "rationalisations don't add up" - really?

Well, don't just tell me they don't add up - tell me WHY they don't add up.

Come on, Zimpy... you can do better than this. You're hanging by a thread here...

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Evolution has been proven, and I'm sorry, if you don't believe in it, then you're as bad as flat-earthers. Evolution is a fact. Indisputable.

Um...no. Evolution is the theory that explains the data we have. In that context, it is pretty damned good theory. We still have many holes, and the theory will change to accomodate the new data we can generate. As a theory, it has predictive power, and that has been demonstrated. But it is still a theory. You can't prove a theory, only support it or disprove. If you make a prediction based on the theory, and that prediction fails, then you have disproven the theory. Evolution is not fact. It is theory.

We have made prediction about the fossile record and what it should hold. We have had good success in these predictions. That is why it is a valid theory based on sound data.