Creationism Strikes Back
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2012, 11:37 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
1. How did life originate?

First of all, this question involves abiogenesis (as already mentioned), not evolution. While this may seem like a cop-out to creationists, the division is because the two involve very different processes, different observations, etc. They are as different as growing wheat vs. baking bread - one may be necessary for the other, but you don't need to understand how wheat is grown in order to understand the process of baking bread. I'll address it anyway...

There are of course many theories about how life originated on earth, some better than others. The theories, however, are being examined logically and through experimentation where possible (Miller-Urey, for example). I've listed some of the theories below, feel free to do a little research to examine each on your own (I don't want to turn this post into a book):

Quote:Primordial Soup—Miller-Urey use a mix of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen to form basic amino acids in the lab.

Deep Sea Vent Theory—Hydrogen saturated, heated, fluids from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor mix with carbon dioxide laden water. Continued chemical energy from the interactions sustains processes that produce simple organic molecules.

Spontaneous Formation of Small Peptides from Amino Acids: Sidney Fox demonstrated that the conversions could occur on their own.

Eigen's hypothesis—Eigen and Schuster argue that some molecules, possibly RNA, can serve as an information storing system that brings about the formation of other information storing systems, or a kind of replication.

Wächtershäuser's hypothesis: Günter Wächtershäuser argues that some compounds come with inboard energy sources like iron sulfides that could release energy and synthesize simply organic molecules. His experiments produced small amounts of dipeptides and tripeptides.

Radioactive beach hypothesis: radioactive elements such as uranium may have concentrated on beaches and become building blocks for life by energizing amino acids, sugars from acetronitrile in water.

Homochirality: The right or left handedness of organic molecules may be explained by the origin of compounds in space.
Self-organization and replication: Under the right circumstances, many non-organic molecules exhibit properties of self-organization and self-replication.

"Genes first" models: the RNA world It has been argued that short RNA molecules could have formed on their own. Cell membranes could have formed from protein-like molecules in heated water. Chemical reactions in clay or on pyrites could have initiated self-replication.

"Metabolism first" models: iron-sulfur world and others. Some theories argue that metabolic processes started first, then self-replication.

Bubbles collecting on the beach could have played a role in forming early, proto-cell membranes.

Autocatalysis Some substances catalyze the production of themselves such as amino adenosine, pentafluorophenyl ester, and amino adenosine triacid ester.

Clay theory Complex organic molecules could have arisen from non-organic replicators such as silicate crystals. It has even been reported that the crystals can transfer information from mother to daughter crystals.

Gold's "Deep-hot biosphere" model Gold argues that life originated miles below the surface of the earth. Microbial life has been found there. And it may be present on other planets.

"Primitive" extraterrestrial life Organic compounds are common in space, and early life may have been transferred here from other planets such as Mars.

2. How did the DNA code originate?

Again, this is a separate issue from Evolution, but I'll address it anyway.

First of all, the question itself is wrong in its assumption about DNA. DNA is not a "sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters." DNA is a template from which amino acids are assembled one molecule at a time, there is no "meaning" to the process other than what occurs due to specific chemical properties of the molecules on the DNA strand.

Secondly, this is simply an argument from ignorance (for that matter, so is question #1). Even supposing there is no answer to the question, this doesn't mean that "god" is the answer, least of all specifically the christian god.

DNA could easily have evolved from RNA or a combination of RNA and other molecules, which would have in turn evolved from simpler molecules. Here's a short & sweet answer via Talk Origins:

Quote:DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

3. How could mutations create huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

This question answers itself (as already mentioned). Mutations create huge volumes of information over time as there are a huge number of mutations and the time scale we are talking about is also huge (billions of years).

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.

Simple, there are a large number of mutations, some positive, some negative. Natural selection is how the negative mutations are weeded out and the positive mutations are carried through to the next generation. Mutations occur through naturally occurring errors in the process of copying DNA and through other factors, some possibly external (radiation for example).

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Through combination of proteins and enzymes from other processes, probably simpler ones. They are simply chains of proteins, which are building blocks / tools if you will. They have purposes in other arrangements and are simply combined here in a more complex form in order to fulfill a need that is beneficial to the organism. A good analogy would be a stone arch bridge. The bridge itself couldn't stand without the individual stones arranged just so, but the stones (obviously) could also serve other purposes - to build a castle, for example.

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Again, an argument from ignorance here. First of all, living things do not look like they were designed. There is no "Made by God" tag on our asses. If you had any idea how living organisms worked, how they work would stand out as evidence against creationism rather than for it. Some things just beggar belief if you think an intelligent being designed everything. For example, why does the laryngeal nerve travel from the vagus nerve at the base of the brain, down the neck, around the arteries of the heart and then back up the neck again only to ennervate the larynx? Any logical being wouldn't have made the nerve in such a convoluted fashion.

I will be stopping here for now (time constraints), but may be able to come back and address #7-#15 later...[/b]

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like Azaraith's post
07-01-2012, 11:55 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
(07-01-2012 03:20 AM)Anel Vadren Wrote:  The atheists are in for a treat! In fact, countless atheists from Reddit have already become aware of the fact I am about to announce - and they are very hostile.

Christian Ministries International (CMI) has sparked a new creationist movement entitled Question Evolution! that seeks to refute the indoctrination of evolution in our schools, media, and politics, and question the falsehoods of evolutionists. Check out CMI's campaign to propagate the 15 questions evolutionists can't adequately answer:

In fact, if you are familiar of shockofgod, on youtube, the Reddit atheists are going to debate shock, a member of Question Evolution! online. Check out the blog that will be hosting many more of such interesting debates:

Please atheists, step forth - question the true questioners if you dare.

"If I dare". Okay, I dare. Well, first off, as another user said, the first two questions have nothing to do with evolution. Secondly, asininely asking random questions about the origin of sh*t isn't going to get you anywhere. To that, I might as well reply 'Where did God originate?'.

'"A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form."'

False. Once again, you/they have no idea of what you are talking about. First of, how the hell can you possible know what 'every atom in the universe' is? Second of all, 'evolutionary age of the universe'? The universe never had any evolutionary age, chum. The earth never had any evolutionary age, either, because we are still evolving. You obviously mean the age at which the earth was just lava and sulpher, but in what conditions? You are a, dare I say it, a goddamned idiot. I could spend all day tearing apart and answering these idiotic question, but I have better things to do with my life.

Not to mention that if you look at his sources, five of them are more than two decades out-dated, five of them are more than one decade out-dated, and one of them can't even be found.

You fail.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Intrepid Atheist's post
07-01-2012, 01:15 PM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back we have a person who comes to the forum, posts, then probably leaves forever. S/he spent a grand total of five and a half minutes here, so likely the post is a copy/paste, and will be put on every atheist site they can find. To me this illustrates the typical creationist. They think that showing up, dropping their "stellar arguments" then walking away as though victorious, is somehow impressive.

Anel Vedren, we accepted your challenge, and already several members have answered your questions very intellegently. So I challenge you to come back and face those that you claim to be wrong. We responded to the "true questioners" and will continue to thoroughly trounce your silly superstitions. If, that is, you aren't too cowardly to face logic and reason.

Just visiting.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Stark Raving's post
07-01-2012, 02:17 PM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
WHAT IS THIS!? AW come on! I just finished killing the last one.

Twice the anger, Half the space!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hamata k's post
07-01-2012, 03:19 PM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
Episode 6: Return of the Evolutionists.

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that the title of the forum represents the diabolical empire of a movie?

Now I believe you have Theist's and Atheist's confused. We are the ones that question, you simply remain stubborn and try to defend a two thousand year book that says the world is five thousand years old.

Why can't we question that? Especially since we have the facts that prove it wrong. You have nothing but questions we continue to answer and you continue to remain blind to them. Then you offer more questions that you don't even seem informed on.

Now I saw the site you posted and I've never seen such a lack of intelligence in an area.

It is a typical creationist though, I haven't seen anything I already haven't heard of or argued and Azaraith did a fantastic job in answering some of the questions you have posted.

Also, Hamata K, as long as they can use God as an excuse people like this will continue to exist.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ShirubaDangan's post
08-01-2012, 03:39 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
(07-01-2012 03:20 AM)Anel Vadren Wrote:  Christian Ministries International (CMI) has sparked a new creationist movement entitled Question Evolution!

Please atheists, step forth - question the true questioners if you dare.

Question Evolution? Yes of course you should question evolution. That's the whole point of science! Scientists spend half their life trying to prove their theories and the other half trying to poke as many holes in it as they can, to make sure it can withstand scrutiny.

So kick the tires & look under the hood, get in there and get dirty. But you better but be willing to accept the answers you get whether you like them or not.

One other thing Creationists never seem to get, even if we did throw out evolution is an errant theory, you would still have to come up with an adequate explanation of the evidence that exists, and the christian creation myth still wouldn't do that.

"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life." - Captain Jean Luc Picard

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Jean Luc Picard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unsapien's post
08-01-2012, 03:03 PM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
A complete waste of time. I looked over the site for a few minutes and knew immediately that it was the same ole propaganda.

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2012, 05:39 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
Science is about asking questions and coming to an educated conclusion.

Creationism is about coming up with an answer and finding uneducated questions which they think doesn't disprove the answer.

These people are so incredibly backwards in their logic, it astound me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Crossie's post
10-01-2012, 04:30 PM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
This is stupid.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
11-01-2012, 03:03 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
It is not only stupid, but the OP smashes this crap all over the world.
I'm looking at a lot of atheistic fora around the world at the moment and I see this crap everywhere.
Do not give the OP a podium.

Note: To send this message, no trees cut down,
although there are many electrons severely hindered.
All the bits are reused.

Future World

73 Jim .--. . .---- .-. . .- PE1REA
Email, put amsat dot org behind the call
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: