Why are creationists so against evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2015, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2015 05:58 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  All of the life you see around you is organized so that it lives. You can organize chemicals in all sorts of ways, but that does not make it live.

What the fuck does that even MEAN!? Of course you can organize chemicals all sorts of ways. And yes you can make it live. Just organize your chemicals into a strand of Hammerhead RNA and watch it self-replicate. Are you seriously suggesting that because we can't duplicate the first 500 million years of chemical reactions that led to self-replicating cells (what you call "life"), that it doesn't happen? That's insanity!

(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  Let me make my explanation even more simple. You must know that life is a collection of things, not just a single thing in and of itself. Is hydrogen alive, oxygen, carbon, etc? These may be components of life, or byproducts from it, but these are atoms with no affiliation for life on their own.

Even a simple cell has multiple components within it, pieces with a joint goal or purpose. Which part do you think is the first most important part to start with to begin this new life. You have to choose one or another to begin a collection. And what is this new part supposed to do while it is waiting for the next important part to float in. This second part has to agree with the first to stay together for awhile while the third part is located.

Okay, with you so far...

(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  Oops! The parts dried up while they were waiting. It didn't matter that thousands of parts would have had to accidentally arrange themselves this way. And, that they would have had to jump start together to make the first cell START. C**P!

Wait, what ?! What the fuck are you talking about? Dried up?

You do understand that the first replicating cells were clearly not as complex as current cells, and that there are billions of reactions possible every moment in every drop of water... times all the drops of water around all of the planet... times millions of years in which conditions were right for such reactions (all the right materials, plus sunlight, etc), right? It's surprising it took so long, as far as I can tell. Are you envisioning just one test tube worth of water on the whole planet? Perhaps check out the JPL's experiments on the formation of protocells (lipid balls surrounding water and particulate matter) when cometary ices smash into warm, sun-lit water.

(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  Each single simple accessory to a cell would consist of more atoms than you could count, and each one of them would have had to wait for each of it's necessary buddies to team up to make that simple little part.

Why are you counting atoms? Anyone who has taken organic chemistry knows that atoms love to "team up" in myriad ways, especially when it comes to carbon, and that it doesn't take much in the way of special prompting for this to happen. Are you trying to anthropomorphize the molecules, or something?

(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  Does all of the dumbness start to make sense yet? You can't simplify the single cell structure by saying it just united with another to make something. It isn't logical and its just not true.

As I said before; You can't organize anything into anything without help from somewhere!

No, THAT is what is not true! What you just said is utterly false. It happens all the time, every day, all over the planet. It's happening on your face, right now, in your guts, and on the chair behind you, in a trillion ways. It's kinda what atoms do, it's especially what molecules do. So, no, the dumbness doesn't make sense at all. I suggest you retake the organic and inorganic chemistry courses.

Dog help you, when you take Biochem, and have to memorize all the biosynthetic pathways by which protein components form, and how those proteins fold into 3-D shapes. Heck, if I think about the memory of those study sessions too long, I'm gonna have flashbacks!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
05-07-2015, 05:56 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 10:03 AM)pablo Wrote:  Bullshit.
You have not used reason or logic, but insisted that evolution could not have happened because you think the odds are bad.
You cannot grasp it, so it couldn't have happened.

This entire time you have been suggesting life must have had outside help, and now you're trying to tell me I've come up with that idea on my own.
Dishonest little shit aren't ya?

All of the life you see around you is organized so that it lives. You can organize chemicals in all sorts of ways, but that does not make it live.

Let me make my explanation even more simple. You must know that life is a collection of things, not just a single thing in and of itself. Is hydrogen alive, oxygen, carbon, etc? These may be components of life, or byproducts from it, but these are atoms with no affiliation for life on their own.

Even a simple cell has multiple components within it, pieces with a joint goal or purpose. Which part do you think is the first most important part to start with to begin this new life. You have to choose one or another to begin a collection. And what is this new part supposed to do while it is waiting for the next important part to float in. This second part has to agree with the first to stay together for awhile while the third part is located.

Oops! The parts dried up while they were waiting. It didn't matter that thousands of parts would have had to accidentally arrange themselves this way. And, that they would have had to jump start together to make the first cell START. C**P!

Each single simple accessory to a cell would consist of more atoms than you could count, and each one of them would have had to wait for each of it's necessary buddies to team up to make that simple little part.

Does all of the dumbness start to make sense yet? You can't simplify the single cell structure by saying it just united with another to make something. It isn't logical and its just not true.

As I said before; You can't organize anything into anything without help from somewhere!

You seem to be using a version of the watchmaker argument, nothing more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:02 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(30-06-2015 10:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 10:03 AM)pablo Wrote:  Bullshit.
You have not used reason or logic, but insisted that evolution could not have happened because you think the odds are bad.
You cannot grasp it, so it couldn't have happened.

This entire time you have been suggesting life must have had outside help, and now you're trying to tell me I've come up with that idea on my own.
Dishonest little shit aren't ya?

A dishonest theist?!!!! Say it ain't so!!!!!!!
Everything that supports the concept of evolving creatures is based on odds. I'm sorry that the odds are stacked so severe against you that this is the primary reason that it could never have started this way.

The concepts can't change over time. Simple arrangements make up everything that we see, be it atoms, cells, organisms, or whatever proceeds from them. Don't assume that the changes that happen to animals are accidental. Without a schematic, the assembly line doesn't even know what to make next. Without a recording mechanism keeping track of all the accidental changes, how can DNA even know what to record or how?




Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:02 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
No, the original Watchmaker argument's even dumber, since it compares a refined metal object (which of course has no self-construction/attachment mechanisms of its own) to atoms, which combine all the time. The Periodic Table of Elements is literally aligned into columns based on how all the elements (except the metals) attach their electrons.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
Oop, I stand corrected. You're right, he's using pure Blind Watchmaker.

The assembly line does not compare to DNA in any way.

Once you have a self-replicating molecule, capable of reconstructing itself, by whatever blind chance or conditions caused it to be, you have the transmission of the very information that is required for the process to continue and to grow more complex into the DNA we see today.

Here, RDK, if you really want to know, here's one of many JPL articles on the subject:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-235

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:13 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 05:54 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  All of the life you see around you is organized so that it lives. You can organize chemicals in all sorts of ways, but that does not make it live.

What the fuck does that even MEAN!? Of course you can organize chemicals all sorts of ways. And yes you can make it live. Just organize your chemicals into a strand of Hammerhead RNA and watch it self-replicate. Are you seriously suggesting that because we can't duplicate the first 500 million years of chemical reactions that led to self-replicating cells (what you call "life"), that it doesn't happen? That's insanity!

(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  You are looking at multi complex organisms which have already been given the ability to store information and recreate it. That is why you are not following me.

Simple organisms are not really simple at all. Each component joins with another to hold hands to make something. For something to assemble itself this way and design for itself a method to not only memorize what just took place, but that same cell would have to experiment with all of this chance data in a way that it could design replication for itself. Talk about some impossible odds even for the start of the very simplest organism.

Please don't include the actions of higher organisms. They are just doing what they were designed to do.
Let me make my explanation even more simple. You must know that life is a collection of things, not just a single thing in and of itself. Is hydrogen alive, oxygen, carbon, etc? These may be components of life, or byproducts from it, but these are atoms with no affiliation for life on their own.

Even a simple cell has multiple components within it, pieces with a joint goal or purpose. Which part do you think is the first most important part to start with to begin this new life. You have to choose one or another to begin a collection. And what is this new part supposed to do while it is waiting for the next important part to float in. This second part has to agree with the first to stay together for awhile while the third part is located.

Okay, with you so far...

(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  Oops! The parts dried up while they were waiting. It didn't matter that thousands of parts would have had to accidentally arrange themselves this way. And, that they would have had to jump start together to make the first cell START. C**P!

Wait, what ?! What the fuck are you talking about? Dried up?

You do understand that the first replicating cells were clearly not as complex as current cells, and that there are billions of reactions possible every moment in every drop of water... times all the drops of water around all of the planet... times millions of years in which conditions were right for such reactions (all the right materials, plus sunlight, etc), right? It's surprising it took so long, as far as I can tell. Are you envisioning just one test tube worth of water on the whole planet? Perhaps check out the JPL's experiments on the formation of protocells (lipid balls surrounding water and particulate matter) when cometary ices smash into warm, sun-lit water.

(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  Each single simple accessory to a cell would consist of more atoms than you could count, and each one of them would have had to wait for each of it's necessary buddies to team up to make that simple little part.

Why are you counting atoms? Anyone who has taken organic chemistry knows that atoms love to "team up" in myriad ways, especially when it comes to carbon, and that it doesn't take much in the way of special prompting for this to happen. Are you trying to anthropomorphize the molecules, or something?

(05-07-2015 05:41 PM)RDK Wrote:  Does all of the dumbness start to make sense yet? You can't simplify the single cell structure by saying it just united with another to make something. It isn't logical and its just not true.

As I said before; You can't organize anything into anything without help from somewhere!

No, THAT is what is not true! What you just said is utterly false. It happens all the time, every day, all over the planet. It's happening on your face, right now, in your guts, and on the chair behind you, in a trillion ways. It's kinda what atoms do, it's especially what molecules do. So, no, the dumbness doesn't make sense at all. I suggest you retake the organic and inorganic chemistry courses.

Dog help you, when you take Biochem, and have to memorize all the biosynthetic pathways by which protein components form, and how those proteins fold into 3-D shapes. Heck, if I think about the memory of those study sessions too long, I'm gonna have flashbacks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
Try again, on the quoting.

But I think I got the part you intended. No, I'm not looking at complex, modern-type replicators. Not at all. I'm talking about the blind processes which came up, randomly, or based on conditions at the source, which came up with the first, simple replicator(s). The rest is just a matter of adding new information, just as randomly, once the initial replication process began.

From the brief summary article I linked at the JPL website:

(quote) " Two papers published recently in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B provide more detail on the chemical and precursor metabolic reactions that have to take place to pave the pathway for life. Russell and his co-authors describe how the interactions between the earliest oceans and alkaline hydrothermal fluids likely produced acetate (comparable to vinegar). The acetate is a product of methane and hydrogen from the alkaline hydrothermal vents and carbon dioxide dissolved in the surrounding ocean. Once this early chemical pathway was forged, acetate could become the basis of other biological molecules. They also describe how two kinds of "nano-engines" that create organic carbon and polymers -- energy currency of the first cells -- could have been assembled from inorganic minerals.

A paper published in the journal Biochimica et Biophysica Acta analyzes the structural similarity between the most ancient enzymes of life and minerals precipitated at these alkaline vents, an indication that the first life didn't have to invent its first catalysts and engines." (endquote)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 06:13 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 05:54 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What the fuck does that even MEAN!? Of course you can organize chemicals all sorts of ways. And yes you can make it live. Just organize your chemicals into a strand of Hammerhead RNA and watch it self-replicate. Are you seriously suggesting that because we can't duplicate the first 500 million years of chemical reactions that led to self-replicating cells (what you call "life"), that it doesn't happen? That's insanity!


Okay, with you so far...


Wait, what ?! What the fuck are you talking about? Dried up?

You do understand that the first replicating cells were clearly not as complex as current cells, and that there are billions of reactions possible every moment in every drop of water... times all the drops of water around all of the planet... times millions of years in which conditions were right for such reactions (all the right materials, plus sunlight, etc), right? It's surprising it took so long, as far as I can tell. Are you envisioning just one test tube worth of water on the whole planet? Perhaps check out the JPL's experiments on the formation of protocells (lipid balls surrounding water and particulate matter) when cometary ices smash into warm, sun-lit water.


Why are you counting atoms? Anyone who has taken organic chemistry knows that atoms love to "team up" in myriad ways, especially when it comes to carbon, and that it doesn't take much in the way of special prompting for this to happen. Are you trying to anthropomorphize the molecules, or something?


No, THAT is what is not true! What you just said is utterly false. It happens all the time, every day, all over the planet. It's happening on your face, right now, in your guts, and on the chair behind you, in a trillion ways. It's kinda what atoms do, it's especially what molecules do. So, no, the dumbness doesn't make sense at all. I suggest you retake the organic and inorganic chemistry courses.

Dog help you, when you take Biochem, and have to memorize all the biosynthetic pathways by which protein components form, and how those proteins fold into 3-D shapes. Heck, if I think about the memory of those study sessions too long, I'm gonna have flashbacks!
Could you please tell me the name of this special self replicating molecule which had the intelligence to bump start this whole process. If what you say is true, it should be no problem for you to explain to me how this simple atoms organized into anything at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:26 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 06:22 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 06:13 PM)RDK Wrote:  
Could you please tell me the name of this special self replicating molecule which had the intelligence to bump start this whole process. If what you say is true, it should be no problem for you to explain to me how this simple atoms organized into anything at all.

Are you asking how life began?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:28 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
Intelligence? Eh?

That's what I meant by anthropomorphizing.

Molecules don't need intelligence to morph. They just need to "stick to" one another. Which they do.

If you'd truly like to know why/how this happens, pretty much any chemistry textbook on the planet can explain to you how electron orbits cause this to happen. Randomly, and all the time, everywhere.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: