Red Hypergiant

For my previous science fair, I performed an experiment testing the plausibility of the iron-sulfur world theory. I added ammonia, acetic acid, water, and salt to one container, and heated CaCO3 and zinc in another to create carbon monoxide, which flowed into the first container. The result was lipids and a drop in pH, but I can't seem to get down the cause of this pH drop. Can someone help me?

Full details of the experiment here:https://sites.google.com/site/lifefromthedeep/home

I'm going to be making a weather balloon over the summer. Remember, you must have some heating device inside the payload, or the batteries will drop below minimum operating temperature. Lithium (not lithium-ion) batteries are strongly advised.

Check out this website:

1337arts.com

Yes, this is an excellent discovery, and I think that it was mentioned on Through the Wormhole once. It's almost certain that we will find other life in the solar system.

"Brainless bacteria" didn't figure out how to do that. Evolution isn't about organisms choosing what new traits they want. It happens by variation, caused by things such as mutations, and then natural selection acting upon them.

The bacteria that predated cyanobacteria used a much simpler code than DNA, and slowly evolved the machinery to fix nitrogen and then develop a more complex code.

ok karyotypes, chromosomes banding patterns observed with a microscope.... still doesnt prove evolution. Where is the ape or the fish evolving into a completly different specie. Going round and round here, just accept the fact macroevolution can not be observed infact some of you have admitted it you then say "direct observation is not needed"anything other than direct observation is based on faith... do you admit this truth? Admit it then i will happily leave this forum. Atleast then we can get some truth out of you.

Just look at the fossil record, phylogenetic tree, and numerous documented cases!

 

I am a botanist i work with plants everyday. Put a plant in a different evironment and it will die. Go and get a plant and put it in a dark room it would be dead in 2days, wheres the evolution? Survival of the fittest? lol

Yes, because that is an extremely abrupt change. Obviously, the sun isn't going to go out, and if the plant can't survive in a new environment, then that's natural selection. That's why when mega-disasters happen, we observe mass extinctions in the fossil record.

Go learn more about evolution before you just dismiss it out of hand.

That is a fake video but yes there is some real life footage of psychokinesis from a russian woman.

Then why should we believe that video is real and this is fake? Because of your opinion?

Heres Hegel

 

http://www.uncommond...gin-of-species/

Great, he has a negative opinion on pre-evolution by natural selection ideas.

What does this prove?

Yes exactly, they didn't use the word evolution but they expressed in different words how the beliefs of evolution which darwin believed in were impossible. They were the true skeptics unlike others on this forum embracing evolution at face value when they themselves have never observed it with their own 5 senses. Evolution is an embarrassment to empiricism.

How could they express how Darwin's ideas were impossible if they were dead before he published his works?

And we don't just accept evolution at face value. We see all the evidence, the fossil record, phylogenetic tree, and numerous observed cases, and then accept it.

Cabin, you link to websites that support your claims, but when other people do it, to an actual scientific site, it proves nothing to you.

Evolution is a long process, you can't just walk outside and see it. It can happen quicker with bacteria, but you can't see them with the naked eye.

You can observe evolution in the fossil record, and in numerous experiments that people here have shown you, but you blatantly disregarded.

Yes i have quoted some ID and creationist websites. Becuase they are honest about what is going on. For example on creation website they review agnostic books. They are open to emails.

 

If you read over my post, atheistic intelligent design. You would see all the great scientists and philosophers who have doubted evolution who have been atheists.

 

David hume, mach, reich, kant, hegel for example. Richard milton with his book "shattering the myths of darwinism" and micheal denton with his book "evolution a theory in crisis". Even a book called an atheist defends intelligent design has been published. John gribbin a hardline atheist who supports intelligent design.. now all of these men have been scientists and great philosophers they have questioned evolution. No need to take everything at face value.

ID has been disproven numerous times, and it never will be considered science. Why? Because the conclusions don't match the evidence.

All of these tests have been done. They are not thought experiments. Scientists have samples of MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the lab. They've exposed them to antibiotics and watched resistance emerge over time, taking samples, observing things under the microscope.

 

Lenski watched citrate metabolism evolve in E. coli. He still has the samples of bacteria as they evolved the ability -- frozen samples of bacteria from before and after the transition. He has sequenced DNA.

 

What more do you want? A video of a tiny cell shaking its fist and shouting "I'll figure out this penicillin stuff, just you wait!"?

Nice one.

But really cabin, you have clearly ignored all the evidence laid before you and then assert that evolution is faith and you are correct.

Indoctrinated into your way of thinking? I am not religious. I just question evolution.

Oh really? That would explain why you always cite creationist websites...

Obviously you question nothing and take anything you read in a school textbook at face value.

It's OK to question, just expect to get an answer.

Next your be on here saying homosexuality is normal

Well, it might not be 'normal', but homosexuals still are human beings and deserve the same rights as the rest of us.

and that rapists have human rights. The idea of Evolution leads to poor morality it has caused racism, disease, and all kinds of immoral acts.

No, it doesn't. It's a scientific theory. It says nothing about any race being superior, it cannot cause disease (really? you think that a theory can cause disease?), and doesn't say anything about immoral acts. Just how species change over time.

Those are my personal opinions anyway, just like you are on here promoting evolution is a fact.

Because it is. We have observed speciation (see my post with the links) and we see it in the fossil reord and genetics.

This is an open forum to question these things. Are you a communist?

I'm not sure how a political/economic system with no castes relates to this...

Please accept people have different beliefs, ideas, theories and views.

You're the one who came here challenging us, and we're answering your challenge.

Is this an evolutionist forum?

There's no such thing as evolutionism, just like there's no such thing as gravityism.

Nope, i asked for evidence for evolution and none has been given.

We have given you plenty. See the links I provided and the Lenski experiment. Oh, and the fossil record and genetics.

intelligent design does not have to be religious.

That's nice, but it's still not science.

In my room i own about 6 books written by agnostics who have questioned evolution. Briainwashed religion? Where did i say i was religious. You are jumping to conclusions.

No, you referenced several creationist sites.

72% of america are creationists, if you don't like it take it up with them.

Oh, well if a country largely ignorant of science believes it, it must be true!

Evolution is dieing out get over it.

No, it isn't. It's as strong as Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of Relativity.

evolution is an insult to science.

No, it is science, as we have shown you.

Look, cabinintheforest, if you're not going to accept any of the evidence for evolution as evidence then what is your purpose with regard to coming onto this forum? There is plenty of evidence to support what you're opposing and when people provide you with this evidence you just refuse to accept it and prefer to believe your most ridiculously bias and unscientific websites to support your own delusions about the religion you've been brainwashed into. How is it that reproducible scientific data is false in your eyes but the writings in a 2000 year old book that were produced when little science was known are true? It is utterly ridiculous. Are you next going to tell us that you think the geographically impossible event of Noah's flood is a fact?

Quote for truth.

So far, he has ignored all the evidence against him, but expects us to buy his every word.

So do you believe in paranormal phenomena. UFOS? Aliens? Ghosts? Supernatural entities? Deity?

How is this relevant? No, I don't believe in the above.

They have not been observed, period. Evolution has been observed in the fossil record and genetics. Also, we have recorded instances of speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/observd3.htm

Im nearly 20 years old it is possible to live to 150 so i will see. Anyway "evolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years" you were there to see it were you? All you offered there was a faith statement. Get your talmud or koran out, you can offer some faith statements from those books aswell.

How many times do we have to tell you? Direct observation is not necessary. Just look at the fossil record and phylogenetic tree we can create by examining the genetic code of living organisms, it's evidence. It's a fact of life.

Owned B)

http://creationwiki....iometric_dating

 

http://creationwiki....dating_problems

 

Have some others:

 

 

http://www.answersin...etricdating.htm

 

http://creation.com/...iometric-dating

 

http://creation.com/...ons-and-answers

 

http://creationwiki....s_(Talk.Origins)

 

Nice. You gave me a whole list of biased, unscientific sources.

The first one immediately comes out and attacks uniformitarianism, the foundation of modern geology, so that's already sending up a signal that it is not reliable.

Plus, the people who wrote the article are stupid enough to cite a source that completely disagrees with them, but they still say that the equations they pulled off of it are correct. Creationist cherry-picking.

The second article doesn't cite any sources at all...

And if the other ones are going to say that a shell of a snail was dated x million years old, it's because of the reservoir effect, and that's why scientists don't use carbon dating on marine life.

And if they say that there was a rock that was dated at two different ages, it was because it was a composite rock.

Atoms can be directly observed, but they are mental creations. Not mind independent things. They can not be caught on camera, but they can be observed to the physical eye.

 

 

 

"Last Thursdayism, also Last Tuesdayism and Last Wednesdayism, is the unfalsifiable belief that the whole of the universe was created Last thursday." Fossils could of been created last thursday. Young earth creationists say the earth is 6000 years old and that fossils prove that, old earth creationists say the earth is about 100000 years old and that the fossils support that. Mainstream evolutionists discuss the earth as being millions of years old with specie evolution. Me? Im saying it's trillions if not infinite id say that man has walked on earth for 2.6 billion years or more and that fossils can prove it. It's all subjective viewpoint. We don't have a time machine we can't go back and see. We can only go with personal belief on what we believe is the truth, the current observational evidence, especially dug up evidence is very useful to get to the truth. What you must accept is there are flaws in dating fossils. The scientific community in my opinion has held back and supressed alot of evidence. Evolutionists also resort to hoaxs.

First, there is no such thing as evolutionism, just like there is no such things as gravityism.

Second, we don't need a time machine. We can radiometrically date rocks and examine the genetic code.

Third, scientists do not resort to hoaxes. The hoaxes such as Piltdown man were exposed by scientists as hoaxes. No scientist today supports it as evidence.

Both of those dating methods have been used by young earth creationists, old earth creationists and evolutionists. It's subjective. Each group read the data differently and argues a date. It's all personal opinion and estimation.

No, it isn't. Radiometric dating works by comparing the ratio of a parent element to its daughter element(s). It's scientific.

Atoms can be directly observed. There is some scientific evidence for electrons but we can not see them directly. Most things scientists have worked on have been observable or tests can be carried out with results like electrons we have witnessed some kind of effect from them. There is nothing going for evolution. No cause and no effect. Macroevolution it simply does not exist can not be tested, predicated, observed, studied, repeated... the list goes on. Nothing scientific about it. It's a philosophical theory of the past. Never present.

 

Nothing going for evolution? Nothing like, say, the fossil record? The genetic code? The ring species of salamanders in California? The nylonase producing bacteria? Bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics?

Evolution can and has been tested. Simply apply a pressure to a species, and genetic diversity and natural selection will do the rest.

Learn more about science before embarrassing yourself.

Sorry people. Little mistake done by me.

 

If you want the 10£ you have to take the video/photo yourself and send it to me. - This was kind of obvious from the post. But now i have said it.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight. And who are you to define what evidence is needed to prove it?

Pasting words off websites is NOT empirical evidence.

No, it's called citing sources.

I thought we are on a science forum here.? Do you people know what science is? B) Knowledge from direct and i repeat direct observation.

Wrong. You do not need direct observation. For instance, we do not see atoms moving, but we can infer that that's the cause of heat.

I want REAL LIVE footage of evolution taking place or a REAL PHOTO of evolution.

Why is that the only thing that will change your mind? Does a crime scene investigator refuse to believe that a suspect with evidence piled up against him is guilty just because there is no photo of him committing the crime?

Pasting in words from websites, is just subjective and biased and is not scientific objective data.

No one has pasted in words from websites. The websites we linked you to were not biased, just scientific.

Please look up the definition of the scientific method. Anyone can put anything on a website.

Yes, but for casual things, Wikipedia is generally reliable, and cites sources. If you question the validity of these sources, you can check them out yourself.

I can head over now to a ID website and paste in how evolution is a hoax, does not exist and is unscientific.

 

Here it is:

 

http://www.trueorigi.../theobald1a.asp

 

29 evidences for macroevolution debunked

 

and

 

http://creationwiki....d_(Talk.Origins)

 

Macroevolution has never been observed

Now, I don't have the time right now to look over those websites, so I'll leave someone else to do that, or maybe I'll do it later. Again, you don't need to directly observe something to infer beyond reasonable doubt that it's true.

Websites are not going to help on this issue. I am asking for a photo/live video footage of evolution taking place. You all seem to support evolution here - BUT YOU HAVE NEVER OBSERVED IT, why continue to believe in evolution when you have never observed it yourself? Evolution is currently a belief nobody has observed it, want to prove me wrong? Get a photo/real live video footage of evolution taking place - but oh no you can not prove it. So you are just believing... faith... you may aswell just pick up a religious book and believe it then. Scientific method, knowledge from observation, testing and repeating... evolution is not scientific. If it was you would be able to show me some real empirical photos/footage. But you yourselves have admitted it "takes 1000s of millions of years". Not scientific then. Science is all about the present, millions of years is not in the present, science is about now, what you can observe in the now.

Again, direct observation is not necessary, and science is about learning about our world. By dating rocks, discovering fossils, and examining the genetic code, we can infer that evolution can and does happen all the time. Also, you can look up observed cases of speciation on Google. Not that hard.

You pasted in:

 

http://evolutionlist...d-evidence.html - No evolution to be seen on this blogspot (owned by anybody) all there was, was photos of ordinary plants with a bit of writing underneathe it. NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HERE FOR EVOLUTION JUST MORE FAITH BASED STATEMENTS AND BELIEFS...

No, it's not a belief, because we have evidence.

Two users pasted in WIKIPEDIA links - more words - blah blah blah - No scientific empirical evidence here. No photos. No live footage. Wikipedia is a publicly edited website, you believe everything that is written on there do you? If that is your logic you may aswell just believe in a religious book.

Again, go see the sources for yourself if you don't believe it.

Somebody pasted in a youtube video self created on photoshop and powerpoint... again just cartoons and words. Just personal opinions completly subjective, anyone can create anything on youtube and post it.

You just told me that you didn't pay attention to the video at all. It clearly stated, mathematically, that the universe is not 6,000 years old.

NO SCIENTIFIC REAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION HERE:lol:

 

You people call yourself scientists lol:lol:

Yes, because we make decisions based on evidence and reason, not a Bronze Age book.

10£ is still on the table. I am waiting for the evidence. Please stop pasting in words, beliefs and ideas. I want real evidence. Cheers.

We gave you evidence, and you ignored it, and said that only photos and videos were evidence. That is closed mindedness.

I believe you can get plasma if you do a similar setup with a grape.

I think cabinintheforest owes sfn 10 pounds, i wonder why his bet was so low? must have not been convinced of his own data...

Just wait for him/her to pull something off of AnswersinGenesis or something else to try and refute the arguments laid forth. Or, if we're lucky, (s)he'll be creative and give us something new.

We have what's called radiometric dating (and yes, it works)

My link

Therefore, millions of years is not a faith statement.

I came up with a thought the other day:

There is a sort of hierarchy in the natural world, pertaining to both living and nonliving things, but focuses around living things. You know:

-atom

-molecule

-organelle

-cell (this is where life begins)

-tissue

-organ

organ system

-organism (although organism can come at the cell level, with unicellular organisms)

-population

-community

-ecosystem

-biome

-biosphere

But could there be something beyond biosphere? Such as two biospheres interacting?

There are some problems with this idea, such as being able to get two biospheres close enough together to exchange materials without having them collide.

If this idea is at all probable, what would it be called? And extrashpere?

It will be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Actually, evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. For example, there was a factory in Japan that produced nylon, a man-made material that appeared in the 20th century. There were bacteria found there that produce nylonase, a protein that digests nylon.

So which is more likely? The bacteria evolved this ability, or God gave them the ability to do so?

And as for indirect observation, we can see evolution in the fossil record, and even more importantly, in the genetic code.

There's plenty of evidence for evolution, you just need to look at it.

OK, thanks!