Mikel

Lucid, he replied when I talked about the 98.6 degree thing. He said

You're kidding right? By the warm prediction, I'm refering to over 200 degrees (F).

Again, I don't know much about this subject.

Thanks Lucid. Anyone have a reply to my other post?

He also said this in another post and since I do not know much about nucleotide building blocks I was wandering if one of you could help.

Of the nine general naturalistic predictions for the beginning of life, one states that life gradually appeared on Earth over a long period of time. This prediction is contradicted by the fact that nucleotide building blocks (which are necessary) fall apart quickly in warm (19 days to 12 years) and cold (under 17,000 years) temperatures; destroying both warm and cold origin-of-life models.

Since creationists misrepresent and lie about science often (from what I have seen in the past) what is the truth?

What were the conditions of earth's early atmosphere and why do you think so? Could abiogenesis operate in these conditions? I am wandering because I've been seeing alot of source saying it wasn't after I recieved this post on the Miller-Urey experiments:

It's really an outdated experiment because Miller used a hydrogen rich atmosphere composed of methane, water vapor, and ammonia. It got some immediate publicity because many scientists back then thought that that was what early earth's atmosphere was really composed of. Scientists have rejected it for decades though. Now, early earth's atmosphere is thought to have been composed of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide (very little hydrogen involved). The only reason there are still people that come out of college believing it was a legitimate experiment is because many textbooks will still put it in there and treat it very neutrally so as not to support it, but not to convince you it was flawed either.

Wow, thanks.

His second argument was Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). Explain this.

Omg. I just realized the problem with the first argument. At the end of the first week of the Miller-Urey experiments, two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make protein enzymes. My problem wasn't the argument but a damn definition. I'm a total idiot. I couldn't find anything about the second argument in that site.

I already have another question. I started a thread for creationists to try to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. Here was the post that I do not know how to answer.

I have a few questions to ask those who support abiogenesis.

During abiogenesis there is an absence of enzymes which means there is no chemical reaction to make ribose, which is vital to RNA and DNA, how does this work?

Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). Explain this.

He got this info from here. I tried to find something about it on the talk origins site because I didn't know the answers but I couldn't find anything.

Speciation was the word I was thinking of (although it still isn't consistant with his special evolution definition). Thanks. I'll ask him where he got those definitions, too.

I just heard something from a creationist I have never heard before. He said:

Special Evolution: The process by which new species generate from other species due to genetically beneficial mutations.

Darwinian Evolution: or Natural Selection the process whereby animals with genetically beneficial characteristics survive and breed more often than those without the given characteristic thereby reinforcing the characteristic in future generations.

I would think by special evolution, he means macroevolution but he says "Due to mutations." On Darwinian evolution, it includes both micro and macro and isn't just natural selection. I'm not exactly sure if he's right and I'm just an idiot or i'm right and he's really messed up on both terms but I've never heard special evolution and I doubt he just made it up because I could really debunk his post and he'd know that. I doubt he'd be stupid enough to just make crap up. What's going on here?

Thanks.

Have the Miller-Urey experiments ever been duplicated? I'm debating with a creationist who says they have never been able to.

Mikel: Try getting the text console version. It is faster and will not interfere with other programs the way graphical version does.

Wait, if I delete my current folding program, won't that interfere with the 51% done meaning I won't be at 51% done on the new program or something? I'm not exactly sure how it works.

Thanks. That's a detailed explanation.

Thanks guys. What do you think of this argument from another guy. I can't find anything on it. "The chances of a universe like ours forming have been calculated to be 1 in 10 raised to the 400 millionth power. When something has less that a chance of 1 in 10 raised to the 110 millionth power, it is classified as having 0 probability." Big bang probability is something that hasn't crossed my path in debating.

Oh... do you have the graphical client' date=' ie the one that runs in the system tray as a little folding icon and if you click it it brings up a window that shows a protein, tells the project name, progress, etc??? If you are, that version of te client has been known to cause some issues with games. I recommend getting the text console version instead. It is faster and more reliable.

 

Are you guys folding anonymously, or for a team???[/quote']

Yeah, graphical. I'm anonymous.

What do you mean full screen operation... you mean why doesn't the client maximize its size??? I don;t know honestly' date=' no one has ever asked. Are you using the graphical version???

[/quote']

I'm not sure what you mean by graphical version. It just kept me from going fullscreen in halo.

He's partly right here. Most public schools avoid talking about that stuff in general or provide flawed and out of date info. My experience of introduction to evolution in High School Biology was a roughly 3 minute crash course.

I am aware they have had things like the "Nebraska Man" in textbooks in the past but I'm not aware of anything current.

 

 

I don't think that the current horses are considered transitional. But there is fossil evidence of transitional horses.

I think he's saying what were considered to be transitional fossils were found to be a subspecies because of "randomness in the chest cavity". I have no idea what he's talking about.

 

What the crap is he talking about???

He even said 3 of the Archaeopteryx's were hoaxes. This is just his way of dealing with knowledge of fossils I guess. He just calls them hoaxes.

 

You're talking about these guys: http://www.icr.org/ ??

Yeah, i've scanned through a couple of their articles. Not much valid info.

Okay, i'm back. I found a great source for what I thought would answer all my unanswered questions but It didn't with absolutely everything, so I have another question. I'm debating a new guy in some different forums who said that children were being taught outdated info on evolution in schools. I asked for an example and he gave me a paragraph on things i'm not too familiar with and what are most likely lies fed to him by the erronious icr which may be why i'm not familiar with them. Anyway, here's what he said:

I say they are outdated in schools because they still include false stuff like the horse trasitionals (due to randomness in the chest cavity they threw out the fact that they are transitionals and are now seen as subspecies) and they still teach coaclanth (spelling) (This was thrown out because in recent years it was found to be a deep sea fish and not anything like a trasitional form between amphibians and fish.) and they even teach the hoax neanderthals with the regular ones (I'm refering to the ape/man transitionals, not the stupid kids).

Are any of you familiar with anything he's talking about?

Kewl program. It's finally at 19% of whatever it's doing. Why can't I be in a fullscreen operation while it's working?

Yeah, they don't seem to want to get up to date. They would rather blindly follow creationism.

I can't wait to hear your argument on genetics, atinymonkey.

That was awsome. Thank you so much. You are by far more educated in this subject and a better speaker than I.

Awsome, atinymonkey. Here's the latest in the debate from him.

I've stated (after study) that there is a gap in the fossil record between birds and reptiles (much more than this, but we will stay on this specific point for now). Do you want me to give you a bunch of quotes about this? "When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, he conceded that 'the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory' was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis." Then there's the one by Michael Denton I pointed out earlier. (Sidenote: it seems as though you didn't read my reply to the "myriads" statement. I drew the parallel with legion because they both refer to a specific number. Myriad refers to ten thousand, so myriads would refer to tens of thousands.) (in reply to the question, "...archaeopteryx is a half-bird, half-reptile, right?" Jonathan Wells stated, "No, not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways - their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear - not part bird and part reptile." Wells goes on to talk about how a branch of evolutionary theory, which is called "cladistics", had to move on to other fossils because the archaeopteryx argument just doesn't work high level scientific debates anymore. In 1985, paleontologist, Larry Martin, said clearly that archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds. Here's a quote that you should find especially fascinating, not so much just what was said, but a combination of what was said and who said it:

"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." - Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, ardent evolutionist.

Then there is Phillip Johnson who said, "If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation."

Now that I have given you some quotes will you please provide some evidence that fills the evolutionary gap between birds and reptiles? That was the point of this entire conversation.

What do you guys think?

I told him, atinymonkey. I just made a reply. Oh yeah, genetics. I forgot to put that in my post. Is it my imagination or did I see your name browzing the forums? Assuming it wasn't my imagination and since you obviously can argue genetics better than me, you should make a post about it.

That dumbass creationist is pissing me off. With every statement now, he's basically implying i'm a dumbass about evolution. The last thing I want to do now is show him the questions I've been having to ask about evolution. I mean check out his latest post: http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59146&perpage=20&pagenumber=5. His name is comanderofchaos so you can identify his post. At first in his latest post he is saying i'm on a roll and that starts saying shit like "Until you can show that you have any knowledge of the subject I cannot have a level conversation with you. It turns into me giving you a lesson on evolution."