Oolon Colluphid

In <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000077&p=3" target="_blank">this</a> Existence of God thread, jojo-sa wrote:

To which I replied:

jojo-sa has now replied:

Right then...

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

jojo-sa

so go ahead.

show what is "funny" about the whale teeth.

prove your point.

jojo-sa

Rimstalker
Secular Web Regular
Member # 4099
posted January 29, 2002 06:21 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
virus or bacteria being from some of most simple forms. explain me exactly how it formed from pure atoms...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as we all know, pure atoms cannot form anything. Corrupted atoms are needed.

"Your ignorance is a crime."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 607 | From: Long Island, the world's largest ant farm | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

Jerry Smith
Secular Web Visitor
Member # 4324
posted January 29, 2002 06:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jojo-sa:
oolon
yip thats it simple as that.

now its up to you to show me otherwise.

Lets star by say one small thing.

How did life come about?

virus or bacteria being from some of most simple forms. explain me exactly how it formed from pure atoms...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo Jo Sa

It would be impossible for anyone to explain exactly how life got its start - we do not know the exact chemical pathway. I can explain to you what the best ideas current are, in a general way.

No proof exists of exactly what happened at the first of life, but if you are implying that God is necessary on account of this, you should at least examine what possibilities exist apart from divine intervention...

What I understand of the proto-science that deals with the origin of life on Earth goes like this:

(BEST IDEAS -- NOT PROVEN)::
(Starting from 'pure atoms')

Pure atoms are not in their lowest energy state. By extension of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and with an understanding of atomic structure, you will see that it was inevitable that compounds be formed from the pure atoms, some almost instantaneously as soon as the pure atoms came into existence.

Some of those atoms and compounds were to be found on the surface of this planet 3.5 billion years ago, on the exposed land, and in the water.

Some of those compounds consisted of longish chains composed of Carbon atoms and atoms of Oxygen, Hydrogen and occasionally Nitrogen and others attached to it.

These are called organic molecules, and some organic molecules have structures that can serve as a template for the creation of other molecules with the same structures. Some of them can store energy from the environment in their chemical bonds, and release it later.

Some of these chemicals can combine chemically to form more complex chemicals with similar features.

Some form nice shells through which certain small minerals and chemicals can pass.

Eventually, somewhere in the Gazillions of organic molecules on this planet 4.5 billion years ago, a fortuitous combination of these produced a self-replicating and metabolizing structure bounded by a protective shell. The metabolization came from the chemicals that can store energy in their chemical bonds and release them later. The replication was provided by the chemicals serve as a template for the creation of identical chemicals from the compounds present in the environment. The shells were provided by the 'shell-making' molecules (specifically phospho-lipids forming a two-layer sphere - this has been proven to happen spontaneously when the right chemicals are present in a lab: experiment by Stanley & Miller).

We do not know the exact features of this first reproducing and metabolizing cell, but it meets most current definitions of "alive".

The rest is history.... time to move over to the Evolution/Creation forum if you care about the science of what happened after that --- this is something that scientists have much more knowledge & evidence of than the reactions that gave life on Earth its start!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 26 | From: Chattanooga | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged



jojo-sa
Secular Web Visitor
Member # 5155
posted January 29, 2002 07:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for reply

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No proof exists of exactly what happened at the first of life, but if you are implying that God is necessary on account of this, you should at least examine what possibilities exist apart from divine intervention...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell me some other possibilities....


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some almost instantaneously as soon as the pure atoms came into existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did the atoms come into existence? (from the big bang they say, why did big bang then give off atoms why not something else? on my little knowledge I know from nothing one can get matter and anti matter, and hence one gets quarks, guons and all those other things) but why and how come big bang exploded in to these things and these constant laws.

It seems that you are saying that atoms joined to form more compound atoms and eventually life based on 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So how did this law and others come about? did they evolve? into what will it then evolve? will the constant G later be different? (the constant describing the attraction of mass or something like that. no gravity of earth)

Why are they so constant? if they are

Did You hear about the anthropic principle?

the most simplest virus or bacteria, does it have DNY or RNA structures? if so are they as complex as other life form DNA and RNA structures?

Did you know from the oldest fossils today are bacteria and believe it or not the same bacteria still exists today. why did these bacteria not undergo evolution?

Please inform me of these, since my little knowledge dont cover it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 29 | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Quetzal

Wow jojo-sa!

I'm not sure anyone can start to answer your questions. The problem is not with lack of data, but rather the fact that you have mixed cosmogenesis, abiogenesis, anagenesis/evolution, chemistry, physics, and half a dozen other disciplines.

A gentle suggestion, although I don't normally like to seem that I'm avoiding an issue, would be to visit talkorigins.org and read through some of their FAQs. They have a great search function that will let you get at least a bit of steam going on your answers - or a the very least start refining your questions to something a little more coherent. Right now it sounds like you're asking for the answer to "Life, the Universe, and Everything". Which as everyone knows, is "42".

Alternatively, you could pick ONE of your questions, and we'll see if one or more of the regulars here can help you find answers.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Jojo-sa, Morpho is (as usual) spot on. There's too much there to try to tackle without this thread becomming a total mess... and much of it is not to do with evolution, but would be better in Science and Skepticism. So, would you mind picking on one point to start with please?

Also, before we proceed, it would be useful to know what you believe. Two questions:

1) About how old do you think the Earth is? (This may sound odd, but there’s a lot of creationists who think the answer is 6000 years...)

2) You believe that life was formed by the creator in immutable ‘kinds’ -- is that correct?

Cheers, Oolon

jojo-sa

my one question ok its two but one topic

So how did this law and others come about? did they evolve?

I hope you can gather the context.

1. I reckon earth is about 4.5billion years old. plus minus a billion or two.

remeber the Quran states that all was made in 6 periods ( ayaam) some people translate that to days. and some translate that to 6 stages.does not time frame on it.

2. I say the Creator started it all, set in place the rules, nature, constants, and many of the things that cause change , like the thing to survive and nutaral selection.

also Quran says man was made in stages.
so i do also follow some of the evolve rules on a micro scale. and on some points on a macro scale.

this is just brief picture of where I came from.

hope it clears matters a bit

awaiting your answers and hope we can worjk hrough all my unaswered questions

MarcoPolo

Why are the answers to these questions important? You're already preparing a fall back argument. (i.e. 'Well, you're a YEC so you don't know what you're talking about', or 'You're a cretinist so you obviously don't understand biology')

I think we should get a debate going with ONLY scientific evidence, no unproven Bible stuff, no wildly speculative opinions (i.e. This is one way life COULD have started even though there is absolutely no evidence to support it.) Let the debates stand on the points in the debate and not the beliefs of the debater.

theyeti

It's important because it's necessary to get the age of the Earth issue out of the way before proceeding to evolution. In my experience, it is very difficult to debate a YEC using evidnece from the fossil record, for example, because they just claim that it was all laid down during Noah's flood. So before proceeding, it's useful to know if you're going to be arguing biology or geology. The point here is not to dismiss the other person as a crank, the point is to know where they're comming from.

theyeti

Oolon Colluphid

Thanks theyeti for explaining the geology point, but I'd like to answer Mr Polo too.

Speaking of not knowing what one is talking about, here's an example. I have never used either of those 'arguments'. Actually, I think the reverse is generally the case: people are usually YECs and creationists because of a lack of knowledge of geology and biology; but being YEC doesn't mean the person doesn't know what they're talking about (for instance, Duane Gish and Hanry Morris). It just raises the probability.

Thank you for your input. I agree absolutely, have never thought or argued otherwise... and object to the implied slight against me. I am not setting the beliefs of the debater up to knock them down: the beliefs of the debater are crucial. What's the point of discussing stromatolites, say, if the age of the earth is not in question? Why launch into how natural selection has been observed if the person agrees with it? Jojo-sa has an opinion on the matters, and I'd have thought it important to find out what it is if we're to discuss it.

I was trying to ascertain what variety of creation jojo-sa is promoting. As it happens, Mr Polo, it was necessary. For it seems that there's little to argue with in jojo-sa's version of creation. It sounds like guided evolution. I personally find that superfluous, but as it's not opposed to evolution, he's welcome to it if he finds it satisfying.

TTFN, Oolon Colluphid

Oolon Colluphid

Jojo-sa, I wrote this before your last reply; depending on what you mean by "and on some points on a macro scale", this may be superfluous, but here it is anyway, as requested.

The point about these things is that they are a test of the competing theories -- creation and evolution -- and one is a clear winner.

The hypothesised creator is, naturally, often viewed as a designer. A designer of presumably phenomenal intelligence, able to form such wonders as eyes, ears, bat echolocation, kidneys, orchids, brains, etc etc... name your marvel. Since the creator could start with a clean slate for each organism, everything should be made to perfection -- or at least, to the optimum. Mere humans shouldn't be able to see flaws in the designs.

However, if life evolves by natural selection, changing step-by-step from previous forms, there should be signs of this history in the bodies of organisms; their 'design' would be constrained by history. Any improvements have to be build step by step from what's already available, and there can be no getting less efficient as a prelude to eventually getting more efficient. (Any organism that tries that route will simply not leave as many descendants: natural selection operates in the here and now, and won't refrain from penalising anything that says 'I'll get a lot better eventually if you'll just let me get worse for a few generations'.) So evolution does not expect perfection, just 'design' that is good enough, compared to the competition.

Both creation and evolution predict really good designs, so finding them doesn't help decide between the hypotheses. Creation predicts optimum designs; but only evolution predicts that there should also be design
oddities, pointless features or even plain bad design. Guess what we find in nature?

I picked two at random. Whales and anteaters do not have teeth. Evolution says their ancestors had teeth; creation says they never had them, since they were designed for their purpose from a clean slate. Yet in the womb, whale and anteater foetuses develop teeth... and these are then reabsorbed before birth. Why might a creator give these organisms the genes that cause these things to be made... and then reabsorbed? Is that not a pointless design feature?

And the laryngeal nerve: In mammals, the nerve that operates the voicebox (larynx) leaves the spinal cord as a branch of the vagus nerve. It leaves the spinal cord a little above the larynx, and simply has to pass from one side of the neck to the other. What it does, however, is pass down the neck, into the chest, loop under the aorta (a major artery by the heart), then pass back up again to the larynx. This means that in the case of giraffes and whales, at least an extra 15 feet of nerve cabling is used compared to the direct route. Since when has using more materials than necessary been good design?

Evolution explains the laryngeal by saying that originally the path under the aorta was the shortest route, and that as the morphology changed, it was easier (a simpler set of small changes, all of which still worked) to gradually increase the nerve's length, than to reroute it entirely. Biologists would also note that in embryos, the heart forms higher up and gradually moves down into the chest, in effect pulling any nerves below it with them. But a creator, knowing that the nerve would ultimately be better above the aorta, could route it that way to start with.

Hope that helps

TTFN, Oolon