Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 03-10-2002, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
By the way, I heard I believe Hugh Ross say something like there was a recent discovery that there may have been too much oxygen present in the early atmosphere to promote the formation of DNA.

Could you provide a link?

The formation of the DNA molecule has very little to do with oxygen, I don't think anyway. When we make it in the lab, we need magnesium and salt buffer, and the correct nucleic acids and enzymes. But that's it.

Plus, oxygen is not found in certain places, like in the dirt. Actually, don't most scientists agree that the first life forms were anaerobic (bacteria that do not require oxygen)? So in this case, the oxygen in the atmosphere would be completely irrelevant.

scigirl

scigirl · 03-10-2002, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
sci-girl in answer to all your questions, I don't know. I'm not here to promote my theories, I'm here to learn how to poke holes in yours

Hey that's just fine. In fact, it is encouraged (or at least should be) by scientists. That's how science works.

Quote:

I don't think the fact that abiogenesis is a science is at all relevant if it turns out that abiogenesis is wrong.

On the contrary. That is exactly my point, luvluv. Scientific theories can be proven wrong. That is why they are scientific theories. If you cannot prove or disprove something (like intelligent design), than it has absolutely no business in a science classroom or discussion. Philosophy - sure. But not science.

Quote:

Race science used to be a science, and the equality of man just "something people said to make each other feel better." Time will tell, I guess.

Huh? What the fuck is "race science?" I thought you were better than that luvluv. At least you didn't mention Hitler.

Who was it here that gave a link to the 'average time spent before internet debators compare their opponents to nazis?'

Quote:

Though I haven't read it, Hugh Ross does claim to have a testable creation model explained on his website, <a href="http://www.reasons.org" target="_blank">www.reasons.org</a>

You haven't read it? Don't bother. I could not find one sentence that resembled science, even bad science, when I clicked on several links from the creation section of the page. It was all "help me promote The Truth by sending me money." There wasn't even any gifs of fossils or DNA or anything! Some science site indeed.

scigirl

RufusAtticus · 03-10-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>By the way, I heard I believe Hugh Ross say something like there was a recent discovery that there may have been too much oxygen present in the early atmosphere to promote the formation of DNA. I'm sure I am butchering that, but something to the effect that they found a rock old enough to have been present back when DNA was forming, and that it had oxidized to a level that indicates that there was too much oxygen present for DNA to form naturally, or something to that effect. If anyone knows what I'm referring to, can they link that or discuss it? Thanks.</strong>

In all honesty, that sounds like a load of hogwash. All the evidence I know of indicates that there was virtually no atmospheric or aquatic O2 until life began to produce it. Geologists and paleologists can go it more detail about this than me. If you want to discuss Ross's comments, you will have to provide us with references because it's not our place to do your work for you.

Thanx.
-RvFvS

luvluv · 03-10-2002, 11:44 AM

sci-girl I am not comparing you to nazi's, race science was an accpeted theory in the west among anthropologists and others. The nazi's did not invent it. But I am just saying that science has made mistakes. Alchemy was a science. It is still absurd.

What if in 1000 years no one ever comes up with a single workable hypothesis as to the nature of the origin of life? Would we still have to exclude a supernatural origin? Does the fact that humans can't prove something, with their limitations, imply that that is not the correct answer. What if the correct answer is something humans can never prove or disprove?

Rufus, I just heard Ross mention this on his show, and if it wasn't hogwash I would just assume that you guys had heard of it. I mentioned some other of his comments on my last posts and folks were kind enough to provide me with links on the fact. I heard Ross mention it on his television show, that's why I don't have a link.

luvluv · 03-10-2002, 11:47 AM

sci-girl, the creation model is actually a ram file, a real audio lecture given by Ross. You can find the link here:

<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.html</a>

Scroll down to the link just above Documents.

I hope you have 3 hours to spare, that's how long it is. I'm listening to it right now.

Ragnarok · 03-10-2002, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>I asked these questions on the Hugh Ross thread but I apparently became irrelavent to the quest to demean randman. Would sho-nuff appreciate some insight. One love:

3) Doesn't the fact that we don't know (I'm assuming we don't know, maybe you guys know) the exact conditions of earth during the time when life was originating kind of give the edge to a naturalist explanation? I mean, certainly given completely stable favorable condtions, all of these probability equations work out neatly. But what if it's just really hot for a few thousand years? Or if a metor crashes into the earth (which didn't have an atmosphere back then, correct?). Or if there was an earthquake? Wouldn't even a strong wind be enough to undo a few hundred years worth of microbiotic advancement?

</strong>

I think the other people hit most of the other points but I'll say this. "A strong wind" - Well, the answer is no. Given that strong winds are rather common and chemical compounds are rather tough (in general) we would have to conclude that anything that was able to evolve for hundreds of years would, by definition, be composed of stuff that a puff of wind could not destroy.

Finally, do you disintegrate when the wind blows? No? Well, if primitive life was made of similar stuff why should you expect that it would?

Vorkosigan · 03-10-2002, 10:44 PM

Alchemy was a science.

Alchemy was not a science. If you want to discuss, take it over to the science and skepticism forum.

Michael

randman · 03-10-2002, 10:55 PM

Luvluv, whether evolution is true is not the issue here. There is something far more serious going on here, indoctrination. Cult is the word I would use. That is why they think it is wrong to quote more than one camp on different things.
You are suppossed to only be indoctrinated by one camp. Quoting other camps baffles them.
By the way, there are "Christian" cults, groups who are right about Jesus as the Son of God, but wrong in the way they put a box on people's minds.
That is what is going on here.
I had no idea it was this serious. I will be away either for awhile or for good, but any of you here, please think about something.
I wish I came on here not arguing evolution, for it doesn't matter that much, and argued about right ways to think.
Some of you need help.
I am sure that angers you, but it is the truth.

Vorkosigan · 03-10-2002, 11:33 PM

By all means, let's go over to the morals forum, and you can instruct me in the right way to think....

Oh, but I forgot, you already fled from Patrick.

Still waiting in the AiG thread!

Meeeeeoooowww!

randman · 03-10-2002, 11:46 PM

Esoll, how old are you?
Did you not see where I responded to the AIG question?
Are you so insecure in your beleifs that you have to resort to deception and false tactics to make yourself feel secure.
Please, do talk about some of this stuff with a normal human being that you trust who doesn't care about evolution.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2002, 11:44 AM	#14
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	sci-girl I am not comparing you to nazi's, race science was an accpeted theory in the west among anthropologists and others. The nazi's did not invent it. But I am just saying that science has made mistakes. Alchemy was a science. It is still absurd. What if in 1000 years no one ever comes up with a single workable hypothesis as to the nature of the origin of life? Would we still have to exclude a supernatural origin? Does the fact that humans can't prove something, with their limitations, imply that that is not the correct answer. What if the correct answer is something humans can never prove or disprove? Rufus, I just heard Ross mention this on his show, and if it wasn't hogwash I would just assume that you guys had heard of it. I mentioned some other of his comments on my last posts and folks were kind enough to provide me with links on the fact. I heard Ross mention it on his television show, that's why I don't have a link.

03-10-2002, 11:47 AM	#15
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	sci-girl, the creation model is actually a ram file, a real audio lecture given by Ross. You can find the link here: <a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.html</a> Scroll down to the link just above Documents. I hope you have 3 hours to spare, that's how long it is. I'm listening to it right now.

03-10-2002, 10:44 PM	#17
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Alchemy was a science. Alchemy was not a science. If you want to discuss, take it over to the science and skepticism forum. Michael

03-10-2002, 10:55 PM	#18
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Luvluv, whether evolution is true is not the issue here. There is something far more serious going on here, indoctrination. Cult is the word I would use. That is why they think it is wrong to quote more than one camp on different things. You are suppossed to only be indoctrinated by one camp. Quoting other camps baffles them. By the way, there are "Christian" cults, groups who are right about Jesus as the Son of God, but wrong in the way they put a box on people's minds. That is what is going on here. I had no idea it was this serious. I will be away either for awhile or for good, but any of you here, please think about something. I wish I came on here not arguing evolution, for it doesn't matter that much, and argued about right ways to think. Some of you need help. I am sure that angers you, but it is the truth.

03-10-2002, 11:33 PM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	By all means, let's go over to the morals forum, and you can instruct me in the right way to think.... Oh, but I forgot, you already fled from Patrick. Still waiting in the AiG thread! Meeeeeoooowww!

03-10-2002, 11:46 PM	#20
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Esoll, how old are you? Did you not see where I responded to the AIG question? Are you so insecure in your beleifs that you have to resort to deception and false tactics to make yourself feel secure. Please, do talk about some of this stuff with a normal human being that you trust who doesn't care about evolution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.