Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 03-09-2002, 09:28 PM

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:

1) Do we know that the right chemicals to make the first self-replicating molecules were actually present under the correct conditions for a self-replicating molecule to form, or do we just assume this is true because we now see life?

2) Is there a CONSENSUS model for what all biologists specifically believe to be the 1st self replicating organism/molecule?

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?

4) Also, assuming that a lake medium sized lake could produce one self-replicating molecule in tens of years, wouldn't we need a lot more than one to really get life up and going? As I mentioned before, a relatively minor event (a rock falling into said lake) could start the whole process over again. Isn't there such a thing as a minimum sustainable population? How many self-replicating molecules would have had to have formed by chance in order for the lot of them to have numbers to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?

Thanks a heap.

Someone7 · 03-10-2002, 12:26 AM

In short:

1. Look up the word theory.

2. No, why would there be? There is probably more than one way abiogenesis could have happened.

3. (I'm assuming you meant supernaturalist instead of naturalist) No, and no.

4. No.

tronvillain · 03-10-2002, 12:53 AM

1)No. Actually knowing something, especially about the past, is extremely difficult. Still, it isn't a bad hypothesis.

2)No. Of course, it wasn't necessary a self replicating molecule, and it certainly wasn't an organism.

3)No. Any conditions will give the edge to naturalistic explanations - in the absence of evidence for them, supernatural explanations are giving up.

4)No. Once you have a replicator, it replicates - given the resources, a population of replicators will explode.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Automaton · 03-10-2002, 01:11 AM

1. Yes, there is a large deal of geological and astrophysical evidence.

2. No, but that's the nature of science. There is no consensus issue over quantum gravity, etc. among physicists yet either.

3. 10 million years is more than enough time to create the first life. There was an atmosphere, it was largely due to volcanic activity. Some conditions you list would FAVOUR the formation of the right stuff. I doubt a "strong wind" would be strong enough to break the chemical bonds, however fragile.

4. Replicators replicate. That is the point. Why would the soup be required to "replicate" for it?

BLoggins02 · 03-10-2002, 07:49 AM

luvluv: About point number four:

Interesting how Creationists often come up with argumunts like "because of exponential population growth of the species, if we were to extrapolate back to 150,000 years (or whatever), we would be up to our ears in humans!" but then they ask "How could ONE self replicating molecule create all we see today?"

1. Why aren't we up to our ears in flies or cockroaches ever year? Because the mathematics of population growth isn't your run of the mill 1st order differential equation taught in calculus, you must also take competition for resources into account. This has a huge impact on population characteristics, and much exciting work in mathematics has been and is being done to describe it.

2. So how could one self replicating molecule start everything? There was no competition for resources. The population could grow pretty much geometrically until there were so many that resources for replication became scarce, at which point there would be competition amongst those molecules, and obviously any with slight advantages over others would replicate more, and "pass" more of their advantageous effects to those molecules which replicated from them.

Not that any of this has to do with biological evolution anyway. Abiogenesis is a relatively new field. ToE doesn't attempt to explain how life got here, it explains what happens to it after life got here. Recently, abiogenesis has made some amazing advances. Furthermore, the discover of organic sugar molecules in other parts of the galaxy has raised the question of whether things like self-replicating molecules are so hard to produce after all.

These theories (the word theory means explanations of and in accordance with observed evidence, it does not mean hypothesis or conjecture) of Evolution, Inflationary Big Bang Theory, Quantum Theory, and the emergence of theories in abiogenesis really do leave God with very little to do (as Stephen Hawking would put it).

BLoggins02 · 03-10-2002, 07:59 AM

Quote:

I apparently became irrelavent to the quest to demean randman

Hey, why don't you just come in here and shout FUCK YOU! You're like those people who say things such as "casting pearls before swine" because you're trying to find a nice way to tell people they're pissing you off. One of the reasons I left fundamentalist christianity and became an atheist was simply because I OPENED MY EYES. I am not asking you to deconvert, but OPEN YOUR EYES and look at what randman is doing:

1) he starts multiple threads in parallel, without bothering to see if the consequences of a previous thread may affect the material in others. This is a hallmark of someone who is not trying to "see the other side", just trying to evoke a response and waste people's time.

2) he accumulates more than 100 messages in mere days, after starting threads in parallel as above stated, and then complains that he "doesn't have time" to answer all the responses.

Come on, you think we're giving him a hard time because we're Big Bad Atheists [tm] and needed something evil to do while we're not sacrificing goats to a non-existant Satan, eating babies, and in general causing the Moral Decline of America? We have a logical REASON for trying to pin him down to ONE argument at a time, and calling him on his cluster bombing tactics.

I know, I'm being hard on you, but your sentence above was mean-spirited, and it didn't slip past me.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

hezekiah jones · 03-10-2002, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
... the quest to demean randman.

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Dave H., don't let these guys fool you.
...
Concerning the fossil record, spend some time thinking about it.
...
It is foolish to think Darwin's ideas did not play a major role in Nazi thinking.
...
It strikes me as if some of you are engaging in a straw man type approach.
...
By the way, funny how you guys resort so easily to arguing from authority.
...
And, it is funny how you resort to arguing from authority, but I doubt you will accept it if I do.
...
The best you can argue is [Darwin's finches] are steps within macro-evolution, but to present them as such is to avoid and evade the argument with deceptive statements.
...
The best evolutionists can do is to list an extinct species whose immediate ancestors are unknown as transitional based on similarities.
...
Everytime I look into the data, what I find is unbelievable overselling of speculative data as fact.
...
I don't buy evolution anymore but not because of the Bible.
...
By the way, Genesis talks about the dinosaurs.
...
Guys if you are not even going to read Genesis 1 and 2, then don't ask questions about it.
...
On Genesis, it appeared some here were unaware of the 2 sets of "flying creatures", birds, that are spoken of.
...
You are also wrong about the winged creature. The Bible most certainly states "let the waters bring forth" on the 5th day, and then in Genesis 2, God forms birds from the ground. Read it.
...
You must be reading a wacky translation ...
...
There was really an Ishmael and Isaac, but they, or rather their Moms, are allegories of 2 covenants according to the apostle Paul in the book of Galatians.
...
I'll be glad to debate you, but thus far, you don't even appear to have a decent text.
...
Don't you know all you evolutionists sound alike (lol).
...
By the way, [answersingenesis.org] links to articles from a peer-reviewed publication. To state the articles are not peer-reviewed is just false. Just because the majority of the Phds in the peer-reviewed process of those publications are Creationists or ID doesn't take away from the fact it is peer-reviewed by the same standards as the journals which are dominated by scientists who accept evolutionary dogma.
...
Basically, this tells me right there you are not a credible debater.
...
Typical, just write off everyone who disagrees with you as biased.
...
Say what you want to, but Rufus and others, you aren't looking very hard if you beleive all the stuff you just posted.
...
Rufus, if you are sincere, I suggest you go to some of the creationist/ID sites and look.
...
You just need to look around.
...
Seems in typical fashion, the evolutionist camp overstates the case.
...
[Y]ou are not bothering to listen to the critics of evolution, which is historically the way evolutionists have behaved.
...
I am not a scientist.
...
Basically, it appears to me that the only hard data, the fossils, do not actually show the transitions between species.
...
By the way, the evolutionists got spanked bigtime.
...
Kosh, if you are really so convinced of evolution, why do you resort to lies to defend it?
...
[After posting numerous AiG articles] Guys, I am not going to waste hours with you over AiG articles.
...
[U]ntil creationism is taught in the schools, you cannot expect people to know much about it.
...
Evolution though has been taught, and it has relied on disinformation and propaganda tactics to maintain a predominance.
...
If you don't like it, try and get another critic of evolution to post here and keep up with 20 other posters, many of whom dodge the issue with deception and raise new points demanding to be heard.
...
About the only thing evolutionists have going for their theory is the geologic record, and I would not be surprised to see their view of it shot-down as well.
...
"Sooner or later they're going to turn up an actual dinosaur-bird transitional fossil..."
Now, I thought you guys have been claiming they already have found an actual transitional fossil. Please understand this is why I can't beleive in evolution. I can't tell you how often things are presented as a fact, when the reality is everyone knows it is an overstatement.
[The statement quoted by randman was intended as irony.]
...
Look, my beef with evolutionists ha[s] to do with not admitting the truth.
...
But that never seems to happen, and the fact it doesn't and the history of overstatements and even hoaxes in presenting evolutionary theory has convinced me that it is more a propoganda show than anything.
...
You guys [sic] are getting absurd.
...
Gould can try his hand at damage control all he wants, but what he is saying is clear.
...
I am not a scientist.
...
This undercuts the micro-evolutionary leading to macro-evolution in my view, and it also fits very well with the notion of a Creator who is like an artist.
...
This is where you guys are ignoring the evidence. You assume evolution happened so you don't bother to examine facts that might contradict your beliefs.
...
You don't see these changes because they did not happen.
...
Ya'll are still dodging the point.
...
You guys claim to be educated on the subject yet you cannot even explain the fact of "stasis." That's pretty pathetic. Sad too.
...
By the way, some have answered the question LV, but it is patently obvious that others are totally clueless.
...
Look, the way I see it, I put myself on the line here.
...
Fact is guys that you can't fill in the blanks. You know it, and I know it.
...
Really, I don't care so much if you continue to believe in evolution as long as you see why rational and intelligent people do not.
...
I am not a paleontologist.
...
Gould is wrong here, and I have read his whiny complaints about how he never meant to undercut evolution. Gimme a break.
...
I never claimed to be an expert on evolution.
...
[E]volutionists rel[y] more on propaganda than theory.
...
[Gould], of course, still tries to get around the implication of them, and has come up with a model to explain the lack of data, but the fact even he and others act like there is no lack of data makes me wonder about the integrity of the whole system.
...
I am not a paleontologist.
...
I think I am understanding Gould.
...
I pretty much decided, hey, this evolution stuff is propaganda.
...
It is bogus to claim I am taking Gould out of context. This is typical evolutionist and juvenile tactics.
...
I am not a paleontologist.
...
[From AiG "evidence" linked by randman] "As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man — all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel."
...
I don't buy evolution anymore but not because of the Bible.
...
I don't think evolutionists for the most part even trust the data actually on the fossil record. Gould says not just that you can't find micro-changes in species, but that for the most part, they don't happen. In other words, they exhibit stasis, but then he postulates they happen very quickly geologically speaking when they do. Well, that looks to me that creationists claims are right.
...
You guys are ducking the issue.
...
I think evolution employs propaganda methods.
...
From what many evolutionists on this board say, it seems that indoctrination and propaganda are the tools of teaching evolution.
...
Why don't some of you bother to read the quotes and explain them? Are you afraid or something?
...
The fossil record exhibits stasis not gradualism.
...
I am not a paleontologist.
...
Nevertheless, evolutionists refuse to admit [that documented transitions are merely variations within "kinds"] and state a bald-faced lie that the transitions are documented. They even do this while they debate the exact transition!
...
Evolutionists lay out a huge list of "transitional species" leaving the impression that the fossils of these particular species actually evolve when in fact they do not. They are only transitional if you assume evolution occurred. They are called transitional based on similarites. But the fact remains the transitions themselves are not shown.
...
I am not a paleontologist.
...
I am not a scientist.
...
What I object to and ya'll hypocritically subscribe to is your false arguments from authority.
...
So, in fact, you are actually just being a hypocrite and falsely accusing me in this area.
...
[T]his kind of lame argument by evolutionists that have caused nearly half of Americans to think evolution is a myth.
...
You guys are pretty lame for people who are supposed to know about science.
...
[M]ost of you have dodged the issue, and some appear to just be unaware of what the fossil record does in fact show. Pretty pathetic.
...
I am not a creationist scientist.
...
Probably the more vague category of Intelligent Design is the better spot to place me in at this time.
...
I think many of you are somewhat of a joke.
...
I doubt if you bang around a bunch of rocks for 10 billion years, you will ever get a watch, but go ahead and persist in your modern myth.
...
By the way, the word "light" is also used very early in Genesis.
...
I don't buy evolution anymore but not because of the Bible.
...
By the way, Genesis talks about the dinosaurs.
...
It is sad to see so many of you obviously mentally afflicted with a willful disposition to not acknowledge facts.
...
The evidence is very consistent with the idea of God creating a kind that reproduces.
...
Really, what is going on is evolutionary presumption and dogma is a religion in itself.
...
For me, you guys are dodging the issue here.
...
[T]here is no hard data other than similarities to prove it is transitional. You don't actually see the species gradally evolving.
...
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/456.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/456.asp</a>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v8n2_punc_equilibrium.asp" target="_blank">Aig Link on PE</a>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/v12n3_caves.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/v12n3_caves.asp</a>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1402.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1402.asp</a>

<a href="http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.icr.org/research/as/as-r01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/research/as/as-r01.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/therapsd.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/therapsd.asp</a>
...
You guys are absurd.
...
I am not a YEC.
...
What I was taught, I know the concepts, and I see now where I was lied to by evolutionists my whole life, and aspects of that same deception are exhibited by many of you here.
...
Since evolution is really the only plate on the table right now, I think debunking evolution is enough for me.
...
I am not a scientist.
...
If evolution was properly taught, wouldn't people be aware of the true facts of the fossil record?
...
Let me ask you something, and maybe while you are thinking about it, you will learn something.
...
I find it fascinating that so many of you are either plain ignorant to why PE came about, or in utter denial about the fossil record. It is astonishing, and a testament to the pseudo-objective, religious nature of evolutionism.
...
I do beleive there was a global flood so I have begun, only in recent months reading the research done by YEC.
...
I don't buy evolution anymore but not because of the Bible.
...
By the way, Genesis talks about the dinosaurs.
...
Let's deal with what I was taught first. It was a lie.
...
If evolutionists want to have any credibility with me, they will need to start acknowledging they have been teaching a lie to the American public. They are leaving a false impression upon America's school-children, and it is disgusting.
...
By the way, Genesis talks about the dinosaurs.
...
By the way, this is an interesting topic of discussion, but you strike me as one who has no clue as to what Gould was talking about concerning stasis and such.
...
I am not a paleontologist.
...
Maybe you should take some time to actually learn a little of what they are talking about.
...
Now, you are showing your ignorance. Seems like you just want to dodge the issue.
...
Maybe you should bone up a little on the fossil record before making comments here.
...
By the way, Genesis talks about the dinosaurs.
...
Of course, it is a good [creationist] school. They are no longer cramming lies and propaganda down children's throats.
...
By the way, Genesis talks about the dinosaurs.
...
The fact you do this is actually evidence that evolution is still very speculative, but more to the point here, this is not science. As scientists, there should be a careful regard for the truth and avoiding overstatements, such as passing off speculative theory as fact, but the exact opposite is true.
...
By the way, the evolutionists got spanked bigtime.
...
Dave H., don't let these guys fool you.

Please don't demean randman.

<code>

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

{Edited to fix long URL - Pantera}

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

luvluv · 03-10-2002, 09:04 AM

Hey hezekiah et al... it was a joke. Lighten up. Me and randman come from the same board, and we argue all the time (he's a conservative Christian, I'm a liberal). I like the guy (he's really nice when talking about other subjects, like UNC basketball) but I know how he can be.

So... back away from the cut and paste macros and have a coke and a smile.

Thanks for answering the question though.

automaton says:

"1. Yes, there is a large deal of geological and astrophysical evidence."

Got any links and stuff? Thanks.

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.

scigirl · 03-10-2002, 09:17 AM

Hey luvluv,

Good questions. I found it interesting that you posed these questions to evolutionists (whatever that means) when really you are talking about abiogenesis. But I have a few questions of my own:

1) If life did not form spontaneously on this earth, than where did it come from?

2) If an intelligent designer did create life, than where did the intelligent designer come from?

3) If an intelligent designer did create life, than how can we define this designer? I.E. how do we know if it's Allah, Jehova, Zeus, or Athena?

4) How can you identify intelligent design without a negative control? If there is "intelligent design," than don't you need non-intelligently-designed objects and/or life forms to make comparisons and conclusions?

5) Finally, are there any experiments or observations you could think of to even begin addressing these questions?

Abiogenesis theories may be incorrect, but at least they are testable. And that's why it's science, and intelligent design is not.

Quote:

Me and randman come from the same board, and we argue all the time (he's a conservative Christian, I'm a liberal).

Interesting. Actually some of the most heated debates i've seen came from two christians, instead of christian vs atheist. At the Baptist Board, I commonly see the phrase, "I cannot believe you call yourself a Christian," when disagreeing on Very Important Subjects such as Harry Potter!

Quote:

have a coke and a smile.

I prefer mountain dew myself. I am a snowboarder, you realize.

scigirl

luvluv · 03-10-2002, 09:22 AM

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

.

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

P.S.

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>

03-09-2002, 09:28 PM	#1
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Riddle me this, evolutionist... 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: 1) Do we know that the right chemicals to make the first self-replicating molecules were actually present under the correct conditions for a self-replicating molecule to form, or do we just assume this is true because we now see life? 2) Is there a CONSENSUS model for what all biologists specifically believe to be the 1st self replicating organism/molecule? 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? 4) Also, assuming that a lake medium sized lake could produce one self-replicating molecule in tens of years, wouldn't we need a lot more than one to really get life up and going? As I mentioned before, a relatively minor event (a rock falling into said lake) could start the whole process over again. Isn't there such a thing as a minimum sustainable population? How many self-replicating molecules would have had to have formed by chance in order for the lot of them to have numbers to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? Thanks a heap.

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

03-10-2002, 12:26 AM	#2
Someone7 Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 376	In short: 1. Look up the word theory. 2. No, why would there be? There is probably more than one way abiogenesis could have happened. 3. (I'm assuming you meant supernaturalist instead of naturalist) No, and no. 4. No.

03-10-2002, 12:53 AM	#3
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	1)No. Actually knowing something, especially about the past, is extremely difficult. Still, it isn't a bad hypothesis. 2)No. Of course, it wasn't necessary a self replicating molecule, and it certainly wasn't an organism. 3)No. Any conditions will give the edge to naturalistic explanations - in the absence of evidence for them, supernatural explanations are giving up. 4)No. Once you have a replicator, it replicates - given the resources, a population of replicators will explode. [ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

03-10-2002, 01:11 AM	#4
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	1. Yes, there is a large deal of geological and astrophysical evidence. 2. No, but that's the nature of science. There is no consensus issue over quantum gravity, etc. among physicists yet either. 3. 10 million years is more than enough time to create the first life. There was an atmosphere, it was largely due to volcanic activity. Some conditions you list would FAVOUR the formation of the right stuff. I doubt a "strong wind" would be strong enough to break the chemical bonds, however fragile. 4. Replicators replicate. That is the point. Why would the soup be required to "replicate" for it?

03-10-2002, 07:49 AM	#5
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	luvluv: About point number four: Interesting how Creationists often come up with argumunts like "because of exponential population growth of the species, if we were to extrapolate back to 150,000 years (or whatever), we would be up to our ears in humans!" but then they ask "How could ONE self replicating molecule create all we see today?" 1. Why aren't we up to our ears in flies or cockroaches ever year? Because the mathematics of population growth isn't your run of the mill 1st order differential equation taught in calculus, you must also take competition for resources into account. This has a huge impact on population characteristics, and much exciting work in mathematics has been and is being done to describe it. 2. So how could one self replicating molecule start everything? There was no competition for resources. The population could grow pretty much geometrically until there were so many that resources for replication became scarce, at which point there would be competition amongst those molecules, and obviously any with slight advantages over others would replicate more, and "pass" more of their advantageous effects to those molecules which replicated from them. Not that any of this has to do with biological evolution anyway. Abiogenesis is a relatively new field. ToE doesn't attempt to explain how life got here, it explains what happens to it after life got here. Recently, abiogenesis has made some amazing advances. Furthermore, the discover of organic sugar molecules in other parts of the galaxy has raised the question of whether things like self-replicating molecules are so hard to produce after all. These theories (the word theory means explanations of and in accordance with observed evidence, it does not mean hypothesis or conjecture) of Evolution, Inflationary Big Bang Theory, Quantum Theory, and the emergence of theories in abiogenesis really do leave God with very little to do (as Stephen Hawking would put it).

03-10-2002, 09:04 AM	#8
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Hey hezekiah et al... it was a joke. Lighten up. Me and randman come from the same board, and we argue all the time (he's a conservative Christian, I'm a liberal). I like the guy (he's really nice when talking about other subjects, like UNC basketball) but I know how he can be. So... back away from the cut and paste macros and have a coke and a smile. Thanks for answering the question though. automaton says: "1. Yes, there is a large deal of geological and astrophysical evidence." Got any links and stuff? Thanks. 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.

03-10-2002, 09:22 AM	#10
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	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 . I don't think the fact that abiogenesis is a science is at all relevant if it turns out that abiogenesis is wrong. 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. P.S. 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>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.