scigirl

Heh, you should check out this site from Answers in Genesis, if you haven't seen it already:
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp</a>
It's still too short for my taste, but it's a start!

scigirl

P.S. About the "against evolution" site - so ok even if you disproved evolution (which they did not), does this make your version of creationism automatically true? No, it does not.

Where is the data supporting Christian creationism? Answer: there is none.

GeoTheo

You, and others here, like to make a big distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, basically I believe, because there is such a weak case for it. But in reality you can't have one without the other.
Life cannot evolve if it is not there somhow in the firstplace. As to your cursory examination of the site, there are some pretty in depth articles there worth looking at.
As far as the question of why you would re-examine somthing that has already been disproven... er.. why would you spend time debating it?
Isn't this what the purpose of this forum is all about? To look at these issues? Or is it it just a rallying point to reinforce your worldview to yourself. So the subject is entirely closed to you?
Also have you ever paused to consider that being raised by Christians does not make you a former Christian. You have to choose to believe yourself.

Amen-Moses

"Intelligently?"

The site starts -

"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)"

That's "intelligent"???

I count 4 things wrong with the first paragraph which doesn't bode well for the rest of it!

Amen-Moses

Godless Dave

GeoTheo,

How is abiogenesis any more preposterous than a god creating life out of dust?

GeoTheo

Uh, what is your definition of "dust" aren't we talking about the same thing here? A miraculous event by a creator or a miracle created by chance against mind boggling odds? Why is there any reason to believe that life is a quality of inorganic matter?

Skeptical

The odds aren't all that mind boggling when you consider the time scale and the number of stars and planets in the universe. If we had only a few stars and a few planets and a few thousand years, _then_ it would be mind boggling.

It is believed that life can be a quality of inorganic matter because so far as we can determine, there is nothing that clearly delineates "life" from "nonlife". Virii were once very perplexing to those who thought there was a clear demarcation. It's now seen that there is a gradiant with, so far as we can tell, no barriers. Are self-replicating molecules life? What distinguishes life from nonlife? Where do you draw the line and why?

It's the same argument about micro and macro evolution. From a genetics point of view, there is only a gradiant and not a strict "kind" barrier as was once thought. Thinking in terms of its either "this" or its "that" with no gray area is simply intellectual laziness.

scigirl

But this is an important distinction to make.

Here's an analogy: studying how you contract a virus, then studying how the virus affects your body. Doctors can study the second one without completely understanding the first one (E bola comes to mind).

They are two separate (yet related) phenomenon. Evolutionary theory can only explain how life diversified once it got here. Abiogenesis is a group of theories designed to explain how it got here. Now, there is some blending of the two when you talk about early early life, I suppose. But they are two separate things.

Consider this: Life on earth 4 billion years ago was fundamentally different than it is today, in terms of temperature, gaseous elements, etc. You really need a separate "science" to speculate about life origins.

As to your point that because we don't completely understand abiogenesis, therefore evolutionary theory is weakened, I say, hogwash. Physicists still don't have a unified understanding about how gravity works. I don't see you criticizing gravitational theory.

ToE holds up on it's own merits.
I'll take a look at some of them again. But - I've read so many of them before. Most of them are just criticisms of science (there is no evidence FOR creation), and half of the criticism is wrong or misguided. And rarely do any of the authors have even a cursory understanding of genetics. They still think that point mutations are the only type of mutation!!!
To educate the public about what I feel is an important topic, and to refine my understanding of science and ToE.
Whether or not YEC is true is a moot point, yes. Nearly every scientist on the planet agrees.

What worldview? Because I accept the theory of evolution to be the best explanation of how life diversified, this automatically gives me a "worldview?" You know nothing about my worldview, and accepting evolution has nothing to do with it.

In terms of being open-minded to new ideas, I think I have a good balance between skepticism and acceptance. Probably I lean towards skepticism more.

If you are talking about all scientists, skim some articles in Science or Nature sometime. Controversies abound in every field. This is a good thing - it's how scientists work and refine their ideas.

However, whether or not some form of evolution occured, whether or not gravity exists, whether or not HIV causes AIDS, these things are not in controversy amongst the scientific community. Is it because we are a bunch of close-minded bigots? Perhaps. Or maybe it's because the data is so strong that we'd be foolish to not accept them, until a better theory comes along to explain the evidence (YEC definitely fails).
Yawn. The old, "You were not a True Christian (TM)" argument.

scigirl

Starspun

Fine, dry particles of dirt

no.

miracle-an event inexplicable by the laws of nature and so held to be supernatural in origin or an act of god.
Abiogenesis isn't a miracle nor was it 'created'. A miracle would actually be performing a miracle. Now that would be miraculous.
You wanna know some mind numbing odds? Let's go back in time, hell, we won't even go back millions of years. Let's go back 2000 years. 0 a.d.-what are the odds we would be born in the year we were and, what are the odds (2000 years ago) we would be on these boards having this discussion? Is it a miracle? I think not.

Because it sustains organic matter?
Why is there any reason to believe god miracled our ass here?

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

scigirl

Ok Theo, I looked at this site from the link you gave me: <a href="http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i8f.htm" target="_blank">Dinosaur Blood and DNA</a>
One of their "evidences" against evolution is this quote from a scientist:
Then the author of the anti-evolution article continues to elaborate on how the definition of life is elusive. His (her?) conclusion?
A couple of problems with this logic:
1) We can measure life, to some extent. Things age at characteristic rates, and we can predict the natural lifespan of many different creatures.
2) If evolution and abiogenesis theories are correct, than shouldn't we expect to see a blur between life and non-life? You start out with the raw materials, you get some self-replicators (viruses), you get even better self-replicators (bacteria) and so on.

Like with species definitions. If evolution is true, than the lines between species should be fuzzy. They are.
This is a terrible analogy, and full of errors.
1) "Blood" is a collection of living and non-living things: blood cells most certainly do reproduce themselves (and yes they do it in the bone marrow, and also in other organs).

We consider blood cells to be alive, and the other parts of blood to be "not alive," just like milk cells and milk.

Here's a test to how 'scientific' these articles are:
Ha ha ha. It isn't that hard. It's simply a way to purify proteins.
ha ha ha ha ha ha. This site is hilarious. Yep, the OJ trial and Jurassic park had a HUGE influence on DNA analysis. All biology students must now take a class titled, "How to use crazy murder trials and Steven Spielburg movies to refine your DNA analysis and PCR techniques."
I've never read a scientific paper describing how you went about getting the journal article. Haven't they heard of interlibrary loan? "We couldn't get it because it doesn't go back that far on line." Oh crockey, well go the library!!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha again. I am getting a side-ache from laughing so hard.

Here's some abstracts I pulled from pubmed, searching for "prebiotic molecules." Check out all the 'brave scientists'

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=119196 24&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Amino acids from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogues.</a> Nature 2002.

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=117708 21&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Recent findings in the modern RNA world.</a> 2001.

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=106374 18&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Peptide bond formation in gas-phase ion/molecule reactions of amino acids: a novel proposal for the synthesis of prebiotic oligopeptides.</a> Year 2000.
PCR does not amplify proteins, it amplifies DNA. But of course you can look for the protein's message (RNA) if you treat your cell lysate with RT and make cDNA. But RNA is pretty unstable - not sure if it would survive (I'll have to read up more about this.)

Speaking of PCR, mine's about done, and I have to put my samples in the freezer.

scigirl

tgamble

Jurrasic Park?!

Maybe creation science should be taught in science classrooms. Give everyone a good laugh.