- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Faith in "Science" = "man made religion" (Evolution related)
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:03 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:03 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Life didn't evolve from anything, life arose from molecular precursors which arose from biochemical reactions between atoms.
What do you claim is the difference between "evolved from" and "arose from"?
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:09 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
What do you claim is the difference between "evolved from" and "arose from"?
quote:
ev·o·lu·tion
1.
quote:
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
2.
quote:
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion,
You might not know this, but the same word can have different definitions.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:11 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
What do you claim is the difference between "evolved from" and "arose from"?
Evolution is an active, biological process that occurs among living populations. The origin of life involves the passive creation of molecular precursors.
Natural selection drives evolution, it did not drive the creation of life.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:13 pm to DawgfaninCa
And again, you keep ignoring the fact that there IS evidence for abiogenesis.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:14 pm to Roger Klarvin
He is probably one of those people who thinks the big bang is part of the theory of evolution too.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 7/25/14 at 8:15 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
Posted on 7/25/14 at 9:10 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
some people have blind faith that it did.
life exists, we cant explain how just yet,
therefore, sky daddy miracles...thats your argument.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 10:22 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Provide the scientific evidence that life evolved from non-life.
Evolution doesn't concern itself with the process of 'life' evolving from 'non-life.'
This just proves you're ignorant on the subject, and whatever you think you understand on the matter you're only fooling yourself.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 10:29 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
life exists, we cant explain how just yet,
therefore, sky daddy miracles...thats your argument.
I just find it unbelievable that life could evolve from non-life. It makes no sense at all. That means something else was responsible for the creation of life and I know it wasn't me or any other human being. What you want to call the creator is your business.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 10:32 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I just find it unbelievable that life could evolve from non-life. It makes no sense at all.
You're right, it doesn't. Every scientist alive agrees with you.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:00 pm to Enadious
quote:
Evolution doesn't concern itself with the process of 'life' evolving from 'non-life.'
This just proves you're ignorant on the subject, and whatever you think you understand on the matter you're only fooling yourself.
I just gave an example where most scientists believe something on blind faith so they are hypocrites if they ridicule other people who also believe something on blind faith.
The universe is more incredible than any human being can even imagine and you're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:05 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
There isn't a biologist alive who believes life evolved from non-life. Not a single one.
This statement is humorous, but I will say that you have honed your skills somewhat in your discussion of this topic
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And again, you keep ignoring the fact that there IS evidence for abiogenesis.
Finding some amino acids in old jars isn't evidence that life was created from non-life.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:19 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Finding some amino acids in old jars isn't evidence that life was created from non-life.
Of course not, but it shows that it is possible which you deny. It refutes your point that abiogenesis CANNOT occur. It can.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:21 pm to mattloc
quote:
This statement is humorous, but I will say that you have honed your skills somewhat in your discussion of this topic
I'm not sure why you find it humorous. Tell any biologist in the world that you think they believe life evolves from non life and you will be laughed out of the room.
And I have multiple biology degrees and soon will have a medical degree, I have been "honing" my biology skills for over a decade
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:25 pm to Roger Klarvin
The first organisms were self-replicating iron-rich clays which fixed carbon dioxide into oxalic and other dicarboxylic acids. This system of replicating clays and their metabolic phenotype then evolved into the sulfide rich region of the hotspring acquiring the ability to fix nitrogen. Finally phosphate was incorporated into the evolving system which allowed the synthesis of nucleotides and phospholipids. If biosynthesis recapitulates biopoiesis, then the synthesis of amino acids preceded the synthesis of the purine and pyrimidine bases. Furthermore the polymerization of the amino acid thioesters into polypeptides preceded the directed polymerization of amino acid esters by polynucleotides.
What is Hartman actually saying here......chemical evolution or is it something else
What is Hartman actually saying here......chemical evolution or is it something else
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:31 pm to CptBengal
quote:
It's because you're using real numbers.
It didn't always apply outside of real numbers, or for matrices, etc.
I guess I never got to that part of math
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:49 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I just find it unbelievable that life could evolve from non-life. It makes no sense at all.
quote:
You're right, it doesn't. Every scientist alive agrees with you.
What about what this site says?
BTW, notice that the word "evolution" is used.
quote:
How did life begin? What was the origin of the first carbon-based life on earth?
Scientists are proposing various theories for a natural origin of life by a process of abiogenesis (a non-biological production of life) that can be viewed as a chemical evolution from non-life to life. {note: Another meaning of chemical evolution is the natural process, occurring in stars, that forms the nuclei of larger atoms (Li, C, N, O,...) from the smaller nuclei of H and He. }
Scientists usually propose a four-stage process of formation for the first life:
1A. formation of small organic molecules (amino acids, nucleic acid bases,…),
1B. and these combine to make larger biomolecules (proteins, RNA, lipids,…),
2A. which self-organized, by a variety of interactions, into a semi-alive system
2B. that gradually transformed into a more sophisticated form, a living organism.
• Loren Haarsma & Terry Gray (2003) briefly outline a possible process for a natural origin of life.
LINK
If what you say is true then what's your response to this quote by Nobel laureate George Wald?
quote:
“The only alternative” to spontaneous generation is “to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position” (Wald, 1954, 191[2]:46). Life was either created, or it evolved from non-life. Since every scientific observation known to man has demonstrated that physical life never comes from non-life, and cannot do so, the only logical conclusion is that life was created supernaturally.
LINK
This post was edited on 7/26/14 at 12:00 am
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:55 pm to DawgfaninCa
George Wald made a poor choice in words. If asked to break down his language, he would tell you it is an incorrect usage of terms.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News