Group of 70 scientists from a paleontology conference takes a field trip to the Creation Museum

[Cym Jim]

Originally Posted by danb

I'm interested in seeing the demo in which life is evolved from a rock.

Rock's don't evolve - the process tends to be restricted to living organisms.

[danb]

Originally Posted by Cym Jim

Rock's don't evolve - the process tends to be restricted to living organisms.

Not so fast my personal stalker-dude. Evolutionists say living things came about through the random collisions of non-living particles.I don't discredit minor evolutionary changes in the animal and plant world. But the whole start of life thing is kind of a biggie. I think that is the crux of the matter. (no pun intended). Thus, the need to demonstrate the leap from non-living to living.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by danb

Not so fast my personal stalker-dude. Evolutionists say living things came about through the random collisions of non-living particles.I don't discredit minor evolutionary changes in the animal and plant world. But the whole start of life thing is kind of a biggie. I think that is the crux of the matter. (no pun intended). Thus, the need to demonstrate the leap from non-living to living.

It's cute that you think it's a problem.

At this point, the burden of proof is on you. We have plenty of evidence evolution occurs. Far, far past "minor evolutionary changes" as you put it. The ball is in your court. Show how evolution could not have happened. We have libraries full of evidence it did and does.

[Cym Jim]

Originally Posted by danb

Not so fast my personal stalker-dude. Evolutionists say living things came about through the random collisions of non-living particles.I don't discredit minor evolutionary changes in the animal and plant world. But the whole start of life thing is kind of a biggie. I think that is the crux of the matter. (no pun intended). Thus, the need to demonstrate the leap from non-living to living.

Some do, some don't. It has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to restrict your arguments to the origin of life, please do - but that does nothing to challenge evolution. As for the "minor evolutionary changes" thing - yes, lots of evidence of those. Lots of evidence of major evolutionary changes too. Would you like to discuss some?

[Cym Jim]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

It's cute that you think it's a problem.

Hey, read my paper .

[danb]

Put up or shut up boys. All I see is fast talkin.' It's pretty simple. Either life spontaneously generated out of pure randon happenstance from inanimate material or it didn't. The proof that it didn't ain't on me. The proof that it did is on you all.

[Cym Jim]

Originally Posted by danb

Put up or shut up boys. All I see is fast talkin.' It's pretty simple. Either life spontaneously generated out of pure randon happenstance from inanimate material or it didn't. The proof that it didn't ain't on me. The proof that it did is on you all.

Nothing to do with evolution. Please try again.

[Left_Of_The_Dial]

Originally Posted by danb

Put up or shut up boys. All I see is fast talkin.' It's pretty simple. Either life spontaneously generated out of pure randon happenstance from inanimate material or it didn't. The proof that it didn't ain't on me. The proof that it did is on you all.

How would you define "inanimate material"? I started rolling this question around in my head and realized I wasn't really certain what exactly this term meant.

Maybe, if we all talk this out, we can come up with a explanation one way or the other. Or maybe the answer lies in something that has not been put forward yet.

[Dorian]

Originally Posted by Guy Incognito

Go on...

This could get this thread ka-boshed, but oh well...

Darwin believed that black people were evidence of evolutionary process. That is, a lower form of human - something between homosapien and an ape. So, give black people another 1,000,000 years - and they be white folks, just like us... Believe it or not, it took till the 1960's to get this idea blotted out.

I have nothing against anybody from Africa, or who claim African heritage. I'm just sharing a nugget from your homeboy Darwin. Guess he got that one wrong. But I'm sure the rest of his ideas are great, right?

[doc_spartan]

Dorian:

Are you sure you want to try to discredit evolution based on the perception that one of it's authors held a set of beliefs that are no longer credible?

Some of the founding fathers of this country were slave owners and racists...does that fact in itself discredit the principles they helped to clarify and codify in founding the country?

For that matter some of the folks in the Bible did some pretty horrible things...does that make the other principals they stood for any less?

[doc_spartan]

It's clear that no lab experiment has generated "life" yet.

This is not of course directly the subject of evolution which deals with mutation and natural selection not begining of life.

I'm curious though...what is the definition of life at its simplest component? Are viruses "alive"

Maybe a better way to phrase the question...for those folks out there that hold beliefs similar to danb...using chemicals and conditions similar to the primordial earth...what specifically would have to be created in a lab that would convince you that "life" could have come into existance due to mere chemistry?

[Cym Jim]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

Some of the founding fathers of this country were slave owners and racists...does that fact in itself discredit the principles they helped to clarify and codify in founding the country?

Funnily enough, Abraham Lincoln (born on the same day as Darwin) said almost the exact same thing:

"there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

Pretty good discussion of Darwin and racism here:

The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist

[gdarb]

Originally Posted by danb

I'm interested in seeing the demo in which life is evolved from a rock.

ok, I'll bite....

You think Darwin says life evolved from a rock? No wonder you don't accept evolution....
BTW- Evolution is fact...

How life started? we don't know. and as usual, when humans don't know the answer to something, we say "god did it". Lightning, earthquakes, disease.... you get the picture... but we (ie all life on earth), did evolve... and we're all related.

[danb]

Originally Posted by gdarb

ok, I'll bite....

You think Darwin says life evolved from a rock? No wonder you don't accept evolution....
BTW- Evolution is fact...

How life started? we don't know. and as usual, when humans don't know the answer to something, we say "god did it". Lightning, earthquakes, disease.... you get the picture... but we (ie all life on earth), did evolve... and we're all related.

You sure want to put your own words into people's mouths, huh. You guys do that a lot. OK, I'll bite back.

I used the term "rock" as shorthand for otherwise inanimate material. I don't know what specific term Darwin used. As I said before, I personally don't discount evolutionary-type adaptation in living species. I won't put words in the mouths of others though.

If you claim ignorance on how life started than you are one of very few people who attack people who believe God created man that do.

I have been told by several on this board during their attacks on people like me who disagree with them that life began spontaneously in a random molecular event. Pure chance. Nothing caused it. It just occurred.

This is a big deal and the fundamental question that either legitimates or negates the world view of the moral relativists who feel man is the supreme being. If God indeed exists, and created man, the whole thing blows up. Absolute morality from God given natural law becomes a very inconvenient truth.

I am skeptical of the random spontaneous origin of life. My position is that it takes a lot more faith to believe in that than in God.

[danb]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

It's clear that no lab experiment has generated "life" yet.

This is not of course directly the subject of evolution which deals with mutation and natural selection not begining of life.

I'm curious though...what is the definition of life at its simplest component? Are viruses "alive"

Maybe a better way to phrase the question...for those folks out there that hold beliefs similar to danb...using chemicals and conditions similar to the primordial earth...what specifically would have to be created in a lab that would convince you that "life" could have come into existance due to mere chemistry?

it is my understanding that most biologists who study these things consider viruses to be replicators rather than sustainable life forms.

As you probably kow already, the definition of what distinguishes living forms from inanimate or inorganic matter is challenging. What would satisfy you?

[doc_spartan]

danb:

I think the point some posters are trying to make is that Darwin himself didn't really comment much on the origin of life itself. His focus was on what happened after the first living organism arose.

In the first edition of "Origin of the Species" he comments "I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have decended from one primordial form into which life was first breathed." From what I understand this is the only time he touches on the topic.

In the second edition of the book he ammends the comment by adding "by the creator" to the end of the sentence...in the third edition he takes out the whole sentence.

Clearly this doesn't answer your central point about the origin of life...I just wanted to take some of the noise out of the discussion.

[danb]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

danb:

I think the point some posters are trying to make is that Darwin himself didn't really comment much on the origin of life itself. His focus was on what happened after the first living organism arose.

In the first edition of "Origin of the Species" he comments "I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have decended from one primordial form into which life was first breathed." From what I understand this is the only time he touches on the topic.

In the second edition of the book he ammends the comment by adding "by the creator" to the end of the sentence...in the third edition he takes out the whole sentence.

Clearly this doesn't answer your central point about the origin of life...I just wanted to take some of the noise out of the discussion.

Your comment shoudl be directed at the ardent evolutionists as well. They are the ones who make the argument I described earlier.

As I said, I am skeptical. I understand the evidence and argument of natural selection and mutation, and I myself am not uncomfortable with them. Whether or not man evolved from the same origin as all other life forms is another matter of considerable contention. I am not prepared to say absolutely yes or no; I remain skeptical. My belief in God is quite capable of accommodating Darwin, but not the spontaneous generation of life from a random generatino of life. But enough about me, what say you? Did we all just happen to come along?

[doc_spartan]

As you probably kow already, the definition of what distinguishes living forms from inanimate or inorganic matter is challenging. What would satisfy you?

In order to successfully create something defined as "life" the requirements should be:

1) Take in energy
2) Process waste
3) Able to reproduce without other life forms (not a parasite)

In order to say we have demonstrated that life on earth could have come into existence in a specific manner that life should have:

1) been created in a circumstance that could have existed on primordial earth
2) be cellular
3) be constructed of the same twenty amino acids all life uses
4) use DNA / RNA as the method of recording genetic information

[doc_spartan]

My belief in God is quite capable of accommodating Darwin, but not the spontaneous generation of life from a random generatino of life. But enough about me, what say you? Did we all just happen to come along?

Yeah...I'm a pretty staunch believer in evolution...to use your words I believe we "just happened to come along".

[danb]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

Yeah...I'm a pretty staunch believer in evolution...to use your words I believe we "just happened to come along".

If I were as classless as my attackers I would comment on how cute that is while sanctimoneously smirking. I think you are wrong, but I won't ridicule you or your belief. You have a lot invested in it.

[Dorian]

Originally Posted by gdarb

ok, I'll bite....

You think Darwin says life evolved from a rock? No wonder you don't accept evolution....
BTW- Evolution is fact...

How life started? we don't know. and as usual, when humans don't know the answer to something, we say "god did it". Lightning, earthquakes, disease.... you get the picture... but we (ie all life on earth), did evolve... and we're all related.

Right and wrong here.

Microevolution is a fact. Examples of this are dog breeding. However, macroevolution has never been proven. Examples of this would be to get a horse from a dog. In fact, as scientists search for more evidence to support macroevolution, the more they find against it.

The difference here cannot be overemphasized. So evolution can explain some species differences. Okay, I'll buy some of that. But not the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus differences.

The final nail in the coffin of macroevolution is microbiology. Microbiology killed it. Buried it. Evolution on a macroscale is garbage.

But since evolution has a grain of truth, we are told to accept the whole package, and overlook the massive holes in the idea.

[doc_spartan]

I think you are wrong, but I won't ridicule you or your belief. You have a lot invested in it.

I appreciate that.

Regarding my investment in the theory...we all have a lot invested in our personal beliefs!

[doc_spartan]

Dorian:

The final nail in the coffin of macroevolution is microbiology. Microbiology killed it. Buried it. Evolution on a macroscale is garbage.

I'm not familiar with this objection to evolution....can you provide some link?

I hope you are not refering to the work by Gogarten...that would be a real misinterpretation of his theory

[danb]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

I appreciate that.

Regarding my investment in the theory...we all have a lot invested in our personal beliefs!

You have a lot more on the line if God is real than I do if he ain't.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Cym Jim

Hey, read my paper .

I downloaded it.... what more do you want on a holiday weekend?



cichlids.....