|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2001 : 21:35:20
|
Lately a few letters-to-the-editor here in the Rocket City have been mentioning evolution. At least twice, some fundies have mentions the "fact" that Darwin himself recanted evolution on his death bed. We here know, of course, that this is a lie. Luckily, the paper printed prompt rebuttals that told the true story.
And of course, the most popular seems to be the infamous "Second Law of Thermodynamics", and the supposed violations thereof.
I think I need to get me one of those PDA computers so I can store all the quick and witty rebuttals to these and other creationist lies and misrepresentations.
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2001 : 01:07:33 [Permalink]
|
Some other favorites are:
1. Eugenics, Nazism and just about every bad thing that ever happened is a result of the theory of evolution.
2. The dragging in of comletely unrelated subjects like the origin of life or the formation of planets, big bang etc.
That could make a good poll and figure out the most popular creationist tactic.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Maddog
New Member
United Kingdom
5 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 09:28:30 [Permalink]
|
Just out of interest, why do you think that abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution?
|
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 16:31:13 [Permalink]
|
Abiogenesis, as a discipline, is more like chemistry then biology. It has nothing to do with DNA or natural selection, but rather how DNA (and self replicating cells) came to be in the first place.
Many creationists attack things that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution like the big bang or the formation of the earth and solar system, but lump all of them together as "Evolution". Which of course drives the astronomers who can't stand biology, and the biologists who can't stand physics, nuts :)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2001 : 16:44:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just out of interest, why do you think that abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution?
Here's an article from the April/May Mensa Bulletin (Yes, I am a member, damn it. Ya wanna make somethin' outta it? Step outside!)
I don't think that you will find it related that closely with natural selection.
Crowded cosmos
NASA News Release;01-06AR…..Ames Research Center, January 26, 2001
Did Earth's life begin on land, deep under the sea, or…in deep space? Research by NASA scientists supports the deep-space idea.
Starting with ices commonly found in interstellar clouds, the scientists irradiated them in a near-vacuum with ultraviolet light, which bathes much of outer space. When they put the resulting organic compounds in water, cell-like bubbles formed spontaneously. The "proto-cells thus formed possess double walls similar to real cell membranes.
It is possible that such proto-cells are forming everywhere in the universe. So, life on Earth could have come from space. And life might be as common in the universe as space dust.
--------------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Maddog
New Member
United Kingdom
5 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2001 : 06:22:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Abiogenesis, as a discipline, is more like chemistry then biology. It has nothing to do with DNA or natural selection, but rather how DNA (and self replicating cells) came to be in the first place.
Many creationists attack things that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution like the big bang or the formation of the earth and solar system, but lump all of them together as "Evolution". Which of course drives the astronomers who can't stand biology, and the biologists who can't stand physics, nuts :)
That I can understand, but surely the one is dependant on the other? As in you cannot have evolution if there is nothing to evolve?
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2001 : 08:59:41 [Permalink]
|
"proto-cells thus formed possess double walls similar to real cell membranes."
**************************
Okay Slater, you've built the house, now where 'dya get the furniture?
(:raig
|
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2001 : 23:27:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That I can understand, but surely the one is dependant on the other? As in you cannot have evolution if there is nothing to evolve?
Well that's true, but there are theistic/diestic evolutionists that think god created the universe and made the first life, but life has gone from there on it's own. There is also Panspermia, which seems to be getting more popular lately, which says life started somewhere else but came to earth on meteors and the like. (Which begs the question of where THAT life came from).
The big bang theory is NOT the only theory of creation of the universe either. The steady state model (the universe always has been and always will be) still has adherents. John Kiernen, who sometimes posts on the Bad Astronomy Board, is one. And of course, some believe the universe was created by god.
To lump all these together and call it "evolution" (which only deals with LIFE) is just plain incorrect.
It's a bit like saying boiling water is cooking, even though you need to boil water to cook...
|
|
|
|
Maddog
New Member
United Kingdom
5 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2001 : 06:55:06 [Permalink]
|
Again fair comment.
As an aside, to me it's interesting to see people who actually know "why" they believe something. On the flip-side of those that have been brought up to believe in God and so on, there are those that have been taught that something else is true, and still have no idea "why" that is the case. Both are effectively faith.
I fall into both categories mentioned.  I believe in God (yep shocking I know), and I can also think. (had the mensa test, passed, didn't join, had served it's purpose). What does annoy me (and I'm all out with you on this one), is that people do not think about what they believe.
I've always gone with the "if you don't know ask" method, which to date has served me well.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2001 : 22:02:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"proto-cells thus formed possess double walls similar to real cell membranes."
**************************
Okay Slater, you've built the house, now where 'dya get the furniture?
(:raig
Before the "Cambrian explosion" was a geo-illogical age known as the IKEA period. Paleontolgists have found tiny fossilized allen wrenchs that date from then.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 00:16:29 [Permalink]
|
ljbrs, the few creationists who show up here don't hang around very long. Or as I asked @tomic, would you walk into a lion's den with a nice rare prime rib tied around your neck? I enjoy it when they do post, because the next post IS going to be from Slater. Blood all over the place. I read it all the way through. Sort of like coming upon a car wreck, you just can't help but look. Hmmm, anyone seen Jar Jar lately
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 03:15:17 [Permalink]
|
N2, CO2, H2 and H2O are the basic chemicals from which life was likely formed.
Through electric discharges they can combine to form amino acids, which is what likely happened at the start of the earth.
Neither the amino acids nor any other compounds had to come from anywhere other then earth.
Edited by - bestonnet_00 on 06/04/2001 03:16:42 |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 09:59:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
N2, CO2, H2 and H2O are the basic chemicals from which life was likely formed.
Through electric discharges they can combine to form amino acids, which is what likely happened at the start of the earth.
Neither the amino acids nor any other compounds had to come from anywhere other then earth.
So you're saying that there doesn't have to be a god?
BTW, I don't believe in god.
|
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 10:48:56 [Permalink]
|
CHONSFe.
I'd have left off the N2 and said NH3. Nitrogen gas is very inert.
Add some energy, shake and bake (maybe in some clay muffin tins) for a while and viola! Life!
No gods need apply.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture.
Edited by - Bozola on 06/04/2001 10:49:40 |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 11:29:30 [Permalink]
|
How long is a while? 5-10 million years? 50-100 million?
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." -Master Yoda |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2001 : 12:39:06 [Permalink]
|
Depends on the conditions, I suppose.
The oldest claimed fossil is 3.8 Billion years old. This is less than a billion years after the formation of the Earth, and probably just (100-200 million years or less) after the planet cooled enough to have some liquid water.
If life formed on the surface of the planet, then I would say it takes less than 200 mY. If it was seeded from space, then I'd say there isn't enough data to answer that yet.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
