1340 replies to this topic

[Drewry]

haha, Spence is the man.

[Cossack]

Your a retard AOWR. Do you honestly expect us to believe that you wrote all of that? You go from making dumbass ingnorant statements, and then a couple of months later you make a page long somewhat coherant (although still flawed) post about everything we have been talking about.

Personally I think you just copied and pasted that, and then inserted emoticons and spelling errors to make us believe you wrote it. Although its more probable you just got someone slightly more intelligent than you (perhaps your brother that gave you the typing program?) to write it for you.

Either way, like MSpencer said, you can't just make up evidence and call it fact. You need to provide actual sources, and not ones from ilovegod.com. An actual reputable source would be appreciated for any of these statements.

[Calamity_Jones]

that post is more like comedy than anything... some of the things in there are just hilarious....

Macroevolution is the belief that creatures added information to their genetic code, in order to become new organisms, which violates the laws of biology.

Oh does it now? Once again you're swooning about thinking that you know more about Biology than the experts. Arrogant, no? Creatures do not add information to their genetic code, that would be designing themselves... sounds a bit like the uber lame "plot" of the Doom movie...

That, and no positive mutation has ever been recorded.

I suspect that you're thinking of X men... shooting lasers out of your eyes, lightning from your arse and having the terrifying capacity to create "arguments" like your own...

No Transitional form between verterbraes and inverterbraes has ever been found.

Of course there hasn't, we did not evolve from insects. You however must have evolved from the excrement of Bulls.

Reptiles can't become birds because of the differences in the heart, that would kill it if it was to morph.

Pokemon is not real.

"Brachiasaurachu, evolve!"
Brachiasaurachu evolved into humming bird.

Right.. This is the gold dust people, this is the funniest line of the lot.

Also, the earth's magnetic field has a half-life of 1,400 years, and at that rate, between 7,000 and 10,000 years ago it wouldn't have been able to support life.

Hahahhaaaa! Please, don't ever have children. If they acquire your mentality mankind might die of laughter... There are so many things wrong with that sentance that I'll just laugh at it and you rather than pick it apart.

And back at dating methods, did you know that the people killed at Mt. St. Helens in 1986 died 2.8 million years ago? That's what radiometric dating says. And the Halolou explosian was more than one-and-a-half years ago by radiometric dating (it was going off from 1800-1801). The explosian over in sicily that flash-fossilized an entire town mas 300,000 years ago, and the Arizona Crater explosian from about 1076 275,000 years ago. It seem to be going backwards!

Provide sources for your lies.

Oh.. hell with it... I can't go on anymore...

Edited by Calamity_Jones, 30 October 2006 - 03:52 AM.

[duke_Qa]

err, yeah halflife on the earths magnetic field? must have missed that one

[AOWR-Theoo Stratiotes]

First of all, most of your experts are people who have never seen anything other than the inside of a school textbook, not people with doctorates in their field, or even degrees in other fields. Second: I have read over one-hundred biology and physics books from both sides (evolution and creation), and thus think I am a bit more experienced in most sciences than a lot of people here, and the rest obviously won't show themselves. Third: I am philosophically greater than pretty much anyone here, as I have read as many religous/anti-religous books I can find, and have practically grown up in seminaries and philosophical colleges. Fourth: reffering to me as a "dumb-ass" doesn't really help your case, because people generally only resort to insults because they can't respond scientifically and factually, or because they are shameless; it also does not prove that the insult in itself is correct; I have provided many good arguments, and many bad ones, just like anyone else. I also haven'y seen anyone trying to disprove my apollegetic or psychological statements. As per my being smarter than experts; actually, in many areas I am: if I chose, I could be doing advanced college courses in almost any field of science except medical science and computer technology, and my IQ is over 165; anyone here who has that, speak up. Most experts do have schooling and training that puts them beyond me, though. Such as Dr. Tom Hoyle, a creationist who has derailed much of the current evolutionary ttheory, whether anyone will admit it or not. You know, any expert who actually looks at the facts unbiasedly, will deem evolution to be a fallen theory within fifty years. And by the way, if you haven't heard of the weakenning of the magnetic field, you have no business talking about geology. Back to 'dumb-ass': you never saw anything about my scientific abilities but what, two things? One bad argument, one good; one did have the sources, and as per the other, science text books usually don't give sources. Teachers giving science lectures also don't give sources. Oh, and a good source for the magnetic half-life is ninth grade science. The fact that I am in ninth grade and could be doing advanced college science, while you probably would have to review high-school science to even get in is kind of sad. And actually, even if I had been as stupid as you suggest, with my good memory I could easily improve my scientific knowledge by 100x in a matter of months, as could most people if they tried. And Calamity_jones, have you even read evolutionary theory? It does state we supposedly evolved from one-celled organisms, which have no vertebrae, and thus must have eventually evolved the backbone; it also states that birds evolved from reptiles, specifically dinosaurs. But birds have four-chamber hearts, and reptiles have three chambered hearts, and it would be impossible for any organism to increase or decrease the amount of chambers in its heart. You'll find that (the amount of chambers in reptiles and birds hearts) to be true if you ever look at diagrams of their internal structure; I have seen diagrams more than twenty birds and reptiles. What are the X-men? I have seen the powers of two, wolverine and cyclops, but that's all I know about them. I prefer DC comics to marvel (with the exception of spider-man).

And actually, by the theory of quantum physics, time does exist as a dimension, not just human thoughts about the past, present, and future. Source: Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia 2006 (an evolutionist source, by the way).

As per the laws of Biology: Did you know that no evolutionary biologist can explain how evolution took place? Such things as the fact that it violates the law of biogenesis.

Here's an evolutionary flaw I don't need sources for, because everyone who knows anything about science knows the laws of thermodynamics (the most established laws in science). No, this one was not copied from somewhere. The second law of thermodynamics says that the universe is running out of energy, or winding down; in light of this fact, it is seen that all energy was at one time usable, or wound up. This time was the beginning of the universe. For evolutionists; the big bang. For creationists; Creation (hence our name). The first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed by any means, but can be switched from one form to the other, and thus; from nothing comes nothing, or: the big bang couldn't have just happened, because that would mean that the energy and matter came from nowhere, which is shown to be impossible by the laws of thermodynamics. Where did it come from? The only option is God, because a God would e the only immaterial (non-matter, non-energy) Thing that could have made the matter and energy.

The death of evolutionary theory comes from the fact that it needs a beggining, and that can only be provided by God. so evolution needs God, while God doesn't need evolution.

I actually did copy a good much of that post from books (which is more than any of you can say), and here are a good number of the sources:

The God who sits Enthroned, by Dr. Phil Fernandes.

Under the Sea and in the Air, a lecture by Dr. Tom Hoyle.

Exploring creation with biology; Basic sophmore biology book, offered as an alternative to evolutionary biology in many schools.

Alpha Omega publiching's Switched on Schoolhouse ninth&tenth grade science books, one of the most common programs in home-shooling and in home/public school co-ops, such as Choice (the major one in my community in Washington State).

Research by the Institute of Biblical Defense, available for anyone who wants to look it up.

Here's a quote for you on the false 'evidence' for evolution from Dr Niles Eldredge (curator, American Museum of Natural History; believer in macroevolution): "I admit that an aweful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in [i]his[/i] museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook...." As quoted in Darwins Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, 1988, pg. 78. This is about the sequence proposed as macroevolutionary evidence: Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus. This sequence was presented because the legbones progress perfectly from toes to hooves, and the skulls seem to change form from one to the other perfectly. Great evidence, right? Wrong. The first problem is geography; they aren't all found in the same place anywhere on earth. The second problem in the lumbar vertebrae on them varies from 6-8 in no pattern; the ribs vary from 15-19, again, with no pattern. They also don't apper in the strata layers in the right order; eohippus has been found just as near to the surface as equus. Once the evidence is presented, this is just another one of many false proofs of evolution that has been disproved. In the end, one of the most famous of the macroevolutionary 'proofs' is admitted to be false, even by evolutionists; note that it is still presented as fact, even though most evolutionists say that it is false. So far have we fallen. (Facts about horse evolutionary series quoted from Exploring creation with biology, module nine, pg. 288-289; quote is also found on pg. 289 of said book.)

I have more sources, but I need to disconnect; sources list will continue within the week.

[Shine On]

Firstly - Learn to use bloody paragraphs. That is unless you type how you speak

I could be doing advanced college courses in almost any field of science except medical science and computer technology, and my IQ is over 165; anyone here who has that, speak up.

You could have all the brain power you want but if you don't have the common sence to use it properly then its pretty pointless posting about that.

The death of evolutionary theory comes from the fact that it needs a beggining, and that can only be provided by God. so evolution needs God, while God doesn't need evolution.

You basing that on the idea that time must have a beginning, which is bollocks. True time has no begining nor end its just a constant stream. Anyway like people have said "Time is as human perception of past and future, but all that exists is the eternal moment. All that exists is NOW." So that throws that idea that god exists out the window.

I actually did copy a good much of that post from books (which is more than any of you can say)

What the hell does that mean? That you are brainwashed by books? That you can't form your own opinion? And that our views are flawed just cause it didn't come from a big shiny book? <_<


You're also assuming that if god exists then the one that you "worship" is the correct one. That everyone else in the world is wrong apart from what you believe.

[MSpencer]

Second: I have read over one-hundred biology and physics books from both sides (evolution and creation), and thus think I am a bit more experienced in most sciences than a lot of people here,

You must be hiding those PhDs somewhere, perhaps in the sun which supposedly enclosed the earth five thousand years ago according to your earlier post which I disproved mathematically after also schooling you on the standard phases of stars?
And I believe a month ago you were self-professedly ignorant, and 13 years old. So I assume you did one of those University of Phoenix 3 hour PhD programs and now you know everything about everything in the universe. Even psychology.

Third: I am philosophically greater than pretty much anyone here, as I have read as many religous/anti-religous books I can find, and have practically grown up in seminaries and philosophical colleges.

I KNEW that as a 13 year old you had three BThs, must have been my mistake for calling you a lying idiot.

Fourth: reffering to me as a "dumb-ass" doesn't really help your case, because people generally only resort to insults because they can't respond scientifically and factually, or because they are shameless; it also does not prove that the insult in itself is correct; I have provided many good arguments, and many bad ones, just like anyone else.

Because you really make a lot of sense when you talk about magnetism having a half life.
It must be because we haven't discovered the element magnetium, with an atomic number of 1337, which causes magnetism. That makes perfect sense, and in fact, I think we should drag out all the physicists and chemists, and shoot them, all because you have figured out the secret of the universe with bullshit.

As per my being smarter than experts; actually, in many areas I am: if I chose, I could be doing advanced college courses in almost any field of science except medical science and computer technology, and my IQ is over 165;

At thirteen years old.
Yes, folks, we have a thirteen year old who calls himself a genius.
Well, that just about describes any smart mouthed thirteen year old who needs to be shut up. Care to answer what the square root of -1 is, or what l'Hopital's rule states? Or how about Hess's Law? Care to do a few thermochemical reactions for me? I always have some nasty little polynomials of higher degrees you could be doing.
I don't think you understand any of those words though, Mr. Genius.

Most experts do have schooling and training that puts them beyond me, though.

Which brings us back to first base: You know nothing, and you're not qualified to say anything, because you probably haven't even done algebra yet (And it's obvious, considering you think the earth was part of the sun a couple thousand years ago!).

Such as Dr. Tom Hoyle, a creationist who has derailed much of the current evolutionary ttheory, whether anyone will admit it or not. You know, any expert who actually looks at the facts unbiasedly, will deem evolution to be a fallen theory within fifty years.

So this must be why an entire discipline of biology is based off of the irrefutable truth that is the theory of evolution.
Where's your PhD in biology by the way? Hiding in the sun too?
Sources would be nice also.
And this Dr. Tom Hoyle, since he's so great, it would stand to reason that he has received some sort of award, right? Why that is perfectly logical to assume. Funny thing: He's not on Wikipedia, at all! I did a search, NOTHING! Even a former teacher of mine is (or was) on Wikipedia!
Furthermore, I did some digging. This "Dr." Hoyle has a PhD in "Christian Apologetics", a trumped up bible major, and is a preacher, and believes in the bible literally! Could we come up with a bigger unsupportable source? Why, it would be a little more hilarious if he seemed to have any formal schooling in the theory which he's trying to harm, but of course, as with all people such as this, he doesn't! I wonder why... hmm... maybe it could be because he's a quack!

And by the way, if you haven't heard of the weakenning of the magnetic field, you have no business talking about geology.

Funny, the child genius can't spell weakening.
So, I did some digging

The earth's magnetic field strength was measured by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835 and has been repeatedly measured since then, showing an exponential decay with a half-life of about 1400 years.[citation needed] This indicates a relative decay of about 7 % over the last 150 years.

Funny. The only part where it states a real number... requires a citation, which is not present on the page. Very convenient.
So, the only way we can verify this is through the work of Gauss, a 19th century mathematician whose biggest claim to fame is the Gaussian curve, a big thing in statistics and evolutionary biology. Considering I know Gauss did lots of work with magnetism, I'll take that as fact, however, the child genius has again miscalculated (Seems to be a theme).
Here's where we get into decay states (GT, stop me when I screw up).
Half life does not mean it goes away. The half life of a material or in this case the magnetic field of the planet Earth, means that after a cert ain amount of time, decay has progressed so that there is only one half of what you had before left. This is why carbon dating works so well.
We'll use the pie example. You have a whole apple pie, you cut it in half once after an hour. After another hour, you cut that half in half. Then, an hour later, the quarter. After that, you cut it into an eighth. Then into a sixteenth. You can keep going every hour for eternity, but that pie will NEVER reach zero. It is simply dividing by two.
So we're going to go off and do some math, and in the mean time I'm going to get to test my ROM I have for my Ti83+.
So, we have two givens. One is that the uncited half life of the strength of the earth's magnetic field is 1,400 years. We're going to go ahead and make the wildly unscientific assumption that this is correct (1. This is a scientific travesty, but seems to be a common theme with the child genius and his prodigious scientific talents) in order to do these calculations, somewhere in line with my post here, http://forums.revora...p...501&st=100#, fundamentally disproving the fallacy put forward by the scientific child genius. However, that is our first, questionable given. Our second given is an arbitrary number, given earlier, of 5,000 to 7,000 years and how the earth would not be able to support life. Since the child genius loves numbers with easily discernible medians, we'll use 6,000 just to be sure.
I have also acquired from Wikipedia that the strength of the earth's magnetic field is between 30 to 60 microteslas, depending on the area. Since I'm fond of medians, since I'm taking a statistics course which is pure torture, I'll go with 45 here.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Tesla_(unit)
We're going to do some SI unit things here, funky stuff. The Tesla was defined in 1960 as one weber/m^2. Remember that, we're going to cancel out units later. A weber is a measure of magnetic flux, of course, we're not talking about flux here, so we're going with a secondary one there, one weber of flux of one second is equal to 1 volt. So we're going to do something wild here, and we're going to say ONE microtesla is equal to one microweber per meter squared per second which is equal to one microvolt. Now remember, scientific child genius, that micro, denoted by mu, is 10^-6. This will give us the voltage exerted by the magnetic field of the earth in microvolts over one second over one meter in a fairly dense area. This is in no way, shape, or form anything crazy, but it's something we don't want to do (2. Since magnetism isn't really emission of electrical energy, we shouldn't be doing this, but of course, this is the only way to go about this).
So anyways, let's sum it up:
KNOWN:
Half-life, earth's magnetism - 1400yr (assumed)
Electrical force, earth's magnetic field, current - 45 microteslas (assumed)
Conversion - microteslas to microvolt/m/s
With these assumed knowns, we may now begin our calculations. I'm going to do this on paper, you're going to have to take my word for it that the units cancel.
6000/1400 = 4.2857 half lives
We can then multiply 45 microteslas by this to determine the microteslas in an average area then.
4.2857hl * 45 microteslas = 192.8565 microteslas. Knowing this, we will now go ahead and do some SI conversions.
192.8565µt * (1µwb/m^2 / 1µt) = 192.8565µwb/m^2 * (1µV/s / 1µwb/m^2) = 192.8565µV/s/m^2 (Cannot cancel meters squared).
Now, we'll convert it to something that makes sense. Volts.
To save me from writing out the units completely, we're going to be multiplying by 10^-6 and dividing by 1. That gives us a... drum roll please...
Whopping value of:
0.0001928565 volts per second per meter squared!!!
Meaning, it wouldn't even upset your compass!
And once again, the scientific child genius, miscalculates. I take it that Calculus IV isn't suiting you well because you forgot Arithmetic I?

The fact that I am in ninth grade and could be doing advanced college science, while you probably would have to review high-school science to even get in is kind of sad.

I can only imagine if they let you loose on the world without a decent science education!

Which now brings me back to the crux of my argument:

First of all, most of your experts are people who have never seen anything other than the inside of a school textbook

Posted today, October 30th, at 3:54 PM Eastern Standard Time in the Year of our Spencer 2006.

Um... I would like to say in my defense that every scientific fact/unfact came directly from my science textbooks.

Posted June 30th, at 11:17 AM Eastern Standard Time in the Year of our Spencer 2006.

Why someone must have been busy getting those college lab credits in over the summer. Learning takes a long time. Unfortunately, you're not there yet. You still have time to learn more about the world in all its complexity, but please, stop copying things from webpages and taking them as fact. Have a little bit of common sense and self-decency.
And you should remember the famous Stephen Hawking quote, anyone who brags about their IQ is an idiot.

So now I will recommend my two favorite books of the year:
Campbell and Reece Advanced Placement Biology, 7th Edition (2005)
and The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, and that's Doctor Richard Dawkins, in something other than Christian Apologetics.
I think it's time to wake up and smell the gene pool.

[chemical ali]

Can anyone say......

0wn3d?

[Cossack]

As per my being smarter than experts; actually, in many areas I am: if I chose, I could be doing advanced college courses in almost any field of science except medical science and computer technology, and my IQ is over 165; anyone here who has that, speak up.

The fact that I am in ninth grade and could be doing advanced college science, while you probably would have to review high-school science to even get in is kind of sad. And actually, even if I had been as stupid as you suggest, with my good memory I could easily improve my scientific knowledge by 100x in a matter of months.

Take your fucking erogance and ignorance elsewhere. We have no need for dipshit home-schooled 13 year olds who think there smarter than evolutionary biologists.

You are going to get nowhere in life being as close minded as you are, learning all you know from biassed creationist websites, and AWANA. My advice to you; get out into the real world and out of your protective bubble in which you are the smartest person in the world and are always correct.

Long story short: Get a fucking life!

P.S. I second the ultimate pwnage by Mspencer

[duke_Qa]

indeed. spencer has said everything that needs to be said. i was gonna say that the one's who brings up IQ in an argument is an idiot, but spencer already quoted hawking for truth there.

come back when you have lived for another 7-10 years and take the discussion on evolution then. see if things have changed or not.

[MSpencer]

Part Deux
Evolution

I shall start off with this lovely quote which I will be returning to later at the end of this post.

And actually, even if I had been as stupid as you suggest, with my good memory I could easily improve my scientific knowledge by 100x in a matter of months, as could most people if they tried.

Allow this to sink in, give it a moment, and then continue reading.

And Calamity_jones, have you even read evolutionary theory? It does state we supposedly evolved from one-celled organisms, which have no vertebrae, and thus must have eventually evolved the backbone; it also states that birds evolved from reptiles, specifically dinosaurs.

Actually, fairly major correction:
It states that evolutionary changes result through the culmination of the effects of natural selection. Have you ever read evolutionary theory? You show a surprising ignorance of the basic tenets of the entire concept.
The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution states that organisms and species have developed as a result of the accumulation of random genetic changes, mutations, which have been selected against or for by the environment. A mutation can be anything such as a single base-pair change to modify a protein, to a complete copy of a chromosome. It is known that some organisms actually have numerous copies of nearly identical chromosomes, pointing to, at some point, fairly major silent mutations. Natural selection is a proven fact: by the very nature of the environment, natural selection is occurring at any given time. You see natural selection occurring when a bird is eaten by a cat. Natural selection is simply the environment and everything in the environment acting upon a population of organisms in some way, shape, or form. It is the environment and changing conditions in the environment selecting for or against certain traits.
Evolution through natural selection is simply the evolutionary model which accounts for this irrefutable law. Evolution, despite what its naysayers say and take out of context, simply states that natural selection is acting upon organisms in a profound way and that it can cause significant genetic changes over significant amounts of time in hundreds of generations. Life on Earth has had about 3 billion years to get this right, and life experiences periods of increased evolutionary activity which can be modeled by the Punctuated Equilibrium model designed by Stephen Jay Gould, so I would just about say that this is also irrefutable.
Everything else falls under the domain of evolutionary biology. Life history, cladistics, and the "tree of life" all fall under evolutionary biology in some way shape or form. The modern theory of evolution is simply a tool for evolutionary biologists to construct an accurate model of the history of life and species on the planet.
There is a lovely website, www.tolweb.org, which chronicles every known clade currently on the books. It has probably over one thousand cited sources written by probably 900 different scientists and researchers, and can trace the diversity of life all the way from protobionts to humans with annotated changes for major clades and groups. The entire phylum Chordata is composed of vertebrates, stemming from common invertebrate ancestors with cartilaginous spines. The spine is not an incredible leap like nuclear fission for evolution, in fact it's a rather well documented gradual change. Naturally, vertebrates in some roles are significantly better adapted than invertebrates, especially anything involving speed or stability, thus it is natural that they would be evolutionarily successful and would reproduce more often, thus passing on their genes to the next generation.
It is rather obvious from your continued comments that you have neither a grasp of basic genetics or of basic evolutionary theory, let alone the more complex aspects which you seem to very quickly refute. You cannot build a skyscraper on top of straw. What you have is wet, decaying straw infested with all sorts of decomposers, and evolution is a 400 story skyscraper which will not tolerate that bullshit foundation.

But birds have four-chamber hearts, and reptiles have three chambered hearts, and it would be impossible for any organism to increase or decrease the amount of chambers in its heart. You'll find that (the amount of chambers in reptiles and birds hearts) to be true if you ever look at diagrams of their internal structure; I have seen diagrams more than twenty birds and reptiles.

Well I suppose that just makes you a practicing anatomist then.
But more realistically:
Birds did not develop from reptiles! They're a totally separate clade! In fact, the four chambered heart of birds developed completely independently, after their branching off from a certain clade of feathered dinosaurs. Considering birds share an overwhelming number of similarities with reptiles and specifically dinosaurs, it is not an illogical conclusion that the four chambered heart clearly developed independently, in fact, the evidence supports it. The only evidence against it is that birds and reptiles have different numbers of chambers, however, we clearly know that many organisms we consider as scaly dinosaurs, such as the menacing velociraptor from Jurassic Park fame, clearly had feathers, so the later flying feathered dinosaurs beginning to develop a four chambered heart with later appearance in bird clades is really probably an accurate way of describing what really happened. In reality, will we know exactly what happened? Of course not. Evolutionary biology is a lot of conjecture, but it is not guessing. The evidence for most conclusions in the field of evolutionary biology tends to be overwhelming, otherwise it usually is never published.

And actually, by the theory of quantum physics, time does exist as a dimension, not just human thoughts about the past, present, and future. Source: Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia 2006 (an evolutionist source, by the way).

Evolution has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. And time is a dimension, it's widely considered to be the fourth dimension, it's bendable and related to space, but that doesn't mean it has a beginning or an end. As in mathematics, any axis x or y does not have a beginning or an end. Time is simply another axis upon which the universe moves upon, figuratively, but it never has a beginning, and it never has an end, since time by its very definition is infinite.

As per the laws of Biology: Did you know that no evolutionary biologist can explain how evolution took place? Such things as the fact that it violates the law of biogenesis.

I consider myself to have quite a bit of experience in the field of biology. I consider myself to be a fairly well informed person, and I try to keep up on the flood of papers published by various people, and I try to read at least three books on biology every year and at least three history books, but upon reading this sentence I was absolutely baffled by what the meaning of "biogenesis" could be, and how it suddenly became a law which I am utterly uninformed of.
And then I remembered ancient extinct terminology which was last used in the 19th century, possibly two days after Louis Pasteur, famous for the word you see on milk containers and remembered as "that guy who did the milk thing", disproved abiogenesis, or more commonly, spontaneous generation of living organisms. This struck me as incredibly interesting, as the last time I had even heard the term the "Law of Biogenesis" trumpeted about was about six years ago. I suppose it's rather like forgetting how to do long division, you do it in your head every day and it's something which is basically automatically programmed in, but when it's brought up, you go completely blank.
So now after describing my horrible mental illness, we're going to launch head on at this fallacy of creation "science" and how they're using poor Pasteur's work to support their ridiculous claims.
You see, first, we're going to go ahead and say that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Absolutely nothing. Evolution was a force which started taking effect the second life began, yes, and began affecting chemicals which were randomly developing in Aleksandr I. Oparin's primordial soup, sure, but I'm not seeing the direct connection between evolution and biogenesis. Again, the scientific child genius with four degrees in biology miscalculates, and misses it by a loooooooong shot.
Now first we'll tackle origins.
First, we'll do a little history lesson. Once there was this guy named Oparin, he came up with the primordial soup model, but because the Soviets didn't like any kind of scientific research which didn't make really big bombs, really fast airplanes, or really powerful tanks, his research was not rediscovered until much later. Well what does this mean? Why is this important? Oparin may be the most brilliant and most unsung Russian scientist in history. Everyone knows of Mendeleev and Kurchatov, posers, Oparin's where it's at. He essentially theorized that, in the presence of precursor molecules and with a lack of oxygen, entropy in the environment and the sun's UV radiation could allow simple organic systems to arise. This does not mean life, but this means simple organic compounds, we're using system in the chemical pathway sense, such as three carbon sugars, nitrogenous compounds, and proto-fats. Eventually, you would have the arrangement of more complex fatty acids, what we today call phopsholipids (Two unsaturated fatty acids, one phosphate group, and a choline group), and they would then arrange themselves into coacervates held together by simple intermolecular forces. These coacervates are what we would consider today to be cellular membranes; they were little more than that and would likely not contain much.
This begins the long, exhaustive process of chemical evolution which I so loathe, since nobody seems to understand it or the people who read my descriptions don't seem to want to believe me or don't seem to have the willpower to try and learn about the damn thing. It's really an interesting topic. From your basic coacervates, protobionts would be able to arise. Protobionts are simply coacervates containing a maintained homeostatic chemical environment with the presence of some sort of cytosol. Cytosol is simply the fluid which makes up the cytoplasm, it's mostly water with some potassium, calcium, sodium, and chloride ions dissolved. This may include or exclude biological molecules, either simple or complex. Naturally to maintain a homeostatic environment, something must be present, but protobionts are unique in that they do not contain any nucleic acids.
Chemical evolution, which you should all be familiar with is simply the forces of natural selection acting against randomly developing biological molecules. Naturally some would be weeded out, but this is basically a clear cut explanation for the unity we see in biological molecules, such as the structure of proteinaceous particles, nucleic acids, saccharides, and lipids. Protobionts, being essentially living organisms, would certainly be selected against by environmental pressures, with the more fit organisms passing on to the next generation and propagating their characteristics. At some point in the mix, we had basic rudimentary nucleic acids forming. There's no telling what the original batch looked like, but you could have extra nitrogens hanging off of adenosine making some sort of pseudo-adenosine molecule, or maybe sulfates instead of phosphates in the phosphate-5 carbon sugar backbone, but one way or another, today we obviously know there are two major kinds of nucleic acid, and that sulfur is not a part of it. The development of nucleic acids would be rather like running water for protobionts, this was a significantly more advantageous way to pass on information to the next generation, and by the naturally accepted definition of life, this would officially make them living prokaryotes.
This is nothing I'm making up, it is the culmination of the work of hundreds of scientists over about one hundred fifty years of research, and it is a principle which is essentially proven by the classic Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s.
Unfortunately, this is where we get to the Last Universal Ancestor. The idea of the LUA is that it is the final common ancestor for all life on the planet Earth. Obviously, we haven't the slightest clue of what it was or what it looked like, but it certainly was a little clear blob probably with single strand RNA, a lipid, not phospholipid, bilayer, some proteins and twenty amino acids, and saccharides. It's been estimated that it was alive about 3.5 billion years ago. Of course this comes with a boatload of misconceptions, people often think that it was the most simple and primitive organism, the only organism alive at the time, or that it was the first living organism, all common fallacies which must be confronted at some point.

How does this all relate to biogenesis? Why, simply the Miller-Urey experiments prove that urea, an organic molecule, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds. Biogenesis, much like the first law of thermodynamics, is widely misunderstood and that's why the term has slipped into disuse. Creationists have used this as some sort of "proof" for their half-cocked ideas, trying to say that at some point some creating influence must have just "made" life. Well, there is experimental proof and theoretical proof which directly refutes this statement, I have presented at least the theoretical side. For experimental proof, I recommend you consult Wikipedia articles on the following:
Protobiont
Last Universal Ancestor
Origin of Life
Miller-Urey Experiment

Here's an evolutionary flaw I don't need sources for, because everyone who knows anything about science knows the laws of thermodynamics (the most established laws in science). No, this one was not copied from somewhere. The second law of thermodynamics says that the universe is running out of energy, or winding down;

You, sir, are fucking insane.
http://en.wikipedia...._Thermodynamics
Furthermore, physics has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution!

it is seen that all energy was at one time usable, or wound up.

The energy of the universe is constant.

The first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed by any means, but can be switched from one form to the other

Actually.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as the following:

The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

Expressed as: ∆E = k - w
Sure, this does mean that everything is accounted for at some point, but this is fairly misleading. All that the First Law states is that energy is accounted for at some point, either in bonds or the overall entropy of a system, or in the form of heat energy. It is not some be-all-end-all for the universe which proves some divine force. Also, if anything, it DISPROVES a divine force. Nothing can break the laws of nature, they are unbreakable by their very definition. Just the concept that they can be willfully disobeyed is preposterous science fiction.

the big bang couldn't have just happened, because that would mean that the energy and matter came from nowhere, which is shown to be impossible by the laws of thermodynamics.

Maybe your laws...
The Big Bang is simply the theory that all the matter in the universe was condensed at one point and reached a sort of critical mass, expanding outwards. Believe it or not, it was originally devised by a theologian, not a radical atheist who hated religion. Considering we've seen basically to the point of where it's expanding with the Hubble Space Telescope, I think we can say it's kind of beyond the theory part.

Where did it come from? The only option is God, because a God would e the only immaterial (non-matter, non-energy) Thing that could have made the matter and energy.

e = mc^2 is not just a cool bumper sticker.
Mass is energy. Matter is energy.
You can't just say "Oh well! No answer here! God did it!" That is wholly unscientific and preposterous. To simply believe that something could break the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS which you seem to hold in such high regards enough to make up new definitions for them is ABSOLUTELY PREPOSTEROUS!!!

The death of evolutionary theory comes from the fact that it needs a beggining, and that can only be provided by God. so evolution needs God, while God doesn't need evolution.

Funny, we pretty much have the beginning figured out, Dr. Omniscient Scientific Theological Child Genius from On High. Evolution doesn't require anything, it simply requires organisms and an environment where they're alive (E.G., not space) and interacting. The Big Bang simply needs matter, and actually not even matter, just energy, since energy is directly proportional to mass multiplied by the speed of light as a constant squared. I find it rather odd that you can construct such whopping posts, so intimidating in length, but so clumsily constructed that they dissolve under the slightest of pressure. Oh yes, continuing with thermodynamics, P = F/A, see if you can get that one.

I actually did copy a good much of that post from books (which is more than any of you can say),

Posted 30 October, Year of our Spencer 2006

First of all, most of your experts are people who have never seen anything other than the inside of a school textbook

Posted 30 October, Year of our Spencer 2006

Um... I would like to say in my defense that every scientific fact/unfact came directly from my science textbooks.

Posted 30 June, Year of our Spencer 2006
It's like listening to a Hitler speech.

So being the careful, conscientious person I am, I decided to go off and check these sources. I think I'll make a lovely teacher some day.

The God who sits Enthroned, by Dr. Phil Fernandes.

Dr. Fernandes holds the following degrees:
● Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion degree from Greenwich University
● Master of Arts in Religion degree from Liberty University
● Bachelor of Theology Degree from Columbia Evangelical Seminary.
Taken directly from his own website: http://www.biblicald...rnandes_Bio.htm
What an excellent source of commentary on evolution and science in general. I could even cope with a Ph.D. in Physics, but nope, not even that. Amazing (Not really).

Under the Sea and in the Air, a lecture by Dr. Tom Hoyle.

Tommy's back, eh? Not really a doctor, he has a quack degree in quackiness, where he goes around literally as a job defending Christianity from the overwhelming evidence which science produces every day against interpreting the Bible literally, and that's ignoring the evidence against theism in general.

Exploring creation with biology

Considering the company which markets this preposterous book is running off of a website which might have been made by a twelve year old and has an icon of Sponge Bob Squarepants, I think we can safely skip the professionalism category and give Dr. Wile, the writer of the book, a zero.
So being nice and anal, I decided to Google the bastard! Since his website only lists him as a "Former University Professor", and not his discipline, and every website he shows up on is "Homeschoolchristian.com" or "gobible.org", I checked the Wiki to find nothing. It's worth nothing at this time that it's marketed under the title "Apologia", familiar, eh?
So anyways, after ten minutes of NOT finding any information on his credentials, I finally found the information I was looking for.

Look at the creepiness!!!

Dr. Jay L. Wile, author of the Apologia curriculum, holds an earned Ph.D. from the University of Rochester in nuclear chemistry and a B.S. in chemistry from the same institution.

That's rather interesting. He went to school in the same place that I was going to apply to... well, not anymore. Very interesting thing, he has a degree in nuclear chemistry, and a bachelor's in chemistry! Well that's interesting, in a cursory glance at my old Campbell and Reece text, I picked out a few names here and there:
Dr. Neil Campbell, degrees in Zoology and Plant Biology
Dr. Jane B. Reece, degrees in Biology, Microbiology, and Bacteriology
Dr. Lydia Makhubu, interviewed for biochemistry, PhD in medicinal chemistry
Dr. Peter Agre, cellular biology, MD, and recipient of a Nobel Prize for his work on aquaporins.
Dr. Eric Lander, genetics, PhD Mathematics, went back to study genetics at Harvard and basically ran the HGP.
I was taught introductory biology by a veteran teacher with a PhD in genetics. Every biology teacher at my school has a degree in biology or a closely related field.
So what gives this guy the credentials, being a chemist, to even teach biology, let alone write a textbook about it? Pretty baffling, eh?

The first problem is geography; they aren't all found in the same place anywhere on earth.

Ten minutes ago, weren't you a geologist? Have you heard of continental drift, or have you never heard of an earthquake. Maybe continental drift doesn't work out in your definition of the world.

The second problem in the lumbar vertebrae on them varies from 6-8 in no pattern; the ribs vary from 15-19, again, with no pattern. They also don't apper in the strata layers in the right order; eohippus has been found just as near to the surface as equus. Once the evidence is presented, this is just another one of many false proofs of evolution that has been disproved. In the end, one of the most famous of the macroevolutionary 'proofs' is admitted to be false, even by evolutionists; note that it is still presented as fact, even though most evolutionists say that it is false. So far have we fallen.

Rather sketchy. The entire thing about bone structure doesn't make any sense, not that it's a bad piece of evidence, just that it literally does not make any sense. 15 what? 19 what? Have you ever considered separate clades?
Interesting though, considering the person who wrote this was a nuclear chemist. I wouldn't exactly call him an expert who can refute possibly thousands of evolutionary biologists, or people who have studied comparative anatomy their entire lives. With no pictures and no firsthand evidence, and with some clear modification of the quote by the child scientific genius, I think that can be declared quite null and void.

And I'm done.

And actually, even if I had been as stupid as you suggest, with my good memory I could easily improve my scientific knowledge by 100x in a matter of months, as could most people if they tried.

Let that sink in again. Take it in for a bit, and come up with an analysis of it on your own.

[Calamity_Jones]

If Richard Dawkins is said to be Darwins Bulldog, then Spencer must be Darwins 15 000 man strong private army

There's no point adding anything else here. Spencer has said it all. It'll be interesting to see what lies AOWR will fabricate now.

One thing that came to mind as I was reading parts of Spencers post was that people vested in science do not and are not expected to know everything in every field. I am not a biologist, I do not know everything about Biology and I would certainly not claim otherwise. Spencer obviously knows an awful lot about Biology, it's what he's interested in. I do not understand some of the things Spencer referenced, so I'll look them up so that I do. Biology isn't my field.

You however AOWR"the thirteen year old child prodigy, certified genius and second coming of christ"-Theoo Stratiotes are quite willing to claim falsely that you are a master of all disciplines. You seem to think that you know everything in every field of science, despite that Spencer has torn you to pieces time and time again.
Worse still, you claim that you are indisputable and that we know nothing of the fields that we are interested in.

I think that you should go away and engage in some actual education before you come swooning in here, high and mighty, on your pedestal, raining down 'irrefutable truths' on us all. We have moved on in the world, this is not the 13th century. The Bible is not the law, the Church is wrong, and we can say that without fear of execution. People like you would prefer things to be otherwise.

Edited by Calamity_Jones, 31 October 2006 - 06:16 AM.

[Ash]

Now that, good sirs, was fucking funny.


I suppose he's now going to rewrite the law of gravity to back up his argument as to why we've evolved being able to lift our feet off the ground or something equally dumb.

Or, maybe he could just rewrite the periodic table and tell us we respire glucose and argon or something. That'd be worth a read. It's surely more believable than his quack sources. I rather wonder if he's ever read a proper scientific journal...
I might get around to writing an essay on evolutionary theory, citing PROPER sources (not the Bible or someone whose opinion is as biased as Dr Duckman Drake, Professor of Quack...as per my university dictation. However, at present I HAVE two essays to be doing. However, to expand upon Spencer's argument would be fruitless at this time. I eagerly await the continuation of this foolish debate...


Spence, perhaps we should go easy on the kid and not mention the word "Pangaea". We'd really fuck with his head if we did. Oops.

[Blodo]

Spence just scared the peepsqueak off of these forums for another 3+ months. Good job.

[Hostile]

AWOR right message, wrong messenager. While there is a place for serious discussion to further understand the holes on evolution, this candidate was not the man to do it.

[MSpencer]

Unfortunately, to a well educated person in the topic, the holes don't exist.

[Hostile]

Unfortunately, to a well educated person in the topic, the holes don't exist.

So you're saying anyone who isn't firmly and unquestionably subserviant to evolution is uneducated? I beg to differ. And I know we don't want to start this convo all over again do we?

[MSpencer]

I never said anything of the sort! Do you know English?

Anyone who has had any sort of higher education in evolution can realize that the "holes" trumpeted about by six-day toting religious psychos are absolutely preposterously small speedbumps brought on by simply the way fossilization works. It's especially preposterous when they try and disqualify the entire model based on one bone which doesn't seem to fit, instead advocating an incredibly preposterous idea that because we haven't found every species that ever existed, we can't ever know how life evolved over time.
Preposterous!

[Calamity_Jones]

A lot of those "educated" religious folk are educated in very dubious fields. Anyone with an analytical mind and thorough education in science that is not tainted by the church should be able to see through religions veil of faith.

The problem lies in people being in authority positions with a religiously biased education (no education). People will believe them, and they can even get away with blatant lies thanks to the lovely system of complete ignorance and intolerance that religion promotes.

Anyone who believes in god literally, in this day and age, certainly has a biased education (or rather... indoctrination) and a rotten mind.