• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

ecco

Veteran Member
If so...
God did nothing for (almost) all of eternity.
God created everything.

?? The universe was 6 days work. You kidding???​
original-2399417-1.jpg

also from...
Genesis 1 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

If you want to make the argument that the six days are representative of all of eternity, go ahead.
If not, he sat on his duff doing nothing for most of his existence.



2000 years later God killed (almost) all of everything


You learned what from that?
Again, It's either a case of PPP or a sign of a very childish, petulant god. Neither is good.


4000 years later God destroys everything.

No. He will take over the world and destroy the enemies who fight against Him. He rules right here for 1000 years. Still nations. You just conflate time periods/meanings/context etc.
It's pretty easy to conflate time periods/meanings/context etc. when trying to comprehend such a vast jumble of nonsense. If the message of the Bible were straight forward there wouldn't be tens of thousands of Christian sects each with there own understanding of what is going to happen when.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
The statements re the textbooks stands. Abiogenesis is stated as the logical and most likely process from which life emerged. It was taught as such when I was in high school and college, a long time ago, nothing has changed, except abiogenesis has by necessity become more difficult than it was then, e.g. DNA information. It hasn´t dampened the enthusiasm for it in the textbooks however.
That claim has been debunked. I found the first textbook you cited and it doesn't cover the subject like you claimed at all.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Oh, the antics of the creationist!
Just like I 'caught' Dr."Eve gene" making the same erroneous claims he did here on another forum 3 months ago - and having them demolished there, too, I see no reason to expect this one to be any 'better' of a person.
Demolished ? Lets see. The quotation from the teacher publication was accurate. If the date was wrong, it was my error. I checked the authors as NE creationists, and missed one as an OE creationist, my error.

Yes - you declared very confidently that NONE were creationists.

Cute that you left that part off.
Your harping about the zone is bizarre, I never mentioned him, nor was I referring to him.You assumed, took the hook in your mouth, and ran with it. You then manufactured a set of accusations from your assumption and proudly pimped them. Poor form ´ol boy. I was speaking of the fellow who has a happy little bear as his avatar, and I believe he is an American living in Mexico. You ought to be able to find him without using your imagination, if you choose.
No idea what this stream-of-consciousness dribble is supposed to mean. A dodge, I suppose.
The statements re the textbooks stands. Abiogenesis is stated as the logical and most likely process from which life emerged. It was taught as such when I was in high school and college, a long time ago, nothing has changed, except abiogenesis has by necessity become more difficult than it was then, e.g. DNA information.

Your mere layman assertions are lame.

So, keep patting yourselves on the back, mutual admiration in a tribe is expected.

Ah, so a creationist is not a good person, i.e. "any better of a person." Wow ! Atheist morality in action, I am truly impressed ! I am not so arrogant as to look at your manufactured case of deception and decide what kind of person you are based upon this bit of attempted character assassination.

Lots of obfuscation and a lame claim of vindication, but I expect no less from desperate and under-informed creationists.

In creationland, it seems, declaring that NOBODY associated with something were creationists when they were, in fact, creationists is no big deal. Sure, it totally overturns the impetus for declaring them non-creationists in the first place, but hey - what is a little weaseling among bible lovers?

Things that Johnny Browbeater ignored:


"I find it very meaningful that Miller was able to produce bio-organic compounds from multiple versions of what the early atmosphere was thought to be like, and even to do so in water.

I find it very meaningful that Hazen's group has shown that the abiotic generation of bio-organic molecules under any number of conditions is possible, to include demonstrating that molecules of specific chiralities will adhere preferentially to certain minerals.

All of these things were denied in toto by creationists (and many rational chemists and biologists) until they were shown to be possible. Many creationists still deny even these - but most just retreat to the next level of goal-post-shifting."

"
I just google 'Koonins threshold' and the first meaningful return was to Dutch biologist Gert Korthof's site, where he reviewed Koonin's book in 2013. Actually he only reviewed chapter 12, because:

"In this review I focus on a spectacular claim in chapter 12 and Appendix B that sets it apart from the rest of the book and from the opinion of almost every evolutionary biologist. For this review I ignore the rest of the book. So this is not a review of the book (impossible anyway)."

Claims you find compelling for reasons that I can guess at, of course. I won't refer to much of Korthof's review, but for his closing statement:

"For, extraordinary claims should be build on very well researched evidence.
Finally, why not do an experiment? If only 13 RNA molecules with a total length of 1,800 nucleotides are necessary, it should not be that difficult to synthesize them and bring in the right chemical environment and observe the origin of life. If sequences are not (precisely) known, why not start with random sequences? That could verify or falsify Koonin's theory."

You like Koonin's speculation because it fits your worldview (I guess, not sure how).

Looking forward to that interview with Miller in which he does a 180 on his experiments."

"In an interview in 1996, Miller states:

"In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions...The experiments were done in Urey's lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, "I'd like to do those experiments". The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn't work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks."

Weird - I have a hard time believing that this fellow would, within a few years (before dying 9 years later), have an about-face and claim his experiments failed.
Also note that it is clear that the goal was not to create life. I suspect your YEC sources are just the usual charlatans and propagandists I have concluded nearly all of them are. But I am sure you will be able to produce this interview and will be from a legitimate source."

"And then there is this:

Stanley Miller, the chemist whose landmark experiment published in 1953 showed how some of the molecules of life could have formed on a young Earth, left behind boxes of experimental samples that he never analyzed. The first-ever analysis of some of Miller's old samples has revealed another way that important molecules could have formed on early Earth....

In the new study, scientists analyzed samples from an experiment Miller performed in 1958. To the reaction flask, Miller added a chemical that at the time wasn't widely thought to have been available on early Earth. The reaction had successfully formed peptides, the new study found. The new study also successfully replicated the experiment and explained why the reaction works.

"It was clear that the results from this old experiment weren't some sort of artifact. They were real," said Jeffrey Bada, distinguished professor of marine chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the UC San Diego. Bada was a former student and colleague of Miller's."

"Define "information" in a biologically relevant way."



Let the weaseling begin!
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I wonder who you are talking about.

Not once in my entire life have I seen anyone claim that miller urey provided proof of abiogenesis
So... is EVERYTHING that guy writes an absurd embellishment?

Still waiting for that "recent interview" with a guy that died 12 years ago...
 

dad

Undefeated
Congratulations. You easily made up and wrote a bunch of words that Ducked and Dodged. You have a lot of practice with that.

Let's recap a little.
I asked: "How far was Australia from Mt Ararat?"
You responded: "Not that far on what they call Pangaea!"

"Not that far"? OK. Then the good folks who had gotten off the arc would have seen Kangaroos and Koalas heading toward that portion of Pangaea and then they should have seen Australia moving away at (at least) 30 miles per hour.

Or they would have seen the kinds that evolved into those marsupials and did so rapidly in that former nature. As for how far the animals (whatever kinds they were from the ark) had to travel, well, let's say maybe thousands of miles. Australia was part of the big land mass of course. Now if we traveled say, for example, 30 miles a day, then in a year they would have gotten something like over 10,000 miles! Being conservative they could have made the trip in several years. No problem at all. The nature change was over a century after this!

If it happened right after the Flood or after Bable you still need to address:
Why did Australia wait for Koalas and Kangaroos to get there before it started moving?​
It just sat there as land masses tend to do until something affected it. This happened probably long after the animals got to the Australia area of 'Pangaea' and adapted into marsupials presumably.

Why did no one see it moving away?​
They did.


Why did no one write about the most impressive movement of the earth to ever occur.​
People maybe had no written language before Babel as all men spoke the same tongue! The first writings were communications via pictures basically. Since Babel was right at the time of or just before this continental movement, people had trouble communicating with other people (and as mentioned may not even have had any need for a written language)

Why didn't anyone start a new religion worshipping the great god who could make the continents separate? Heck, all Thor ever did was throw a couple of lightning bolts.
Babel happened to be the start of this world's religions. All the major ones can trace their roots back to this event and time and place. They specialized in avoiding/rejecting the creator!

What caused it to move?​
What causes electrons to move? What causes the strong nuclear force to work? Who really knows? But something in the changeover seems to have triggered it. Conversely, in the future, we are told the mountains and islands and earth will be again greatly affected!
What caused it to stop moving?​
Science doesn't know. How would you expect anyone else to know?! I suspect that the move started in the former nature and ended in this one! That would explain the hot pockets, volcanoes, and etc. (it should lead us to question the plate tectonic theory and claims of a hot interior of the earth also!)
 

dad

Undefeated
Once again, you Duck and Dodge. Why did you ignore the time frame of the prophecy?
Twenty-seven hundred years ago Isaiah wrote "Her time is near to come". 2700 years ago Isaiah prophecized the end of times is near.

2700 years later and nothing has happened.​
Chapter and verse?​
 

dad

Undefeated
also from...
Genesis 1 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Sorry about your comprehension deficit. Anyhow, no, the six days was not eternity, it was...well...6 days. This universe was made in 6 days. What else He did in other months and weeks and years we don't know! Too big to think about!

It's pretty easy to conflate time periods/meanings/context etc. when trying to comprehend such a vast jumble of nonsense. If the message of the Bible were straight forward there wouldn't be tens of thousands of Christian sects each with there own understanding of what is going to happen when.

Yes there would.

You think the people after the flood all learned and were great folks and believers afterwards? No. They cooked up many religions, all of them were basically avoiding the truth. The religious folks in Jesus' day all claimed to know the bible and God. They could not even understand the simple stories Jesus told!
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
So much hatred, anger, condescension, and especially PROJECTION.

'These authors were not creationists' he said...
Yep, I was in error.
Anger, LOL !! at you guyś ? At words on a monitor ? Not worth the emotional investment.

Here is the deal in the starkest terms, and we all know this.

Your narrative is creationism is insane, and those who believe it are ignorant. Therefore, since abiogenesis, and thus evolution on the macro scale occurred, creationism and those who might support it must be discredited. All are to be judged by those previously discredited.

Typo´s, minor errors are to be portrayed as major efforts to deceive, and since the creationist position on abiogenesis is unassailable, everything possible to discredit the creationist that is observed, or if you can get away with it, imagined.

I on the other hand have the fun objective of stating, whenever it comes up, that abiogenesis is an imagined process, with no evidence that comes within a million miles of documenting it.

Of course, I must always play defense. Since my position is based in fact, something else must be used too A) discredit Creationism, and B) stir the mud so abogenesis is not the issue, my alleged dishonesty is, and that quickly is applied to many millions of creationists ( you want the exact number ? I don´t have it. another unsubstantiated assertion, ya got me again, there may be only 137 creationists)

I must further play defense, because I personally loathe (or is it I am loath ? look it up, I might be trying to deceive you) to attack people as people. It does happen, but I regret it. I try to stay with the issue and discuss the ideas. Others don´t have those kinds of scruples, so sooner or later these discussions become knife fights, fine with me.

So, few creationists are willing to put up with the abiogenesis/evolutionist tactics, crap.

I on the other hand don´t mind at all. In my entire working life I dealt with arrogant people, from lying newspaper reporters, to those who, because of their social status, believed they should be treated differently. The whole gamut.

You guys are pipsqueaks in comparison.

So, accuse away and take your unearned victory laps.

Your alleged motive for the very minor errors I made is bogus, your allegations that I failed to supply supporting evidence is bogus, and I am pretty sure your analysis of my character is bogus.

To be clear, your belief in abiogenesis is unsupported, yet I know in your mind you believe it occurred, no matter your posted denials. You have the faith.

Bring it.

There are no ground rules,
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Miller Urey did not show how 9 amino acids, out of 200 required for life, formed naturally. The total experiment was un natural.

:rolleyes:

Did you forget again what "controlled conditions" mean?
The formation of the molecules in the environment set up for the experiment, is "natural process"-wise, the equivalent of water turning into ice inside a freezer.

The fact is that they demonstrated that amino acids can form through natural chemistry.
You can deny it till you are blue in the face, it won't change the facts.

The fact is also that amino acids are building blocks of life. If you are going to unravel how life can naturally form, then learning how some of the building blocks can form, is surely a nice first step which makes the model a bit more plausible.

It is that simple.

According to current understanding, the environment created in the experiment was never an environment on earth.

Which is irrelevant.

Miller Urey showed that humans can create amino acids, nothing more.

Just like a freezer shows how humans "create" ice.

Amino acids are as far from being life as a bolt is from being a Lamborghini.

Irrelevant. They are building blocks. Discovering that there is a pathway of natural chemistry towards these building blocks, makes natural origins of life a bit more plausible.

Knowing for a fact that building blocks CAN form through natural chemistry, surely makes natural origins of life more plausible as opposed to NOT knowing how such building blocks can form. Or that they can even naturally form at all, for that matter.


You're just being incredibly stubborn.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Oh, the antics of the creationist!

Yes - you declared very confidently that NONE were creationists.

Cute that you left that part off.
No idea what this stream-of-consciousness dribble is supposed to mean. A dodge, I suppose.


Your mere layman assertions are lame.



Lots of obfuscation and a lame claim of vindication, but I expect no less from desperate and under-informed creationists.

In creationland, it seems, declaring that NOBODY associated with something were creationists when they were, in fact, creationists is no big deal. Sure, it totally overturns the impetus for declaring them non-creationists in the first place, but hey - what is a little weaseling among bible lovers?

Things that Johnny Browbeater ignored:












"I find it very meaningful that Miller was able to produce bio-organic compounds from multiple versions of what the early atmosphere was thought to be like, and even to do so in water.

I find it very meaningful that Hazen's group has shown that the abiotic generation of bio-organic molecules under any number of conditions is possible, to include demonstrating that molecules of specific chiralities will adhere preferentially to certain minerals.

All of these things were denied in toto by creationists (and many rational chemists and biologists) until they were shown to be possible. Many creationists still deny even these - but most just retreat to the next level of goal-post-shifting."

"
I just google 'Koonins threshold' and the first meaningful return was to Dutch biologist Gert Korthof's site, where he reviewed Koonin's book in 2013. Actually he only reviewed chapter 12, because:

"In this review I focus on a spectacular claim in chapter 12 and Appendix B that sets it apart from the rest of the book and from the opinion of almost every evolutionary biologist. For this review I ignore the rest of the book. So this is not a review of the book (impossible anyway)."

Claims you find compelling for reasons that I can guess at, of course. I won't refer to much of Korthof's review, but for his closing statement:

"For, extraordinary claims should be build on very well researched evidence.
Finally, why not do an experiment? If only 13 RNA molecules with a total length of 1,800 nucleotides are necessary, it should not be that difficult to synthesize them and bring in the right chemical environment and observe the origin of life. If sequences are not (precisely) known, why not start with random sequences? That could verify or falsify Koonin's theory."

You like Koonin's speculation because it fits your worldview (I guess, not sure how).

Looking forward to that interview with Miller in which he does a 180 on his experiments."

"In an interview in 1996, Miller states:

"In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions...The experiments were done in Urey's lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, "I'd like to do those experiments". The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn't work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks."

Weird - I have a hard time believing that this fellow would, within a few years (before dying 9 years later), have an about-face and claim his experiments failed.
Also note that it is clear that the goal was not to create life. I suspect your YEC sources are just the usual charlatans and propagandists I have concluded nearly all of them are. But I am sure you will be able to produce this interview and will be from a legitimate source."

"And then there is this:

Stanley Miller, the chemist whose landmark experiment published in 1953 showed how some of the molecules of life could have formed on a young Earth, left behind boxes of experimental samples that he never analyzed. The first-ever analysis of some of Miller's old samples has revealed another way that important molecules could have formed on early Earth....

In the new study, scientists analyzed samples from an experiment Miller performed in 1958. To the reaction flask, Miller added a chemical that at the time wasn't widely thought to have been available on early Earth. The reaction had successfully formed peptides, the new study found. The new study also successfully replicated the experiment and explained why the reaction works.

"It was clear that the results from this old experiment weren't some sort of artifact. They were real," said Jeffrey Bada, distinguished professor of marine chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the UC San Diego. Bada was a former student and colleague of Miller's."

"Define "information" in a biologically relevant way."

NIce to post this, but I have read it . I have posted elsewhere about the retro look at Millers samples, and the new discovery from them.

"Wasn´t thought to be available on early earth¨, ergo, you are to believe that it is thought to be so now .

Is it ? what was the chemical ? I have read several reports on Miller Urey, none name this chemical.

How could these molecules have formed on earth, if the atmosphere for the experiment wasn´t the atmosphere of early earth ? Miller himself said his mix of gasses was incorrect.

So, what is the correlation to abiogenesis in nature ? Certainly chemical reactions are natural, yet these in this experiment had to have a very specific atmosphere, controlled and maintained, specially purified material, in an overall setting that is now considered wrong. Did the experiment use the UV light that would have been present on the early earth ? Since purified water was used, what would have been present in the water on early earth ? How could those potential and likely materials effect the process ? Miller Urey used some oxygen. Apparently an amount considered today to be too low for the early earth. Oxygen is the master oxidizer, how would more of it effect the documented process ?

Miller Urey was an interesting experiment, apparently meeting the goals of its designers.

However, it is long outdated as representing the atmosphere of early earth, unless that has changed, again.

It represents exactly what it is, nothing more. It doesn´t represent, apparently, what would have been the atmosphere and conditions on early earth accurately.

What it created is interesting, yet even if there was perfect consensus on the experiments environment being correct, exactly how does what was produced fit into abiogenisis ? They are non living materials required for life. They exist in nature, like in meteorites.

I see little correlation to abiogenesis, which is a process, not a thing, like an amino acid.

If I put a pile of 15,000 bricks on a lot, could I call it the creation of a house ? Could I say the brick is representative of the house building process ?

There are various definitions of information for life, all are good. I like ¨ that which gives a living organism the ability to select the correct option when two or more selections can be made ¨. This refers to DNA, through RNA, to the correct protein required by some function or part of a cell.

Knock off the name calling, now. Next time your butt gets reported.

If you don´t have the class to avoid this childish stuff, get it.





Let the weaseling begin!
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes:

Did you forget again what "controlled conditions" mean?
The formation of the molecules in the environment set up for the experiment, is "natural process"-wise, the equivalent of water turning into ice inside a freezer.

The fact is that they demonstrated that amino acids can form through natural chemistry.
You can deny it till you are blue in the face, it won't change the facts.

The fact is also that amino acids are building blocks of life. If you are going to unravel how life can naturally form, then learning how some of the building blocks can form, is surely a nice first step which makes the model a bit more plausible.

It is that simple.



Which is irrelevant.



Just like a freezer shows how humans "create" ice.



Irrelevant. They are building blocks. Discovering that there is a pathway of natural chemistry towards these building blocks, makes natural origins of life a bit more plausible.

Knowing for a fact that building blocks CAN form through natural chemistry, surely makes natural origins of life more plausible as opposed to NOT knowing how such building blocks can form. Or that they can even naturally form at all, for that matter.


You're just being incredibly stubborn.
Totally irrelevant, all of your comments. If amino acids are found in meteors, I would say they exist in nature.

So now comes the ice illustration. If you lived in the Arizona desert where I live, in the summer, you could go out and sit under a nice shady mesquite tree every day, and watch for the natural process of ice formation to occur. every day in March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November. You would Never see it. The process COULD occur, but it never does, THE CONDITIONS ARE INCORRECT FOR IT TO HAPPEN.

Miller Urey created a process by which these things were created. The process is the natural reaction of chemicals, in a certain ratio, with gasses in a certain ratio, with the temperature at an optimum level, in equipment specially designed to get a specific result, in an atmosphere now considered non representative of the early earth.

Under these conditions chemical reactions occur. I have no problem with this.

I do have a problem with a designed and very specific mixture of chemicals and gasses, apparently non representative of the early earth, very carefully controlled and adjusted, creating matter that is an ingredient in an extremely complex thing called life being called evidence of abiogenesis.

The experiment is illustrative of mans ingenuity in creating these "building blocks of life ΅.

It is not illustrative of abiogenesis, or the natural creation of these blocks. It cannot be, the conditions are wrong.

Yes, chemicals under certain conditions create amino acids. Those conditions did not exist on early earth.

I am not stubborn, just logical. Miller Urey created amino acids, using conditions not found on early earth, therefore the result does not represent what occurred in nature.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
What started it moving?
It just sat there as land masses tend to do until something affected it.

"Something"? This is your (and Walt's) theory. What "affected" it? Something got it moving to at least 30 miles per hour. Do you have any concept of the amount of energy that would have been required to get something with the mass of Australia moving 30 MPH. But you don't have a clue. Also, I guess you don't know, but Australia is not a floating island.


Why did no one write about it?
People maybe had no written language before Babel as all men spoke the same tongue! The first writings were communications via pictures basically. Since Babel was right at the time of or just before this continental movement, people had trouble communicating with other people (and as mentioned may not even have had any need for a written language)

What nonsense. This happened after The Flood. People wrote about Adam & Eve 2000 years before the Flood. People wrote about the Flood. You can't even come up with any kind of reason that people wouldn't have written about Australia "leaving".


What caused it to move?
What causes electrons to move? What causes the strong nuclear force to work? Who really knows? But something in the changeover seems to have triggered it. Conversely, in the future, we are told the mountains and islands and earth will be again greatly affected!

Science knows that Australia is moving 7 centimeters per year in a northerly direction. Science knows why Australia is moving 7 centimeters per year in a northerly direction. You and Walt don't have a clue to support your silly beliefs.
What caused it to stop?
Science doesn't know. How would you expect anyone else to know?! I suspect that the move started in the former nature and ended in this one! That would explain the hot pockets, volcanoes, and etc. (it should lead us to question the plate tectonic theory and claims of a hot interior of the earth also!)

Duh. As I wrote above, it hasn't stopped moving.


What is a "former nature"? Is that something you made up because you are clueless as to your own theories? And no, it doesn't explain "hot pockets, volcanoes, and etc".

If you and the other Creos cannot explain basic stuff like this, it's because your concepts are so wrong as to be impossible and laughable. If you don't see how impossible your scenario is, well, that's laughable really sad.
 
Top