Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[gnostic]

@Justatruthseeker

I don’t think you understand that specific genes of domestic dogs, including this poodle, are not found in the gene of the original species, the Canis lupus or wolf.

Can wolves breed offspring of poodle, bulldog, spaniel? No.

It took generations to breed specific genes in and out of dogs to get to the stage of poodle.

A wolf can no more give birth poodle than a lion can give birth to some domestic cats, because the wolves and lions don’t have the traits within them. Lot of the traits in the wolves got lost with breeding program of domestic dogs.

 

[KelseyR]

I'm sold. Carving a cross into my forehead as we speak.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

I think people often waste their time discussing evolution versus creation when the more important and interesting question is how did any life begin 'abiogenesis'. Here the scientists have no answers just 'fanciful' maybe's.

 

[ChristineM]

I think people often waste their time discussing evolution versus creation when the more important and interesting question is how did any life begin 'abiogenesis'. Here the scientists have no answers just 'fanciful' maybe's.

And creationists have a guess based on bronze age mythology. A

At least science is looking and to my knowledge succeeded in creating life in the laboratory. So fanciful? Physician heal thyself

 

[Watchmen]

Is this thread still around? Ugh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think people often waste their time discussing evolution versus creation when the more important and interesting question is how did any life begin 'abiogenesis'. Here the scientists have no answers just 'fanciful' maybe's.

Your knowledge of what has been accomplished appears to be quite a few years out of date. Can you tell me how far scientists have advanced in this study?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this thread still around? Ugh.

It is a zombie thread, back from the dead. And why not? Most creationists believe in zombies!

 

[ChristineM]

Is this thread still around? Ugh.

Its only been dead a month and a bit before resurrection. It is after all, not a precedent.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Your knowledge of what has been accomplished appears to be quite a few years out of date. Can you tell me how far scientists have advanced in this study?

There is a current theory called the RNA world hypothesis which claim that maybe self-replicating RNA molecules reproduced rapidly before the evolution of DNA and proteins. However, there is no consensus amongst the scientific community as to the validity of this hypothesis according to molecular biologist Professor G. F. Joyce (2018) who states many scientists have come to the conclusion life couldn’t have started with RNA.

I know scientists are trying 'all ways' to try and solve the problem of chirality,theories seem to change every year, I am not a scientist but I do try to visit the NASA website every so often, as I said lots of maybe's, lots of disagreements.

 

[sooda]

@Justatruthseeker

I don’t think you understand that specific genes of domestic dogs, including this poodle, are not found in the gene of the original species, the Canis lupus or wolf.

Can wolves breed offspring of poodle, bulldog, spaniel? No.

It took generations to breed specific genes in and out of dogs to get to the stage of poodle.

A wolf can no more give birth poodle than a lion can give birth to some domestic cats, because the wolves and lions don’t have the traits within them. Lot of the traits in the wolves got lost with breeding program of domestic dogs.

We are still having this conversation.. You'd think it was 1930.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

And creationists have a guess based on bronze age mythology.

At least science is looking and to my knowledge succeeded in creating life in the laboratory. So fanciful? Physician heal thyself

[/QUOTE]


What you say is only partly true, life was 'grown' in a lab but only with manipulation by the experimenter. As Professor Gerald Joyce himself says, "You can go to the lab and get the materials you want". The laboratory process cannot be called life because it is not a self sustained chemical system as it requires the active intervention of the experimenter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a current theory called the RNA world hypothesis which claim that maybe self-replicating RNA molecules reproduced rapidly before the evolution of DNA and proteins. However, there is no consensus amongst the scientific community as to the validity of this hypothesis according to molecular biologist Professor G. F. Joyce (2018) who states many scientists have come to the conclusion life couldn’t have started with RNA.

I know scientists are trying 'all ways' to try and solve the problem of chirality,theories seem to change every year, I am not a scientist but I do try to visit the NASA website every so often, as I said lots of maybe's, lots of disagreements.

Correct, there is no consensus yet, but obviously they are far more advanced in their work than your post implied. Part of the problem of abiogenesis is understanding how life "works" in the first place. Scientists have advanced hugely in that area in the last 20 years. As to what Joyce claims you need to substantiate that with a quote and a link to a valid source. You should know that creationists sources quite often quote out of context.

And abiogenesis is not a problem for evolution. Regardless of the source of first life we know that it evolved after that. When one moves the goalposts to abiogenesis one has already acknowledged common descent.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Correct, there is no consensus yet, but obviously they are far more advanced in their work than your post implied. Part of the problem of abiogenesis is understanding how life "works" in the first place. Scientists have advanced hugely in that area in the last 20 years. As to what Joyce claims you need to substantiate that with a quote and a link to a valid source. You should know that creationists sources quite often quote out of context.

And abiogenesis is not a problem for evolution. Regardless of the source of first life we know that it evolved after that. When one moves the goalposts to abiogenesis one has already acknowledged common descent.

I am not denying some evolution has occurred although I am not convinced by everything scientists claim and there are some problems in their theories although they always seem to be 'ignored'.

I find it sad that you claim creationists often quote out of context, as human beings are very similar I am sure that others with other beliefs must do as well.

Here is a link to a paper written by Professor Gerald Joyce.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980211165.pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not denying some evolution has occurred although I am not convinced by everything scientists claim and there are some problems in their theories although they always seem to be 'ignored'.

What are these problems that you are referring to?

I find it sad that you claim creationists often quote out of context, as human beings are very similar I am sure that others with other beliefs must do as well.

It is a problem that many people that support creationism often use tactics like quote mining to support their views. Creationists tend to be the largest and most vocal group that has risen up in opposition to science. That and the fact that they engage in tactics like quote mining accounts for the appellation.

Here is a link to a paper written by Professor Gerald Joyce.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980211165.pdf

Sorry. I have been away from this thread for a bit. What is it that you want to highlight by way of the paper at the link?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We are still having this conversation.. You'd think it was 1930.

It is never to late to ignore the accumulation of knowledge in favor of emotions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think people often waste their time discussing evolution versus creation when the more important and interesting question is how did any life begin 'abiogenesis'. Here the scientists have no answers just 'fanciful' maybe's.

That is the true debate. Abiogenesis v creation. Evolution is the process that created diversity after life had originated and is not an alternative to divine creation, though creationists do not seem to get that distinction.

 

[ChristineM]

What you say is only partly true, life was 'grown' in a lab but only with manipulation by the experimenter. As Professor Gerald Joyce himself says, "You can go to the lab and get the materials you want". The laboratory process cannot be called life because it is not a self sustained chemical system as it requires the active intervention of the experimenter.

Wrong, Dr Craig Venter's artificial life is self sustaining and is observed to evolve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wrong, Dr Craig Venter's artificial life is self sustaining and is observed to evolve.

Interesting. I have not kept pace with Venter's work lately.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not denying some evolution has occurred although I am not convinced by everything scientists claim and there are some problems in their theories although they always seem to be 'ignored'.

What problems? Be specific.

I find it sad that you claim creationists often quote out of context, as human beings are very similar I am sure that others with other beliefs must do as well.

Creationists are infamous for quote mining. So much so that one website has "The quote mine project" where they take case where creationist lied by doing so:

Quote Mine Project: Evolution of the Quote Mine Project

You can click on the various links where it gives examples of quotes given out of context and gives the full context to show how the creationists are being dishonest.

Here is a link to a paper written by Professor Gerald Joyce.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980211165.pdf

And where does he make the statement that life could not have arisen from RNA?

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Wrong, Dr Craig Venter's artificial life is self sustaining and is observed to evolve
Much of this science is 'above' me but it seems he used the building blocks that already existed to 'create' his artificial life, as geneticist Stephen Jones wrote in the Guardian:

Jones is sceptical about the hyperbole of breathless headlines. "The idea that this is 'playing God' is just daft. What he has done in genetic terms would be analogous to taking an Apple Mac programme and making it work on a PC – and then saying you have created a computer. It's not trivial, but it is utterly absurd the claims that are being made about it."

Stephen Jones is an anti-creationist.