• 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

gnostic

The Lost One
Honestly, I don't know off the top of my head, and like I tell my kids....you'll get the same Google results as me! ;)

The problem with google, is that they don’t always give the answers you need. You could click pages of search results of links, before you can find something useful.

I did read it somewhere but cannot remember where.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Honestly, I don't know off the top of my head, and like I tell my kids....you'll get the same Google results as me! ;)

Thank-you for your answer and your suggestion. However, Google gives more information about carbohydrates in our diet than about the concentration of carbohydrates in living things.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Thank-you for your answer and your suggestion. However, Google gives more information about carbohydrates in our diet than about the concentration of carbohydrates in living things.
I am sorry, but I don’t remember where I got the 5% from.

I read a lot of things, and remember some information, but since I don’t write them down, I don’t remember what my sources are and where I got these information from.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
I am sorry, but I don’t remember where I got the 5% from.

I read a lot of things, and remember some information, but since I don’t write them down, I don’t remember what my sources are and where I got these information from.
Thank-you for your reply; at least the 5% estimate gives me some idea of the role of carbohydrates relative to proteins and lipids.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Evolution, in the science sense, is limited to the life. It begins with the first self replicating template molecules. Creation is different in that it begins with cosmology and the Big Bang, it then deals with the formation of the sun and earth, then abiogenesis and then evolution; fruitful and multiply.

For some reason. Creationism is mischaracterized by science as only paralleling the narrower specialty called evolution. A broader discussion is needed became Creationism also discusses cosmology, relativity, astral physics, as well as the physical chemistry of abiogenesis and then evolution.

Science tends to approach reality by means of disjointed parts; specialty areas, where one hand does not always know what the other hands are doing. The biologist may know evolution, but has no need for astral physics. Creationism is different since all the parts need to mesh. God would not created a disjointed set of separate things based on human specialty.

For example, abiogenesis is the study of how simple molecules become the building blocks for life. This occurs at time before the specialty called evolution appears. This interface is important because in my experience things always tend to build upon previous things, and not just ignore the past foundations. Yet this is the approach of evolution. That is a conceptual flaw created by the specialty approach.

For example, when the automobile was first developed it looked similar in many ways to a carriage with the horse replaced by a motor. In terms of an interface between abiogenesis and evolution, since chemistry was already making chemical, even before evolution begins; two specialty sciences meet, it would have made more sense for the replicators, to build on this foundation, than to ignore the past and start from scratch using random arguments that do not have to be proven.

One can even trace this further back in that the chemistry of abiogenesis was based on chemical properties inherent in key atoms that were made billions of years previously. This approach goes beyond the framework of specialty science Their theories have a conceptual problem, due to ignoring other areas of specialty that do not interfere well all the way to t=0.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Whether you like it or not, abiogenesis is part of evolution.

If by "evolution", you mean the scientific theory of biology that addresses the origins species and/ or biological diversity, then no.

Ever heard the term chemical evolution ?

Yes. And it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of biological evolution as an explanatory model to address the origins of species.


The precursor organism had to exist for evolution to occur, therefore abiogenesis and evolution are firmly linked together

No.

Life has to exist before it can evolve, yes.
However, HOW that first life came into being, is pretty much irrelevant to evolution. Doesn't matter if it was your god of choice that created it, some other god, some alien civilisation or if it was a natural process.

Doesn't change one iota to the scientific theory of biological evolution.


You cannot have the latter without the former.

But we have both. Life exists and we can study it. And what we find is that it is subject to the process of biological evolution.

The attempt at separating them is made because since abiogenesis is a mystery

No. It is made because these are different fields of inquiry.
One is biology and the other is chemistry.
And biology (the study of existing life) isn't dependent on finding out how life originally came into existance.

WHATEVER answer they come up with to the mystery of life's origins - it won't change anything we allready know about evolution in the slightest.

, the linkage makes them both questionable.

No.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Did I say evolution is questionable ? No. It is logical to say that abiogenesis is part of the process of evolution in that without it evolution could not occur.

It is not.

Let's take your "logic" and drive it home, shall we?

So, in your opinion, abiogenesis (or "chemical evolution" as you like to refer to it also) has to be part of evolution theory because you need life before it can evolve.

In that case......
The origins of heavy elements are part of abiogenesis AND evolution, because you need elements before chemistry can take place to make them form more complex molecules.
The origins of heavy elements are addressed in astronomy / astro-physics, as they are created inside the core of stars and during super novae.

But since you need stars before you an have these elements, you need basic elements that can even form a star and gravity. So thus the origins of atoms and gravity are again part of the biological theory of evolution, since you need to elements and gravity to form stars and you need the stars to produce the heavy elements and you need the heavy elements to create complex molecules and you need complex molecules to create life and you need life before evolution can take place.


But wait!!!!

Before you have atoms and gravity, you need space-time in which these things can actually exist. This is address in big bang cosmology, so therefor big bang cosmology is part of biological evolution theory because.....



So, in your ridiculously warped "logic"....
Big bang cosmology is "part of" the biology sciences.


:rolleyes:
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So, by using the term evolution, you exclusively mean the evolution of life

When the term refers to the scientific theory of biological evolution, yes.
You do understand that words can be used in multiple contexts and don't necessarily have to refer to the same thing, yes?

For example, when I say that Brad Pitt is a "star", I'm not talking about a giant ball of nuclear infernus somewhere in deep space.

When physicists talk about "The Great Bombardment", they aren't talking about when the allied forces bombed Dresden or when Hitler bombed London during the second world war. Instead, they talk about a period of early earth where the planet was "bombarded" by asteroids / left over debry of the early solar system.

No evolution of the universe, no geological evolution, no chemical evolution, all allegedly part of life.

Yea, yea.... I've already explained in a previous post how your warped "logic" results in big bang cosmology somehow being part of biology.

:rolleyes:

Then why co opt the term ?

It's called english.

Since evolution can apply to a number of things, some related to life, why not say ,the evolution of life ?
I'm sorry, but I really have trouble believing that you actually are this oblivious when it comes to use of words in the english language. If you can't infer from context when the word is used to refer to the biological theory and when it is used in some other context, then you really shouldn't be part of this conversation.

You will respond by saying something along the lines of ¨everybody knows what I mean¨.

And everyone does. So do you. You're just trolling.


That is irrelevant and sloppy.

No. It's actually a rather reasonable expectation from someone who seems to have a good enough grasp of the english language.


If the word evolution stands by itself, then it includes abiogenesis, precision of language precludes subsequent responses you don´t like.

More trolling. Like arguing semantics on steroids while misapplying contextual inference seemingly on purpose.

It's a rather pathetic "defense" that you are putting up here.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
It is not.

Let's take your "logic" and drive it home, shall we?

So, in your opinion, abiogenesis (or "chemical evolution" as you like to refer to it also) has to be part of evolution theory because you need life before it can evolve.

In that case......
The origins of heavy elements are part of abiogenesis AND evolution, because you need elements before chemistry can take place to make them form more complex molecules.
The origins of heavy elements are addressed in astronomy / astro-physics, as they are created inside the core of stars and during super novae.

But since you need stars before you an have these elements, you need basic elements that can even form a star and gravity. So thus the origins of atoms and gravity are again part of the biological theory of evolution, since you need to elements and gravity to form stars and you need the stars to produce the heavy elements and you need the heavy elements to create complex molecules and you need complex molecules to create life and you need life before evolution can take place.


But wait!!!!

Before you have atoms and gravity, you need space-time in which these things can actually exist. This is address in big bang cosmology, so therefor big bang cosmology is part of biological evolution theory because.....



So, in your ridiculously warped "logic"....
Big bang cosmology is "part of" the biology sciences.


:rolleyes:
Ever encounter a creationists going by "mellotron"?
He was a big fan of out of context quoting and honing in on single words or phrases - like this 'chemical evolution' thing.
He presented a paragraph by someone named Oro in which he "linked" cosmology and biology and ALL nature by indicating that it all 'evolves' over time. Oro specifically mentions a 'linkage' between cosmic, chemical and biological evolution (again, 'linked' because they all evolve over time).
Mellotron claims this proved that abiogenesis was part of evolution...
Ugh... This same dopey mentality seems to permeate the religionist community.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
When the term refers to the scientific theory of biological evolution, yes.
You do understand that words can be used in multiple contexts and don't necessarily have to refer to the same thing, yes?

For example, when I say that Brad Pitt is a "star", I'm not talking about a giant ball of nuclear infernus somewhere in deep space.

When physicists talk about "The Great Bombardment", they aren't talking about when the allied forces bombed Dresden or when Hitler bombed London during the second world war. Instead, they talk about a period of early earth where the planet was "bombarded" by asteroids / left over debry of the early solar system.



Yea, yea.... I've already explained in a previous post how your warped "logic" results in big bang cosmology somehow being part of biology.

:rolleyes: Defense of what ? The facts stand as stated. Abiogenesis is an unknown process, a mystery, those that believe in it do so by faith.

All of the alleged evidence, is evidence of what ? Not abiogenesis, but rather very distant from life processes that may or may not have occurred on the young earth. How do they work as part of a comprehensive theory of abiogenesis, the process, no one knows.

Of course words can mean different things depending upon application. Duh, that was the whole point.

People use terms like chemical evolution, geologic evolution, etc. Regardless of what they are talking about, evolution is the description.

Does it not seem logical that evolution, standing alone, could include these other processes ? You know that this is not the case, I know it isn´t the case, but there are many whose knowledge is shallow, who make these connections, why not just be clear ? If I state that my career was in the law, and someone asks me about the law applying to divorce, I have to say I worked in criminal law. It is just easier to say that initially.

I must say, you seem to imply you are an authority an some of these issues, and if you ¨explain¨ something to me, I am to take your explanation as fact. I don´t. As far as I can tell you aren't an authority by some of the mistakes you have made. I am not an authority, and I make some mistakes, that is just then nature of the beast.

You and I mostly have opinions. You opine on the vast body of evidence for abiogenesis, I counter that there is not that vast body. One frequent poster here described her abiogenesis faith as superior because of all the evidence available, I asked her to post some, she never responded.

So we can continue to beat this dead horse as long as you choose.



It's called english.


I'm sorry, but I really have trouble believing that you actually are this oblivious when it comes to use of words in the english language. If you can't infer from context when the word is used to refer to the biological theory and when it is used in some other context, then you really shouldn't be part of this conversation.



And everyone does. So do you. You're just trolling.




No. It's actually a rather reasonable expectation from someone who seems to have a good enough grasp of the english language.




More trolling. Like arguing semantics on steroids while misapplying contextual inference seemingly on purpose.

It's a rather pathetic "defense" that you are putting up here.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I am sorry, but I don’t remember where I got the 5% from.

I read a lot of things, and remember some information, but since I don’t write them down, I don’t remember what my sources are and where I got these information from.
Couldn't find any specifics, either, but according to this:

Composition of the human body - Wikipedia

Carbohydrates, lumped in with "other organics", is about 0.4%, so carbs would be a subset of that.

That is, not much.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
So, by using the term evolution, you exclusively mean the evolution of life. No evolution of the universe, no geological evolution, no chemical evolution, all allegedly part of life.

Golly - the title of this forum is "Evolution vs. Creation."

Everybody posting here - except you - seems to understand what that means.

In these sorts of conversations, it is a given that "evolution" refers to biological evolution, as described in the Theory of Evolution.

Only a desperate troll would claim it means ALL forms of evolution in ALL fields.

The word "evolution" means 'an unfolding' or an 'unrolling.'

Only desperate trolls will try to argue that when someone writes 'evolution' they are, in fact, indicating that abiogenesis is part of the ToE. That is just mendacious nonsesne.
If the word evolution stands by itself, then it includes abiogenesis, precision of language precludes subsequent responses you don´t like.
LOL!

On what possible grounds?

If we are to pretend to be as pedantic as you, then abiogenesis CANNOT be part of evolution since the word "abiogenesis" does not contain the word evolution!

Do you people NEVER think your supposed 'arguments' through at all?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Blah, blah, blah. No gap for me. It only becomes a gap if you can prove abiogenesis within the framework of a comprehensive, integrated theory, you cannot.
Sorry Charlie, some internet creationist nobody does not get to dictate to the entire scientific community what a Theory of Evolution (i.e., the changes that occur in ALREADY living things to produce diversity) must entail.
That explains a lot of what you are doing in this thread. The mysterious furball of abiogenesis is pretty important to your faith.
It seems pretty obvious that it is more important to yours, seeing as how you try to bring it up in pretty much every thread on this particular forum you take part in.

A one trick pony that i snot even very good at that one trick = creationists like you.

17th request for a link or citation to the "recent interview" with a 12-years dead Stanley Miller in which you claim he admitted his experiments were failures.

That or an admission that you just felt compelled to lie about it because you cannot discuss the actual science of it all.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
It is logical to say that abiogenesis is part of the process of evolution in that without it evolution could not occur.
No, it really isn't.

You and some other desperate and underinformed creationists will try to play these kinds of word games because you have nothing relevant or ;legitimate to offer, but no, abiogenesis is NOT a part of evolution, and evolution does not REQUIRE abiogenesis.

Why, even your fabled tribal deity could have created life, and its subsequent evolution would be covered by the ToE.
Do you deny chemical evolution ?
As part of abiogenesis? Nope.

Are you, in your sad desperation, trying to play word games to attack evolution?
Obviously.
Obvious trolling since you seem incapable of contributing in any other way.

18th request for a link or citation to the "recent interview" with a 12-years dead Stanley Miller in which you claim he admitted his experiments were failures.

That or an admission that you just felt compelled to lie about it because you cannot discuss the actual science of it all.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
One variable that continues from abiogenesis into evolution is water. Water is a variable that is still critical to all forms of life, and was critical to the first steps in abiogenesis. Replicators were not part of abiogenesis, except at the very end. But water was there from day one.

The impact of water goes even further back into time, setting earlier stages. Water is the second common molecule in the universe, second to only hydrogen molecules. Water, as ice, is the most common solid material in the universe. Ice plays a role in star formation. Gravity can organized solids, like ice, much easier than gases like hydrogen. Gases tend to diffuse away too easily, but solids will stay put.

Water is the most anomalous material known to science, with over 70 anomalous. Anomalies are properties which go contrary to the trends found in other natural materials. These anomalies come handy. For example, when ice melts into liquid water it contracts by about 10%. All natural materials, except Water and Antimony expand when they melt, with water very abundant.

This anomalous property is important to star formation. Picture a large ball of mostly ice, that has been formed by gravity, The gravitational work will heat core. As core begins to melt and contract, a snowballing affect occurs as heat moves to the surface, causing the ice ball to collapse upon itself. From this collapse a star is born; fusion hammer, with the hydrogen of water in place for fusion. All other common solid materials, because they expand when melted, resist the fusion hammer affect.

Water has many other many other tricks up its sleeve besides helping stars form, thereby setting the stage for other elements to appear. One of the most important tricks for life is connected ti the observation that the hydrogen bonding of water can act as a binary switch for passing information around the cell.

A hydrogen bond has both ionic and covalent bonding character. It can switch between these two types of bonding states, while never breaking the hydrogen bond. The energy difference between the two states is small with a slight activation energy hill, allowing two distinct states. The two states of the binary switch differ in terms of density, entropy and enthalpy. The ionic settings of the switch is more contracted, has higher entropy and higher enthalpy. The covalent setting is opposite.

The result is a binary switch that can not only transfer binary signals, but it also has muscle to push and pull other molecules, while providing two different settings for free energy. There is nothing like it in the computer world; memory with muscle. Molecules entering the cell, push and pull the hydrogen bonded water matrix thereby changing the switch settings. This is broadcast into the water toward the DNA, for example, causing the local water to express the data as local push and pull and free energy tweaks on the DNA. The cell is fully integrated which suggests a very complex information transfer system via water.

In terms of chemistry, information broadcast from individual hydrogen bond switches is not easy to see. Currently, this is limited to water clusters which contract and expand and change free energy, as large numbers of hydrogen bonding switches are shifted. I do not see any problem extrapolating to individual switches and extrapolating from there. The clusters prove the concept, even if the technology is not yet there to demonstrate individual switches dealing in detailed information.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Since you think you have discovered something of import, I was quoting a friend of Millers,
Yes, I do think honesty is important - sad how many Christian creationists do not. Anything goes when your flimsy middle eastern beliefs are on the line!

Of course, that is not what you actually wrote, is it?

You said that in a 'recent interview' Miller admitted his experiments were a failure:


Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

"Amino acids aren´ life, they carry no information, very specific acids and proteins carry out the instructions of DNA through RNA in operating the machinery of a cell. The 9 as a result of Miller Urey are meaningless. Miller in a recent interview admits the experiment was a failure."


Nothing about a friend of Miller's, no "quotes" to be seen.

You seem to have a very hard time keeping your stories straight on even trivial issues.

Says much.
... I did not add the quotation marks.

No, I did when I quoted YOU. Are these things (like who quoted what) really this difficult for you, or is it just that you will do whatever you have to to save face when you are in defensive mode?

I will give you a reference so you can read it yourself as an addendum to this post.
And the ref is.....?
3 days later, no addendum...

Methinks it was a fabrication...
What then will you find to whine about to feed your obsession ? Something, no doubt.

What obsession is that? Your apparent disdain for honest discussion? You desperation to conflate abiogenesis with evolution because you have nothing else to fall back on to prop up your dying faith?

Why the projection?
Keep the faith
Don't require any - I have evidence.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
blah, blah, blah Time to get out of your gutter of personal attack, you are childish, and as far as comments about you, thatś it. You could have had everything you requested, but your blatant ad hominems make the desire to have a conversation with you wither like a raisin.

As I recall, in another conversation we had, your incivility was on display as well.

You cannot discuss ideas, like the child you are, without attacking the individual with whom you disagee.

To the ignore list with you, happy raging, so long.
Your whininess is exceeded only by your projection.


So childish - considering documentation of your dishonesty a "personal attack."

I do wonder why so many creationists lovingly embrace these sad martyr complexes.
 
Top