Creationists, may I ask you...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ha ha. Well

You may have heard this and regurgitated this as a fact. However Miriam Webster, the Cambridge dictionary and The Oxford dictionary would disagree with you.

Best check for yourself.

Regards

Erm, I did. None of those dictionaries mention it because it's an experiment, not a term. And it still hasn't been debunked.

I think the poster was referring to the term "evolutionist."

Yes, it is technically a word now, but it was made up by creationists to attack evolution by painting it as a faith based belief system. If you are an "evolutionist" you blindly believe in it with no evidence or verification. The only problem is that evolution is the exact opposite of that, so the term is patently false. Nobody believes in evolution, they agree with verified experiments and the conclusions that they point to. Nobody in science refers to evolutionary biologists as evolutionists.

Generally speaking, use of the term "evolutionist" is an easy way to weed out creationists, and save yourself from reading paragraphs of completely bogus arguments against evolution, that rely on straw mans, equivocation and countless other fallacies. This poster did the same by ignoring multiple requests to back up his claims, only to focus on one insignificant detail. People just repeat this nonsense about Miller Urey being debunked because they heard a preacher say it or saw it on a preaching website.

a reply to: Barcs

pardon me but its hardly necessary to weed out creationists...

They're the ones who ignore logic and stick to every word of the book as factual info and Gods word

They make themselves known by their stance on everything... which is based on said book

a reply to: Akragon

Hardly! They don't subscribe to your own logic you mean. When I argue creation I use mainstream science to help me. So if mainstream science isn't logical then that must be the same for non creation advocates

Regards

a reply to: drevill

What mainstream science do you think you're using is you believe that Miller-Urey has been debunked and evolution has no basis in fact? all you did was make blanket statements, you didn't support them with any science.

a reply to: peter vlar


Ha, as typical response as much as a creationist. You know as well as I do that the so called atmosphere was also debatable, oxygen, methane longevity, hydrogen ammonia levels and longevity etc etc.


What you argue for, it can be argued against. It boils down to belief. Just like the time moves more slowly the quicker that you go experiments and the so called infallibility of atomic clocks.

Just because you pose an example as a typical response it's not in itself evidence of anything

Regards

a reply to: drevill

That doesn't mean the experiment is debunked. Stop regurgitating stuff from creationist blogs and link us to the science that is wrong and show us the science that contradicts the experiment. The experiment only shows PART of what is likely a long and complicated process. No, the environment is not really debatable unless you are trying to dismiss all geological evidence as well.

They may not know every detail of everything, but that's why they do the experiments. They found that parts of abiogenesis can be duplicated under certain conditions, that are similar to early earth based on the models of how the earth and solar system were formed. If it can happen under those conditions now, it could happen under those conditions 4 billion years ago. Nobody's claiming that it proves abiogenesis, but claiming it is debunked is a flat out lie and I'm not sure where you got that from.

Also I hate to tell you this, but Miller-Urey is only one experiment out of a bunch that shows part of abiogenesis. Obviously abiogenesis is not proven yet, but there is evidence and scientists are trying to figure it out. If you have a better hypothesis with evidence behind it, I'd LOVE to hear it instead of all these broad generalizations and blanket statements that don't hold water.

What you argue for, it can be argued against. It boils down to belief. Just like the time moves more slowly the quicker that you go experiments and the so called infallibility of atomic clocks.

No, it doesn't boil down to belief, it boils down to experiments. And the fact that you bring up abiogenesis in an evolution debate speaks volumes about your understanding of MES and science in general. Do you have anything that can back up your claims or justify your points or are we expected to just believe you on blind faith?

Just because you pose an example as a typical response it's not in itself evidence of anything

Do you have any actual arguments against what he said? Do you have anything to add to the conversation other than conjecture?

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: peter vlar


Ha, as typical response as much as a creationist. You know as well as I do that the so called atmosphere was also debatable, oxygen, methane longevity, hydrogen ammonia levels and longevity etc etc.


What you argue for, it can be argued against. It boils down to belief. Just like the time moves more slowly the quicker that you go experiments and the so called infallibility of atomic clocks.

Just because you pose an example as a typical response it's not in itself evidence of anything

Regards

Miller- urey proved organic compounds can form naturally under the right conditions without divine intervention which goes directly against creationists claims. No matter how you try to spin it.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Barcs

pardon me but its hardly necessary to weed out creationists...

They're the ones who ignore logic and stick to every word of the book as factual info and Gods word

They make themselves known by their stance on everything... which is based on said book

You are right. I guess I didn't really mean "weed out". It's just a good way to save yourself tons of wasted time. Nobody calls evolutionary biologists "evolutionists" outside of evolution deniers. As soon as you see the word, it's an instant red flag that the person knows nothing about what they are talking about and should probably be ignored. Just like when people say "darwinism", a term that has been outdated since the late 1800s. Nobody uses these terms outside of religious deniers of evolution.

a reply to: drevill

I sweet irony... You clamor on about typical responses but then definiticy show that your views aren't based in any science period let alone "mainstream" science. If you want to have a grown up discussion instead of spouting nonsense feel free to use your mad science skillz to demonstrate the efficacy of your point. I asked you what science supported your position and all you responded with was tripe. Typical indeed... Yes I will always ask someone to support their position with science. And As is typical from the respondent, I instead receive ad hominem crap recycled from ICR or AIG. You're either willfully ignorant or another generic troll who didn't understand basic high school science. Please feel free to quote the science that you aim supports your position. You who though because it doesn't exist period let alone in "mainstream" science. Kudos to you on proving my point.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Barcs

pardon me but its hardly necessary to weed out creationists...

They're the ones who ignore logic and stick to every word of the book as factual info and Gods word

They make themselves known by their stance on everything... which is based on said book

You are right. I guess I didn't really mean "weed out". It's just a good way to save yourself tons of wasted time. Nobody calls evolutionary biologists "evolutionists" outside of evolution deniers. As soon as you see the word, it's an instant red flag that the person knows nothing about what they are talking about and should probably be ignored. Just like when people say "darwinism", a term that has been outdated since the late 1800s. Nobody uses these terms outside of religious deniers of evolution.

See I tend to stay clear of these debates, but I follow along...

I know little to nothing about evolution or the science behind it... I actually tend to work with the other side of the coin that being biblical history, theology, and metaphysics... but what I do know is the earth AIN'T 6k years old.

I suppose Im a different kind of Creationist... God created the universe who knows how many billions of years ago... Something that is pointless even debating because theres no way to prove God to another

I do enjoy these discussions in anycase... You and Peter always seem to be on top of these debates... And I can't help but laugh at the response from Creationists in these discussions

Always good for a chuckle

a reply to: Barcs

The experiment makes assumptions of earths atmosphere that has since changed since that took place. Banda re did the experiment, the assumed the atmosphere again, nitrates, nitrites etc wouldn't be a good thing for the amino acids, so they add an inhibitor the mix. As orbit acid first, which they later retract and then iron.

Talk about stacking the deck, discover magazine explained to flaws of the original experiments.

Bada quote

I'm not at all convinced that the composition of the atmosphere is a central issue

Well of course it is, saying that is the same as saying you have no idea what it was like. And saying so it could happen.

Quote below from George Cody a geochemist from the Carnegie institute for science

The questions surrounding life's origins are indeed vast and, for the most part, unanswered. A comprehensive explanation of the origin of life will require pinning down the beginnings of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid), of proteins and lipid membranes, of genetic coding and metabolic machinery. In modern life, all of these molecules and processes are so intertwined that it's difficult to imagine how any of them could have arisen without the others already in place. Chicken-and-egg problems abound.

Also the amino acids we both right and left handed, which, nature doesn't produce.

Harvard quote below

A central puzzle in modern biochemistry is life’s chirality—that is, a tendency for life’s molecules to have a certain preferential orientation, or “handedness.” Much of life is said to be inherently left-handed, especially its amino acids. No one has ever been able to explain satisfactorily how life became so asymmetric. Yet broken symmetry seems as central to biology and life on Earth as it is to physics and matter in the early Universe. Asymmetry may well be an essential prerequisite for the origin and evolution of complexity throughout all of Nature.

Regards

a reply to: peter vlar

My reply was not different from your own. Where is your science apart from statements?

Lacking. Totally lacking my friend. So you long thought over diatribe was totally ineffective wasn't it?

a reply to: Barcs


Sorry but you are wrong, evolutionist is in both the Cambridge and Oxford dictionary, it's in Collins, Miriam Webster et al

Oh hang on, perhaps you were thinking of the word evolutionism, I'm afraid it must be one of those heard it so must be true without looking things. Real shame especially after what has been said. Ironic really

Cheers for that

Regards

Still not backing up your claims, I see.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Barcs

The experiment makes assumptions of earths atmosphere that has since changed since that took place.

So you think the solar system formation models are wrong? Do you have evidence that supports this idea? You got anything to go on at all besides banter? Just because you don't agree with the conditions, doesn't mean the experiment is debunked or that you are right.

Banda re did the experiment, the assumed the atmosphere again, nitrates, nitrites etc wouldn't be a good thing for the amino acids, so they add an inhibitor the mix. As orbit acid first, which they later retract and then iron.

Maybe you don't understand how scientific experiments work. The experiment doesn't claim, "this is exactly how it happened 4 billion years ago to a T". It says, "X can happen under Y conditions". That's pretty much it. They tried to figure out what conditions can lead to abiogenesis happening and they successfully found conditions that can replicate parts of this process, and no surprise they are consistent with all geological models as well.

I'm not at all convinced that the composition of the atmosphere is a central issue

Can you please give sources? Sorry but I'm not just taking your word for it. If he is not convinced that the composition of the atmosphere is a central issue with the experiment, then why are you bringing it up? You have to give more than quote mines. Where is this from? Please link the article so we can read it in context.

Well of course it is, saying that is the same as saying you have no idea what it was like. And saying so it could happen.

Except that geologists DO have a good idea of what the early earth environment was like.

The questions surrounding life's origins are indeed vast and, for the most part, unanswered. A comprehensive explanation of the origin of life will require pinning down the beginnings of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid), of proteins and lipid membranes, of genetic coding and metabolic machinery. In modern life, all of these molecules and processes are so intertwined that it's difficult to imagine how any of them could have arisen without the others already in place. Chicken-and-egg problems abound.

SOURCE?????

Yes, abiogenesis is a hypothesis for that reason. They haven't figured all of that out yet. Claiming the Miller/Urey experiment is debunked is a flat out lie. It is not debunked, it just doesn't prove abiogenesis yet because there is A LOT scientists still need to figure out. Surely you have a better argument than "they haven't figured out every detail yet".

I still have no idea what any of this has to do with evolution, either. You haven't brought up any arguments or shown where science goes against it. Random unsourced quote mines do not qualify. Abiogenesis is not evolution and has more evidence in it's favor than ANY brand of creationism.

Harvard quote below

By who? from what article? Sorry you have to back up your claims, or they are meaningless. Once again you have failed miserably. Random quotes don't prove anything. Show us where they are from with the context. I can provide quotes from people that claim they saw fairies. That doesn't make them true.

Where is your science apart from statements?

If I post this, will you actually read it and show us exactly which parts are wrong and why? Thus far I see no reason to believe that you would actually analyze the evidence or even read about it beyond creationist blogs. There is no lacking science behind evolution, in fact it's one of the most comprehensive theories in the history of science. There are something like 100,000 papers on the subject that have been peer reviewed and verified. Totally lacking? Talk about a smear campaign. Where's your evidence? Sorry, but nobody's buying what you're selling.

originally posted by: drevill
Sorry but you are wrong, evolutionist is in both the Cambridge and Oxford dictionary, it's in Collins, Miriam Webster et al

Did you even read what I typed? I never denied the word existed. It's just patently false when talking about science because NOBODY uses it within the scientific community. There are not evolutionists in science, there are evolutionary biologists. Get it right. You don't need blind faith to agree with proven peer reviewed science.

Evolutionist is like the word fairy. Yeah, it's a real word, but it doesn't mean anything real. Like fairies, evolutionists do not exist.

Oh hang on, perhaps you were thinking of the word evolutionism, I'm afraid it must be one of those heard it so must be true without looking things. Real shame especially after what has been said. Ironic really

Says the guy that hasn't backed up a single claim or demonstrated anything about evolution to show it's wrong.

Familiarity with quantum physics will make you realize that matter does not exist without consciousness. The observer is what collapses the waveform of probability into a material reality ((Wave function collapse). Therefore, matter could not have given birth to consciousness. It's really that simple, no need to overcomplicate it:

Copenhagen Interpretation

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

– Max Planck, Nobel Prize winning originator of quantum theory, quote from The Observer (25 January 1931).

a reply to: Barcs

Mate one thing is true I'm not a liar, I'll try to get back to you with the articles, I have a neurological prob and getting tied, it's 10pm here in the uk.

Give me a moment. However you keep making statements and yet follow the same paths, no evidence just it's true, it's proven kind of words. Can you not see this? It doesn't matter the number of papers on anything, that doesn't make a thing so, what may be in them could, but that comment doesn't.

Regarding the amino q ids, I'm afraid you are demonstrating some ignorance here. You need to research this. The left hand, not the ignorance

I gave you the nam of the person quoting on one George Cody,

The bada quote is from the Oxford journals The Origins Divide: Reconciling Views on How Life Began

Harvard is

Cosmic Evolution - Chemical
www.cfa.harvard.edu... › fr_1_chem4

Lastly, the comments about how it could rather than it did, highlights my point. The argument was used in a evolutionary context originally and I argued that, and I'll confess to saying debunked was probably a little too strong, that it wasn't conclusive in respect to identifying the origins of life.

Regards

a reply to: Barcs


Ha ha ha ha ha just because it's not used doesn't mean it doesn't exsist, what a preposterous notion. Ha ha. Wishing doesn't make it so.

I know many things that exsist but are not used. from used very little to not used at all.

Pactolian is a word you don't come across at the water cooler but it exists.

Blimey this is boring now

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Barcs

The experiment makes assumptions of earths atmosphere that has since changed since that took place. Banda re did the experiment, the assumed the atmosphere again, nitrates, nitrites etc wouldn't be a good thing for the amino acids, so they add an inhibitor the mix. As orbit acid first, which they later retract and then iron.

Talk about stacking the deck, discover magazine explained to flaws of the original experiments.

Bada quote

I'm not at all convinced that the composition of the atmosphere is a central issue

Well of course it is, saying that is the same as saying you have no idea what it was like. And saying so it could happen.

Quote below from George Cody a geochemist from the Carnegie institute for science

The questions surrounding life's origins are indeed vast and, for the most part, unanswered. A comprehensive explanation of the origin of life will require pinning down the beginnings of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid), of proteins and lipid membranes, of genetic coding and metabolic machinery. In modern life, all of these molecules and processes are so intertwined that it's difficult to imagine how any of them could have arisen without the others already in place. Chicken-and-egg problems abound.

Also the amino acids we both right and left handed, which, nature doesn't produce.

Harvard quote below

A central puzzle in modern biochemistry is life’s chirality—that is, a tendency for life’s molecules to have a certain preferential orientation, or “handedness.” Much of life is said to be inherently left-handed, especially its amino acids. No one has ever been able to explain satisfactorily how life became so asymmetric. Yet broken symmetry seems as central to biology and life on Earth as it is to physics and matter in the early Universe. Asymmetry may well be an essential prerequisite for the origin and evolution of complexity throughout all of Nature.

Regards

The original makeup of the earths atmosphere is irrelevant. Organic compounds were shown to form from a basic chemical environment, which as I said earlier refutes creationist claims that organic compounds require divine intervention to form. The "handedness" also means nothing, only raises the questions that have no basis for refuting evolution. Also your quote mining skills could use some work if you plan on pushing a creationist agenda.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: drevill
Sorry but you are wrong, evolutionist is in both the Cambridge and Oxford dictionary, it's in Collins, Miriam Webster et al

Did you even read what I typed? I never denied the word existed. It's just patently false when talking about science because NOBODY uses it within the scientific community. There are not evolutionists in science, there are evolutionary biologists. Get it right. You don't need blind faith to agree with proven peer reviewed science.

Evolutionist is like the word fairy. Yeah, it's a real word, but it doesn't mean anything real. Like fairies, evolutionists do not exist.

Oh hang on, perhaps you were thinking of the word evolutionism, I'm afraid it must be one of those heard it so must be true without looking things. Real shame especially after what has been said. Ironic really

Says the guy that hasn't backed up a single claim or demonstrated anything about evolution to show it's wrong.

Lol barcs its like using the term speciation as though it is a separate process that can be traced back to a specific moment in a species ancestry ( ie the moment a species crosses the mythological macro-evolution barrier):. In reality it is a taxonomic slang term.