Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I believe in most of the scientific fields, just not when they are used in the superstitious fields

Wouldn't all science that supports a religious view also fall under this banner?

Hum, I guess so, I also guess faith in God is a faith, I am not pretending to package creation as a science
See i see evolution as a religious view so you are in fact correct

Maybe you are starting to understand my opinion

a reply to: Raggedyman

Raggedy, are you pulling the disappearing act? I waited all day for you to respond to my post on chemistry. I thought perhaps you were enlightened, maybe learned something. No?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Raggedyman

I have been accused that I don't believe in science by evolutionists.
That's a blatant and ugly lie, the straw man, I tend to use that same blatant lie and straw man back at the atheists now, it's kind of true in a logical sort of way.

The truth is that I don't believe in the science used in evolution, I won't accept it, I am not interested in the guessing games.

So, the science used in the study of evolution that you don't believe in includes at minimum the physical sciences: chemistry, physics, oceanography, ecology, geology and other geosciences, chronology, and others; and the life sciences: biology including human biology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and others; and formal sciences such as: mathematics, logic, statistics, systems theory, and increasingly computer science theory.

That is not to mention the use of the applied sciences like Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Applied Physics, and Computer Science for building research tools and simulations.

The question then, asks itself: exactly what science DO you believe in?

Chemistry is most definitely part of the evolutionary process. A couple of examples below – complex chemistry, but demonstrates how chemistry participates in evolution. I'm not going into deep detail here because unless you're a chemist, it would be meaningless.

RuBisCO ( ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) -- is the most abundant protein on the planet. It's an enzyme that catalyses the energy-carbon dioxide-sugar conversion in photosynthesis. This is how carbon is “fixed” in the atmosphere. This enzyme was responsible for lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as increasing the concentration of oxygen. Since the reaction is a feedback loop, the enzyme diminished in its effectiveness over time of lowering CO2 and increasing O2. But life demanded an increasing level of O2 and a lessening of CO2 in the atmosphere to survive. To compensate, another enzyme developed called carbonic anhydrase – this enzyme works along with RuBisCO to diminish CO2 and increase O2. This is a step in evolution that required CHEMISTRY to achieve. The appearance of carbonic anhydrase was an evolutionary event that allowed life to continue on this planet.

Another chemical process critical for evolution is stereochemistry and codon assignments which are specific for amino acid biosynthesis. You can think of stereochemistry as 3 dimensional configurations where bonding angles, bonding energies, and spatial positioning help define the functionality of a macromolecule like DNA. Without the evolutionary process, the codons would be static or stuck i.e. remain essentially in their original configuration, not allowing for more complex organisms to evolve, change and become new species.

No chemistry – no life – no evolution.

Whoever is writing at your ICR website, is not a chemist – I don't care what paper they claim to have hanging on the wall. Even the writing style is unscientific. What the article describes (and defends) is that chemistry played no part in the origin of life. Again, these are two different topics: abiogenesis and evolution.

On the abiogenesis front, there is new, very intriguing evidence as to initial conditions and the appearance of life.
Subject for another thread though.

That statement is fairly childlike

What you have done here is assumed evolution as a fact and then stated how chemistry works in evolution.
Effectively all you have done is say, this happens and that happens and things evolve.

You have offered no evidence of evolution at all

I fully accept that no chemistry, no life, how you can say no evolution as well, that's yet to be proved
You didn't do that
You assumed evolution and snuck your faith in what parts chemicals played in that theory

a reply to: Raggedyman

That was exactly the response I expected. Thanks for playing!

Its simple. The universe adds up to nothing. We just havent got there yet. Untill then - enjoy.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

That was exactly the response I expected. Thanks for playing!

]

Is that your best

You say no chemicals no life no evolution, how about no life no chemicals no assumption?
How about you explain how life got to a point where chemicals could be utilized, then explain how that life evolved to use more and more chemicals

Your whole premise is an assumption, it's totally irrelevant and you post a lovely picture, probably more in relation to your own post than mine

Where did all the chemicals come from, you assume life then assume chemicals can randomly create code
It's absurd, you have shown an evidence after an assumption. Horse before the cart

If we see life we see how chemicals react in that life, you have shown nothing except how chemicals are used, not how they create
You premise was chemicals create, you explained nothing but how they are used

Big pictures with band aids should be something you reflect on

Your premise is faith.
You want me to accept way to much assumption, then apply chemistry.

I am not denying that chemicals are used in the field of biology, just their relationship to changing one species to another.
Do you understand that, their relationship from changing one species to another
You failed miserably at showing that

No life, no chemistry related to biology, no point in listening to your assumption, all you have done is prove micro evolution, I accept that

Abiogenesis, new theory, hey why not, make anything you want up, it's what some scientists have always done

a reply to: Raggedyman

How about you explain how life got to a point where chemicals could be utilized,

I'm in awe of your obtuseness.

Existence is chemicals. Life is chemicals. The cell is made up of chemicals. Proteins are chemicals. DNA is chemicals. Food is chemicals. Air is chemicals. Water is chemicals. There is nothing that is not chemicals.

What the F*%( are you on about?

I am amazed that some people can actually breath and type on their keyboard at the same time, let alone maintain some semblance of coherent thought in their brain. I dunno, maybe Darwin was wrong after all.

First, ask yourself whether you are an extremist?
it is unlikely that complex living organisms are the results of pure luck mixing amino acids
...that takes more faith than believing in an intelligent force behind it including guiding the evolution of simple living organisms to complex ones
...humans might be created by aliens from mixing genetics (if you want to believe that)...no problem...
...all living things can evolve/mutate...don't see any problem

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'll make it real simple for you (OMG this is not going to be easy).

You are ALIVE BECAUSE of chemistry, not in spite of it. You are HUMAN BECAUSE of evolution, not in spite of it.

Take it or leave it. Doesn't really matter what you believe. Willful ignorance doesn't stop the flow of information, the research and the progress that most humans make on this planet.

You've bought into a cult and cults are irrational. It's your choice whether to wear the tin foil hat or take the blinders off and learn to think on your own two feet without the aid of cult leaders like Ken Ham and his pet dinosaurs.

In the meantime, the posts that I and others make on this board which reflect the real world of science are there for anyone who may have a genuine interest. True knowledge never goes to waste.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

I'll make it real simple for you (OMG this is not going to be easy).

You are ALIVE BECAUSE of chemistry, not in spite of it. You are HUMAN BECAUSE of evolution, not in spite of it.

Take it or leave it. Doesn't really matter what you believe. Willful ignorance doesn't stop the flow of information, the research and the progress that most humans make on this planet.

You've bought into a cult and cults are irrational. It's your choice whether to wear the tin foil hat or take the blinders off and learn to think on your own two feet without the aid of cult leaders like Ken Ham and his pet dinosaurs.

In the meantime, the posts that I and others make on this board which reflect the real world of science are there for anyone who may have a genuine interest. True knowledge never goes to waste.

Because chemicals are alive?

Let me quote you as a response
What the f.... Are you on about
I am amazed you can breathe and type, never mind semblance of thought, blah blah blah

Are you suggesting chemicals are alive

Thanks but no thanks, go preach your fundy doctrine at somebody else

Let me make it simple for you, show me a living chemical, mix some and show me the consequences, I could suggest a few I would like you to mix, don't think I should tell you what they are, could harm yourself

Hope I am not the only person who doesn't think chemicals are all alive

a reply to: rnaa

Can you show me some evidence of scientists mixing chemicals and creating life

Life is chemicals, chemicals are not life
One two three

and just for the sake of openness and honesty, I am leading you down a path, once we get to the end
I will finish it, decisively, just be patient my padone

a reply to: Raggedyman

Can you show me some evidence of scientists mixing chemicals and creating life

Can you show me how this challenge has anything to do with anything that is being discussed here?

Life is chemicals

Yeah, that is exactly what I said.

And therefore Biologists have to understand chemistry to understand life.

You said you didn't believe in the science that scientists use to study evolution. Scientists use Chemistry. Scientists use Physics. Scientists use Geology. etc etc etc.

The question stands: what science DO you believe in?

chemicals are not life

Yeah, that's right. Who claimed it was?

One two three

Uno, dos, tres

a reply to: Raggedyman

Let me quote you as a response
What the f.... Are you on about
I am amazed you can breathe and type, never mind semblance of thought, blah blah blah

You expect to carry on a conversation when you cannot figure out who said what to who?

You just quoted ME, rnaa, NOT the Phantom423 whom you were addressing.

Maybe should take a rest from the keyboard and get some shut eye. Your body's chemical balance will thank you for it.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Raggedyman

Let me quote you as a response
What the f.... Are you on about
I am amazed you can breathe and type, never mind semblance of thought, blah blah blah

You expect to carry on a conversation when you cannot figure out who said what to who?

You just quoted ME, rnaa, NOT the Phantom423 whom you were addressing.

Maybe should take a rest from the keyboard and get some shut eye. Your body's chemical balance will thank you for it.

Oops, it's a bit like listening to a woman, it just becomes white noise after a while
My apologies

Let's be honest, it takes two of you, same argument

I was just joking about the woman thing, love listening to them as long as they are not talking pelvic floor excercise


I will put the sword in, in my time

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here is your post where you asked how chemistry is "actualised" in evolution:

I know this question isnt worth answering. But Hey Show me how chemistry, your first science listed, is actualised in evolution theory If you want we can go through the sciences one by one, though is this the time and place? www.icr.org... I believe in most of the scientific fields, just not when they are used in the superstitious fields As I see it, using those valid sciences in evolution theory is akin to putting diesel in a petrol engine.

Here is the answer I posted:

Chemistry is most definitely part of the evolutionary process. A couple of examples below – complex chemistry, but demonstrates how chemistry participates in evolution. I'm not going into deep detail here because unless you're a chemist, it would be meaningless. RuBisCO ( ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) -- is the most abundant protein on the planet. It's an enzyme that catalyses the energy-carbon dioxide-sugar conversion in photosynthesis. This is how carbon is “fixed” in the atmosphere. This enzyme was responsible for lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as increasing the concentration of oxygen. Since the reaction is a feedback loop, the enzyme diminished in its effectiveness over time of lowering CO2 and increasing O2. But life demanded an increasing level of O2 and a lessening of CO2 in the atmosphere to survive. To compensate, another enzyme developed called carbonic anhydrase – this enzyme works along with RuBisCO to diminish CO2 and increase O2. This is a step in evolution that required CHEMISTRY to achieve.

The appearance of carbonic anhydrase was an evolutionary event that allowed life to continue on this planet. Another chemical process critical for evolution is stereochemistry and codon assignments which are specific for amino acid biosynthesis. You can think of stereochemistry as 3 dimensional configurations where bonding angles, bonding energies, and spatial positioning help define the functionality of a macromolecule like DNA. Without the evolutionary process, the codons would be static or stuck i.e. remain essentially in their original configuration, not allowing for more complex organisms to evolve, change and become new species. No chemistry – no life – no evolution.

Whoever is writing at your ICR website, is not a chemist – I don't care what paper they claim to have hanging on the wall. Even the writing style is unscientific. What the article describes (and defends) is that chemistry played no part in the origin of life. Again, these are two different topics: abiogenesis and evolution. On the abiogenesis front, there is new, very intriguing evidence as to initial conditions and the appearance of life. Subject for another thread though.

My answer addressed your question directly. That you don't see that, is your problem.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here is your post where you asked how chemistry is "actualised" in evolution:

I know this question isnt worth answering. But Hey Show me how chemistry, your first science listed, is actualised in evolution theory If you want we can go through the sciences one by one, though is this the time and place? www.icr.org... I believe in most of the scientific fields, just not when they are used in the superstitious fields As I see it, using those valid sciences in evolution theory is akin to putting diesel in a petrol engine.

Here is the answer I posted:

Chemistry is most definitely part of the evolutionary process. A couple of examples below – complex chemistry, but demonstrates how chemistry participates in evolution. I'm not going into deep detail here because unless you're a chemist, it would be meaningless. RuBisCO ( ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) -- is the most abundant protein on the planet. It's an enzyme that catalyses the energy-carbon dioxide-sugar conversion in photosynthesis. This is how carbon is “fixed” in the atmosphere. This enzyme was responsible for lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as increasing the concentration of oxygen. Since the reaction is a feedback loop, the enzyme diminished in its effectiveness over time of lowering CO2 and increasing O2. But life demanded an increasing level of O2 and a lessening of CO2 in the atmosphere to survive. To compensate, another enzyme developed called carbonic anhydrase – this enzyme works along with RuBisCO to diminish CO2 and increase O2. This is a step in evolution that required CHEMISTRY to achieve.

The appearance of carbonic anhydrase was an evolutionary event that allowed life to continue on this planet. Another chemical process critical for evolution is stereochemistry and codon assignments which are specific for amino acid biosynthesis. You can think of stereochemistry as 3 dimensional configurations where bonding angles, bonding energies, and spatial positioning help define the functionality of a macromolecule like DNA. Without the evolutionary process, the codons would be static or stuck i.e. remain essentially in their original configuration, not allowing for more complex organisms to evolve, change and become new species. No chemistry – no life – no evolution.

Whoever is writing at your ICR website, is not a chemist – I don't care what paper they claim to have hanging on the wall. Even the writing style is unscientific. What the article describes (and defends) is that chemistry played no part in the origin of life. Again, these are two different topics: abiogenesis and evolution. On the abiogenesis front, there is new, very intriguing evidence as to initial conditions and the appearance of life. Subject for another thread though.

My answer addressed your question directly. That you don't see that, is your problem.

and I answered you, your answer was irrelevant in the context, read my post...again
...again

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I believe in most of the scientific fields, just not when they are used in the superstitious fields

Wouldn't all science that supports a religious view also fall under this banner?

Hum, I guess so, I also guess faith in God is a faith, I am not pretending to package creation as a science
See i see evolution as a religious view so you are in fact correct

Maybe you are starting to understand my opinion

I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from.

From what I can see, any evidence is irrelevant as you are unwilling to accept something that conflicts with your current view. It seems science that disagrees with you is faith based, however science that agrees with you is correct.

I see your view as walking a mental tightrope that you must try incredibly hard to maintain to justify outdated views.

Unless you agree with that I've probably got to try harder to understand your opinion.

But I'm getting pulled into what I was trying to avoid. You answered the OP before and I thank you for that. You have questions about your own theories which proves you give them serious thought. I may never understand your viewpoint, but seeing the questions you have about your own views may have gotten me closer.

originally posted by: Barcs

Here's the main issue with the OP. He's not talking about evolution, he's talking about materialism. I don't know why everybody has to equivocate evolution and materialism or atheism as if they are equals. They are not. Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, most religious folks actually believe this, it's just the YECers that are more loyal to literal translations of texts than to god. It would really be refreshing if one of these threads actually accurately described evolution, but it seems that never happens. Evolution is just being used as a buzz word to create arguments, at least that's the vibe I'm getting.

You are right that evolution was probably not the best term to use.
However my post was about seeing who was willing to honestly question their own ideas.

Their actual beliefs and any validity behind them is irrelevant to the topic. The question wasn't "which is correct" as that is pointless. It was "what of your own beliefs do you struggle to understand". It seems the majority here have 100% certainty about all aspects of their beliefs or they refuse to admit they don't understand some things.

As far as I can see the main issue with the OP is that it wasn't written well enough for people to actually answer the question.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

You are right that evolution was probably not the best term to use. However my post was about seeing who was willing to honestly question their own ideas.Their actual beliefs and any validity behind them is irrelevant to the topic. The question wasn't "which is correct" as that is pointless. It was "what of your own beliefs do you struggle to understand". It seems the majority here have 100% certainty about all aspects of their beliefs or they refuse to admit they don't understand some things. As far as I can see the main issue with the OP is that it wasn't written well enough for people to actually answer the question.

The book on science is never closed. A scientist has to have an open mind and at the same time rigorously defend his/her ideas through experimentation. Science is about discovery and evidence - that's it.

Creationists, on the other hand, have their opinions set in stone with absolutely no evidence. That's why the responses from Raggedy, Coop and Neo are redundant and meaningless. Minds firmly closed. Heads in the sand. Learning out of the question. Cults always have those traits in common. Remember Jonestown.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Creationists, on the other hand, have their opinions set in stone with absolutely no evidence. That's why the responses from Raggedy, Coop and Neo are redundant and meaningless. Minds firmly closed. Heads in the sand. Learning out of the question. Cults always have those traits in common. Remember Jonestown.

I think people are doing the same on both sides. I hate to agree with the creationists however I think there is something to the whole "faith" argument. Obviously the real scientists are questioning their own theories and are always open to change.

However, some seem to accept the scientific accounts just as blindly as the creationists without a real attempt to understand. This just strengthens the creationist viewpoint.

You could argue that the history of scientific discovery gives people the trust to do this.

But if we can't honestly talk about the parts we don't understand we can't expect the creationists to do that either.