DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

reply to post by CALGARIAN

Doesn't DNA add/create from existing molecules.. Where does it get new info?

Define "information" in the context of your statement?

Also, where do the elements come from? Stars? I thought you cannot fuse past Iron?

Proton capture process ("p-process"), rapid neutron capture process ("r-process"), and slow neutron capture process ("s-process") nucleosynthesis. There are others, like rp-process, but those are the big three for heavier elements.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Doesn't DNA add/create from existing molecules.. Where does it get new info?

Also, where do the elements come from? Stars? I thought you cannot fuse past Iron?

"New info" is through adaptation and/or mutation. (Nearly one and the same) A good explanation for you I found on yahoo:

Adaptation in the biological sense is generally defined as the process by which a population of organisms becomes better suited to its environment. In this sense what is usually being referred to is heritable genetic change, though it could be learned behavior as well. Usually adaptation is just mutation that happens to help the organism survive in its environment. Mutation is a change in the sequence of base pairs in the DNA of an organism. It will be heritable only if it occurs in gametes (sperm & egg). The difference between the two terms is mostly that mutation can also be negative, and in fact it usually is.

answers.yahoo.com...

And for the other question:

Nuclear fusion in stars converts hydrogen into helium in all stars. In stars less massive than the Sun, this is the only reaction that takes place. In stars more massive than the Sun (but less massive than about 8 solar masses), further reactions that convert helium to carbon and oxygen take place in succesive stages of stellar evolution. In the very massive stars, the reaction chain continues to produce elements like silicon upto iron.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

(Wait, what? You didn't explain about the heavy elements. God must of created those!)

Okay, I'm getting a little facetious, it's not aimed at you. Just playing around...

My question is this: If iron fusion seems to be the last step in stellar life, then where did we get all the heavier elements on earth? My understanding is that all of the elements on earth heavier than helium were produced in stellar furnaces. - Star ash.

All of the post-iron elements are formed in supernova explosions themselves. So much energy is released during a supernova explosion that the freed energy and copious free neutrons streaming from the collapsing core drive massive fusion reactions, long past the formation of iron. Sure, this absorbs a lot of energy, but there's plenty available once the explosion has begun.

I guess statistically speaking the heavier elements are much rarer than oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc, but does this mean that maybe life is truly really rare (except in our neck of the Milky Way)?

That's right. Supernova nucleosynthesis isn't as efficient as the long years of synthesis in stellar cores.

Have elements heavier than Iron ever been detected outside our Solar System (Like in the emission lines of a nebula, for example - or does the physics model predect them?)

Absolutely. They're everywhere.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Oops, seems we strayed completely away from the Evolution debate again. Unless we are talking about evolution of elements.

reply to post by HarryTZ


Off topic... but to claim that a cell which has no brain, no higher order functions at all, has a sense of subjectivity or awareness is frankly ridiculous.

Describing consciousness to anything that follows laws or that follows predictable patterns is a misuse of the term, and it leaves us talking about the awareness of streams, weather patterns, volcanic eruptions, crystal growth, and cells.

Simply being able to make a clever argument is not a substitute for proof, much to the chagrin of amateur philosophers everywhere.

reply to post by flyingfish


Then you obviously don't know what consciousness truly is. Look on my profile, you'll find out what I mean.

reply to post by HarryTZ


This is the wrong thread to be debating your consciousness philosophy.
I could argue that there's nothing to suggests that other humans are conscious. I'm the one true conscious being, and the rest of you are obvious fakes by virtue of not being me.
It's Irrefutable nonsense.

reply to post by flyingfish


But that's even more irrelevant.

This thread is a perfect example of how evolution deniers dismiss and deflect any and all evidence that comes their way in favor of evolution and generally have little to no knowledge about science or the scientific method. It often starts with them regurgitating some nonsense they read on a creationist website that has little to do with the actual theory of modern synthesis. When rational folks try to explain what the science actually means and their logical fallacies, they get accused of attacking them or called atheists, or some other red herring that has nothing to do with the discussion. They will very often use out dated terminology or information in attempts to slander people like Charles Darwin. You will see terms like 'evolutionist', 'darwinist', 'neo-darwinism' that have no practical application in today's word. Evolutionist is a term coined by evolution deniers (EDers), to make it sound like a belief. Darwinist hasn't been used since the 1800s when there were rivaling theories on evolution. Modern Synthesis is a verifiable phenomenon.

The scientific case for common descent

I'm just going to post this link again. Any debunking of evolution should start with that. Thus far, not a single EDer has even attempted it. I'd really like to see somebody actually challenge it but it doesn't seem possible without having a background in biology or genetics.

reply to post by Pauligirl


Your arguments main point is that the ice layer compressing the atmosphere would raise earth temps too high for life, If you read the facts there was nothing on earth at that time, man and everything else was created after this.
I have a tank of rarefied gas that is at 2000lb's per square inch but it stays at room temp,ONLY AT TIME OF COMPRESSION IS HEAT GENERATED and dissipates quickly.
Think about a pain of large pain of glass ,when it is shattered pieces will fall off for a vary long time , the ice layer was most likely fractured and took 40 days for all pieces to fall .
The canopy theory is the explanation of how the old earth come crashing down and MAJOR catastrophic events took place that carved the earth quickly ,not millions of years
Petrified wood can be made in three years, carbon dating and many other measurements can be suddenly affected by catastrophic cosmic events period, science HAS NO ABSOLUTES AND NO LAWS ,they are only observations at that specific time and space.
For example, the rings of Saturn VIOLATE Newtonian laws of gravity every day ,SO REALLY THEY ARE ONLY RULES at a given space time and may not be true 1 mile away.

reply to post by supergravity


Kent Hovind is a liar and a proven fraud. He went to jail for fraud like 10 years ago. He is not a scientist, and does not have a background in science. He is a deceiver. Canopy theory is absurd. According to the bible there were humans on earth at the time of the flood. The notion is ridiculous and it has nothing to do with evolution. It is just appealing to personal belief. There is no evidence of any ice canopy or worldwide flood or that living under an ice canopy would allow people to live thousands of years. It's comical that some people actually fall for that stuff with no logical or scientific explanation whatsoever, they just state it as fact!

reply to post by Barcs


I stated that the canopy was made before man,you are confused .So I guess you think all science is absolute?
you cant think outside the box?and he just tried to get tax exemt statis for his church and was jailed because of taxes NOT FRAUD.

reply to post by supergravity


If you want to show that an ice canopy is possible, you need evidence backed up by facts and numbers. This topic is about evolution, however, so you are in the wrong place. It's not about thinking outside the box. It's about logical possibilities. Ice canopy hypothesis has been debunked almost 10 years ago. It's no longer considered viable even from hard core creationists. Just wanted to give you the heads up, so other folks aren't deceived into believing that as well based on outdated, debunked info. Deny ignorance.

reply to post by supergravity

For example, the rings of Saturn VIOLATE Newtonian laws of gravity every day ,SO REALLY THEY ARE ONLY RULES at a given space time and may not be true 1 mile away.

I'm really beginning to look forward to your random claims that you have zero evidence for. Maybe you should research the Roche limit and how the rings aren't really all that stable.

In lieu of you learning the actual science behind Saturn's rings, I'll append a request to the one I already made that you ignored earlier:

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Your arguments main point is that the ice layer compressing the atmosphere would raise earth temps too high for life, If you read the facts there was nothing on earth at that time, man and everything else was created after this.

You said earlier

The ice layer protected humans and animals from all types of terrestrial radiation, cosmic radiation, solar radiation,ect, etc CAUSING the ageing process to almost STOP. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE LIVED 1000 YEARS.

Can't have it both ways. Actually, you can't have either way unless you can prove the existence of an ice layer and that people lived a 1000 years. See Barcs.

See for yourself...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Hebrews136

There's a reason why even all but the most gullible creationists have distanced themselves from Kent Hovind, and it has nothing to do with his current incarceration for tax fraud. His arguments have been debunked repeatedly. Even when he's been shown that his statements are completely inaccurate, he continues to repeat them as if they were truth.

Both are wrong.
Nothing was ever actually created.
There is an appearance appearing and then it changes into a different appearance. The energy that this is made of never goes anywhere - it just looks different.

reply to post by Pauligirl


You are confusing two different points I was making, The ice layer was FORMED before men, and my other point that wile it was intact it protected all inhabitants of earth.THIS IS WHY WATER surrounds all nuclear reactors ,it is is ideal for catching lose radiated particles .
My most important point is that science is nothing more than OBSERVATION and all matter is being GENERATED IN FRAMES ,in simple terms they have found all atoms are breaking apart into sub atomic particles that speed off FASTER THAN LIGHT ITSELF.Then they are rebuilt faster than we can measure because our instruments are also blinking on and off.My hole point is that nothing is what it seems,LIGHT IS NOT A CONSTANT, CARBON DATING IS NOT A CONSTANT.
The rings of Saturn are rocks trapped in time space ripples ,the never ending storm on jupiter is also caused BY FRAME DRAGGING THAT OCCURS NEXT TO LARGE SPINING MASSES.
newton had NO CONSEPT OF FRAME DRAGGING SO ALL OF HIS CALCULATIONS ARE FOR STATIONARY OBJECTS YET NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS STATIONARY.
In case you havent heard they found that the universe 's expantion is SPEEDING UP,SO THERE WAS NO BIG BANG.ever heard of inverse square LAW?explotions slow down over time not speed up.

You people must not get out much, you should EXPLORE YOUR WORLD , NOT JUST REPEAT OUT DATED SCIENCE.
And all of this is vital to the evolution DEBATE on this thread!

There's a problem...with both sides of the fence....

Debating Evolution vs Creation is simply a waste of time and energy. Everyone here should do something constructive instead.

You might say, "Well A2D, you're a believer! Why don't you stand with Creation?" To which I'd respond, "I have my reasons, and you have yours..."

You see, nothing will ever come from this debate. Absolutely nothing...Creation at its foundation is unexplainable....as is evolution. How can we claim one thing happened for sure if it still maintains unexplainable phenomena? We simply can't.

Our brains are fantastic devices. Most of us enjoy using them to our fullest capabilities....albeit, some of us are intent on using them in episodes of futility.

However, the beauty and awe-inspiring "intelligence" manifested within this Universe is enough to convince me that it wasn't just something that happened....Although, to argue my point of view as opposed to another's would leave me feeling disgraced. Point's of view are just that, they are personal and irrelevant.

Here at ATS we widely use the phrase "Deny Ignorance". I urge you to do just so and end these evolution vrs creation debates.

Respectfully,
A2D

reply to post by supergravity

THIS IS WHY WATER surrounds all nuclear reactors ,it is is ideal for catching lose radiated particles .

en.wikipedia.org...

Heat from nuclear fission is passed to a working fluid (water or gas), which runs through turbines.

Water is used as a medium for energy transfer. Just as it was used in steam engines for coal. One of the problems with science and engineering is that we can't create usable energy without the very archaic form of heat transfer. (Which, in most cases is quite inefficient).

To your statement: No it's not. Why do you keep lying in this thread and fail to source anything? Anyone with an IQ over 75 should be able to see that clearly.

reply to post by boncho

Its not just for cooling
Here again you have no idea what you are talking about, AS YOU CAN READ WATER GIVES GOOD PROTECTION FROM HIGH LEVELS OF PENETRIATING RADIATION.If you would use your brain instead of repeating talking points you might get to an iq of 30.
Its like I am debating a bunch of 15 year olds on this thread.