Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[QUALTHWAR]

Last night, I watched a bunch of shows about the ocean environment that a local college broadcasts on their station as a telecourse. One of the shows was interesting and relevant to this thread because they were talking about the origins of life. This show was basically teaching evolution.

They said that there was a problem because scientific evidence shows that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old, but we only had fossils dating back to 1.5 billion years. These fossils were in an intermediate state in that there should be other fossils preceding them.

It wasn’t until about 1960 when they developed better microscopes that they found the earlier fossils to complete the entire fossil record back as far as the oldest rocks still found on earth, about 3.5 billion years. In other words, the evidence was there all along, but it was a while before we had the technology to discover it.

Then they talked about that old, primitive experiment were the fellow put the primordial gases into a glass container that were present on the early earth and added a spark to simulate lightning. (some sort of energy source) This is the experiment where the amino acids were formed. Amino acids are the building blocks of life.

Then what was really interesting is they explained how they believe DNA was formed. They said that early life just had RNA to pass on early genetic material, no DNA. Of course, they have evidence of this. But they showed how this could have worked for eons and how DNA could have developed out of RNA and how DNA was better so it won out.

Science has been working on this one for some time, because people wondered how complex DNA could evolve. Not that everyone doubted it could happen, obviously, but they needed a good mechanism to explain how this could happen and now science is making good progress in this direction.

 

[W0RF]

But there have only been a few billion years for this to take place, and since oxygenic photosynthetic microbes appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, that doesn't leave a lot of time for this stuff to develop. The thing about the idea that ANYthing can happen if we give it enough time, is that the relatively young age of the earth, and the very early appearance of microscopic life, seriously constrains the amount of available time for these developments to take place.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

When the data is properly extrapolated, the history of mankind is traced back somewhere in the neighborhood of ~50,000 years, which is consistent with Y chromosome ancestry findings.

But that’s exactly my point. Relying on biblical text and neglecting outside data such as all the evidence that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old is what we’ve been arguing about in this thread, among other things. See, all sorts of people believe that the bible is the word of god and that it’s correct. They rely on the biblical text and ignore outside data. It’s not just the handful of bible-bangers posting in this thread, but it’s a myriad of people in the world.

“that also assumes he takes 16 billion years to make the rest of the universe”

This is not really accepted for two reasons: the accepted age of the universe is probably closer to 13 billion years, and science doesn’t think the rest of the universe came after the formation of the earth. It’s the other way around; the universe came first, then everything after.


Uh, you say “the history of mankind is traced back somewhere in the neighborhood of ~50,000 years.”

By “mankind,” are you suggesting that we appeared 50,000 years ago, or what? Or that life itself appeared 50,000 years ago? Because you were talking about Usher and his theory being wrong and in the same paragraph you’re talking about mankind with a date of 50,000 years. Just trying to understand what you’re trying to say. Certainly you aren’t suggesting that we accept evidence dating back 50,000 years, but ignore all the evidence that dates back before 50,000 years? You know, two-faced.

The article you posted isn’t claming that mankind “sprung up” 50,000 years ago. It does say this:

“In view of the fact that
for much of the last 50,000 years humans have been widely
dispersed around the globe, with rapid population growth for
a significant fraction of that time, it is striking that the
estimated time to the MRCA is so short.”

Of the last 50,000 years that humans have been widely dispersed.

Then they say:

“These results indicate that male
movement out of Africa first occurred around 47,000 years ago.
The age of mutation 2, at around 40,000 years ago, represents an
estimate of the time of the beginning of global expansion.”

What they are describing here is the “Out of Africa” theory that I’ve talked about before, but I don’t think it was this thread. The theory is that some apes eventually began to walk upright because it was favorable for them to do so in their environment. This is where the Lucy fossil was first discovered, then others were found to show that some apes adopted upright posture because it was beneficial. Eventually, these apes do better because they can walk further without water because the noonday sun isn’t hitting as much body area as before, they can see prey as they walk through the grasses, they can see predators, and probably most important of all, their nimble hands are now free to experiment with tool-making.

The tool-making was the big kicker because it helped these apes to prosper and they ate better, grew larger, learned how to make tools to hunt meat and meat is like rocket fuel for the brain. Eventually, we had a species that wasn’t human, but wasn’t really apes either. This happened in Africa, which is what they’re describing in the article. Then about 50,000 years ago, early man began his journey out of Africa to other continents. By tracing the Y chromosome, we can follow that migrational pattern. The pattern shows that people on all continents are related and their ancestors came from Africa. This means that Eskimos, Australians, Americans, everybody evolved from the ancestors from Africa.

Your article is one that helps to prove evolution and helps to show that we are all related to one another.

What happened was dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years. Mammals were just very small creatures, like shrews and the like. After an asteroid about 6 miles across slammed into the earth about 65-million years ago, small creatures underground with stored food supplies, and who ate less, etc. could survive while these giants could not. When the giant dinosaurs died out, it allowed these small mammals to come out of their hiding places and eventually we had a variety of larger mammals. One of these was the ape. At about 50,000 years ago, we (the ape-men) were walking upright and venturing out of Africa.

All you did was say that Usher was wrong, and that we have Y chromosome evidence that we evolved from the same ancestoral roots. You’ve just helped to prove my point.

 

[W0RF]

OK we were having a nice happy conversation, then you stopped making sense.

But that’s exactly my point. Relying on biblical text and neglecting outside data such as all the evidence that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old is what we’ve been arguing about in this thread, among other things. See, all sorts of people believe that the bible is the word of god and that it’s correct. They rely on the biblical text and ignore outside data. It’s not just the handful of bible-bangers posting in this thread, but it’s a myriad of people in the world.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God and is correct. I also believe that the universe is 14 or 20 or just pick a number it doesn't matter billion years old, that the earth is 4 billion years old, and that we've been around for tens of thousands of years. Am I clear now?

This is not really accepted for two reasons: the accepted age of the universe is probably closer to 13 billion years, and science doesn’t think the rest of the universe came after the formation of the earth. It’s the other way around; the universe came first, then everything after.

You're misunderstanding me. When you say that people must believe Adam and Eve came around 4 billion years ago, that would have to suppose that God made the universe in 16 (12, 8, DOESN'T MATTER) billion years, then made the earth exactly the way it is in 6 24-hour calendar days, and then let humanity thrive for 4 billion years. I don't even know where you got that because I don't know a single person who believes humanity is 4 billion years old.

By “mankind,” are you suggesting that we appeared 50,000 years ago, or what? Or that life itself appeared 50,000 years ago?

Just read the sentence. Did I say life? Or did I say mankind? That's your answer. And it was an approximation ONLY. The POINT was that I think it's been more than 6,000 years. Everything beyond that is nitpicking.

(much stuff about the earth being old, which I have not in the slightest bit disputed, deleted for brevity)

All you did was say that Usher was wrong, and that we have Y chromosome evidence that we evolved from the same ancestoral roots. You’ve just helped to prove my point.

What is your point? That the earth is not 6,000 years old? um... that's what I just got finished saying.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

But there have only been a few billion years for this to take place, and since oxygenic photosynthetic microbes appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, that doesn't leave a lot of time for this stuff to develop. The thing about the idea that ANYthing can happen if we give it enough time, is that the relatively young age of the earth, and the very early appearance of microscopic life, seriously constrains the amount of available time for these developments to take place.

Well, a few billion years is a hell of a long time. Can you honestly say that you can appreciate how long 1,000 years really is? I mean, can you really feel how long that is? Think back 10 years. This you can do, but even then the feel of 10 years gets sort of muddled. You can remember things that happened then, but the whole feel of that time span is abstract. Contrast that with the feel of 5 minutes. If someone told you not to count, but to ring a bell after it felt like 5 minutes was up, you could appreciate how 5 minutes feels. You might even be able to feel 2 hours. But 10 years? No.

Now imagine trying to feel 100 years. Now try to feel 1,000 years. Okay, now try to imagine what a million of those 1,000-year periods would feel like. At this point, you’re only at one billion years. You’d have to do this over and over several times to appreciate 3 or 4 billion years.

Cyanobacteria are the oldest fossils at 3.5 billion years old. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html



Stromatolites gave our atompshere oxygen.
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

 

[QUALTHWAR]

OK we were having a nice happy conversation, then you stopped making sense.

Okay, but humanity and what came before are separate, but related. I don’t believe that adam and eve was created 50,000 years ago and then populated the planet.

I’ve always talked about evolution in this thread and it took billions of years to create “humanity.” I believe a hell of a lot went on before that 50,000-year time period.

I’m not suggesting that “humanity” is 4-billion years old. But one question might be: What was the precursor to life as we know it? It took molecules getting together with energy to create amino acids. Was this life? Well, probably not, but it was the beginning of life. We aren’t going to have fossils of amino acids, but this soup probably formed maybe 4.0 or 4.2 billion years ago. Then 3.5 billion years ago we get bacteria.

I understand about getting picky and all, but you have to understand that I’m a scientist and it’s my nature to get picky. If I would have walked up to one of my professors and he asked how long it took for something to occur during my experiment and I said, “5 minutes; or maybe it was 15 minutes. Hell, I don’t know.” he’s going to raise an eyebrow.

Now I have to leave. My daughter is going into the hospital to have a baby. Bu-bye.

BTW, the 24-hour clock thing would have been wrong years ago. The earth’s spin is changing, just as the moon’s spin is changing. We will lose the moon one day. That’s stuff better left for next time.

 

[W0RF]

BTW, the 24-hour clock thing would have been wrong years ago. The earth’s spin is changing, just as the moon’s spin is changing. We will lose the moon one day. That’s stuff better left for next time.

No doubt. During Biblical times, the day was only something like 20 hours (I think). Anyway, that's irrelevant to the point I was making that I don't think the Bible is illustrating a strict 6-day-only creation. If you read the posts I linked, you would also know that people were saying all the way back in the 1st century that it didn't have to be a strict six-day creation period.

As for the prebiotic soup, studies suggest the early earth’s conditions would not have supported the synthesis of prebiotic molecules. For example, mounting evidence indicates that the early earth’s atmosphere was neutral, not reducing, composed of N2, CO2, and H2O. Even with the absence of O2 (an inhibitor to the process of forming life molecules), prebiotic molecules cannot be produced in this type of atmosphere. Strong evidence also has emerged that there were low, but significant levels of O2 not only in the early earth’s atmosphere, but also in the early earth’s hydrosphere. The presence of O2 would serve to inhibit the formation of prebiotic molecules.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

As for the prebiotic soup, studies suggest the early earth’s conditions would not have supported the synthesis of prebiotic molecules. For example, mounting evidence indicates that the early earth’s atmosphere was neutral, not reducing, composed of N2, CO2, and H2O. Even with the absence of O2 (an inhibitor to the process of forming life molecules), prebiotic molecules cannot be produced in this type of atmosphere. Strong evidence also has emerged that there were low, but significant levels of O2 not only in the early earth’s atmosphere, but also in the early earth’s hydrosphere. The presence of O2 would serve to inhibit the formation of prebiotic molecules.

Nice try… see attached pic, and this link: http://www.communities.ninemsn.com.au/BeginningAstronomy/
“Dedicated to God First!” Yeah, and the truth last.

The gases that were used in the Miller/Urey Experiment were gases that could easily be abundant when the earth was settling in.

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O).

Water from venting and comets mostly. Carbon, which is a heavier element made from exploded stars. If we have it on earth today, it’s a safe bet it was around early on. Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, and nitrogen, which still makes up most of our atmosphere today. All of these elements could have easily been in abundance after the earth formed and began to cool.

 

[W0RF]

Well, I'm 403'd to that site at work, but I can tell you I have no idea what it is.

Likely it references the same article, though.

Also, your response doesn't address the presence of oxygen in the early atmosphere, which would serve to inhibit the process.

But I really don't want to get right back into this whole thing again, because you seem to be approaching it from the standpoint that I'm trying to tear down an entire field of science, when I'm not doing that at all.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Well, I'm 403'd to that site at work, but I can tell you I have no idea what it is.

Likely it references the same article, though.

Also, your response doesn't address the presence of oxygen in the early atmosphere, which would serve to inhibit the process.

But I really don't want to get right back into this whole thing again, because you seem to be approaching it from the standpoint that I'm trying to tear down an entire field of science, when I'm not doing that at all.

Sorry, i'll have to get back with you later. I have more important fish to fry. But thank you for your time.

 

[W0RF]

There's nothing to get back to.

I really don't want to get right back into this whole thing again, because you seem to be approaching it from the standpoint that I'm trying to tear down an entire field of science, when I'm not doing that at all.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God and is correct. I also believe that the universe is 14 or 20 or just pick a number it doesn't matter billion years old, that the earth is 4 billion years old, and that we've been around for tens of thousands of years.

As far as I'm concerned, Intelligent Design is a philosophy and doesn't really need to get its own chapter in science texts.

otoh, I also don't think science should be used to push philosophical naturalism. I think science should just present the facts and stay out of the existential "why".

That is all. So kindly save your "I'm going to show you how much smarter than you I am" attitude for people who are acutally interested in wasting their time on this.

 

[Chrysaor]

This thread sucks anymore. Let's get a new one.

 

[Chrysaor]

User Name Posts for this thread
QUALTHWAR 300
bobtheking 118
Chrysaor 104
Mister_Prophet 101
GoAt 94
Cat Fuzz 67
ViSion 65
Rukee 55
Evil_Cope 48
ReD_Fist 46
Stilgar 45
Nachimir 33
Balton 28
oosyxxx 23
JTRipper 21
Frostblood 15
Zlal 13
Reign 11

It looks like the Evolutionists are maybe a bit more fervent in their desire to 'win'.

Dude, Proph, I'm schoolin' your ass.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

I wonder if an impartial observer evaluated the thread, and was asked to vote one way or the other, which side would get the vote for presenting the most convincing argument so far.

 

[Chrysaor]

Depends on if he was an atheist or a Christian.

I think this isn't really an apples to oranges argument anyway, a definite winner might be hard to reach.

 

[W0RF]

I wonder if an impartial observer evaluated the thread, and was asked to vote one way or the other, which side would get the vote for presenting the most convincing argument so far.

Thankfully this is not argument from induction.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Depends on if he was an atheist or a Christian.

I think this isn't really an apples to oranges argument anyway, a definite winner might be hard to reach.

"impartial observer"

 

[Chrysaor]

I'm just saying no one is impartial.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Check this out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7286853/

 

[Nachimir]

each walking arm stayed in contact with the sandy ocean floor for more than half of the stride, qualifying the pitter patter of two octopus arms as official walking.

...

By shifting to a camouflaged walk, the octopus may slip past their predators’ octopus-detection schemes.

I'm remided of The Ministry of Silly Walks from Monty Python

Are they Mimic Octopi, or a different species? I remember once seeing a program with a section on the Mimic Octopus. It can impersonate about 10 other animals, including a sea snake, a skate, and a lion fish, and changes depending on where it is.