Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Definition

Note that I removed references to the idea that abiogenesis (in the modern sense) does not occur in the modern world. For all we know (well, for all I know; biologists may feel free to correct me) abiogenesis occurs constantly, and is generally unobserved because the new proto-life immediately becomes food for existing life. -- April

This still needs lots of work, but I'm increasingly unsure of my ground here. I'll leave this awhile in case a biologist may be tempted to do a better revision, and if not, come back to it after more reading-up on the topic. -- April 04:01 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using the term Aristolian instead of Aristotelian? Someone else

Naw, if Aristotelian is the preferred term, by all means change it. -- April

Thing about Abiogenesis is, you need to define non-life before you can have life come from it. So, if you prove that nothing is non-living, you disprove abiogenesis. You also have to define life to have it come from non-life, in which case life would have to be something that really exists (not an illusion) in order for abiogenesis to have occured.

The trouble with making these definitions is, the words are still used as questions, not answers. We know some things are alive and some aren't, but we still don't know the exact difference. Living things can and do reproduce, but we have no proof that supposedly non-living things wouldn't, given the right circumstances.

There are things we can say about scientific observations of life, however. Life is apparently a state that certain combinations of matter can be in. Life is shaped into organisms, of a cellular nature. These organisms are composed of smaller mechanoids, including mechanoids for making other mechanoids. All known life is based on the RNA/DNA molecule, with supporting and resulting protiens and lipids.

If something was discovered to be analogous to life, but not based on RNA/DNA/protien, would it be called life? Our macroscopic robotics and computers come close. A nanomachine soup could come closer, perhaps. But robots and nanobots are hardly aboigenic themselves.

"Creationist Response"

An anonymous user added a section called "Creationist Response", which I removed. I removed it for a few reasons: one, it is written in an informal, personal style; two, Wikipedia is not a soapbox (and it is highly POV), and three, I don't believe the material belongs here. More detailed message left at anon's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Response: I re-edited it and put it back up. I did so because what is said is based on sound logic and the facts of science -- as the Links clearly indicate.

Reverted again, has no place in this article. Just because you want something to be scientific sounding doesn't make it so and this certainly is NOT science. --Deglr6328 16:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

TO THE CONTRARY, PLEASE FIRST CHECK OUT FOR YOURSELF WHAT I SAY AS IT IS BASED ON SOUND SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS, FACTS AND A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE.

Ohhh wow I'm convinced! not. Do you know how many others have come before you with the same nonsense? Think about it. --Deglr6328 16:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is an encyclopedia of information, not a platform for debate. This entry defines and provides a history to the theory of abiogenisis, Creationism has its own page. Feel free to add supporting information there as appropriate, Truthteller. (You may also like to visit creation-evolution controversy) -- Knoma Tsujmai

Saying we have "NO IDEA" what lifeforms were like prior to bacteria is verifiably false for anyone interested in actually researching the subject. Furthermore using the tornado in a junkyard analogy exposes selective ignorance. To make the pieces in a junkyard analogous to molecular biology; you would have to put complimentary magnets on pieces that are compatible (to simulate the electrical properties of atoms and molecules). It then becomes much easier for pieces to combine when they randomly meet each other; and they stick together. In environments with methane for example... much larger molecules can form quite easily. What is important to understand is chance isn't the only mechanism involved. Also your name is slightly self-aggrandizing. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

OK RoyBoy: Show me ANY documentation where a single Homochiralic protein molecule (i.e. the type that Living things are ALL made of) has EVER been observed to form naturally (i.e. apart from being created by an already living organism, or manually put together by a team of scientists.

And After that: please provide us with some sort of half-way plausible scenario for how that first (hypothetical) Mycoplasma came together. TruthTeller

TruthTeller (interesting choice of username, incidentally), I think you are misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. It is not a forum to advocate your opinions. The tone in which you write would be inappropriate for any article, in Wikipedia or in any encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also, as I've asked you before, if many others disagree with an edit to an article, please respect the consensus. You may discuss it on the talk page, but it is inappropriate and ineffective to try to force the change through. Of course, each person believes he is correct; and it may be that God created the first life forms directly and that the scientific view is incorrect. However, most of the Wikipedia editors participating feel that this material does not belong in this article; please respect how Wikipedia works. Now Wikipedia, either articles or talk pages, are not there to discuss the merits of different scientific theories, political leaders, or economic models. This talk page is not here to convince you that the scientific model is correct or to convince me that your religious explanation is correct. However, your question deserves an answer. I am uncertain why you feel it necessary that homochiral molecules must arise before life forms do. As I understand it, homochiral proteins are simply a collection of proteins that all consist of the same enantiomer. You are correct that life forms today tend to produce homochiral molecules. However, I don't see why homochiral molecules should be a prerequisite for life. I also note that you are concerned that the Miller-Urey experiment only produced amino acids and not complex proteins. However, this is not a fair comparison. The experiment had only a week to run; indeed, recorded human history only lasts some 5,500 years, and our species has only existed for some 200,000 years. On the other hand, there was an estimated half billion years between Earth's formation and the emergence of the first life—some 26 billion times the length of the experiment and plenty of time for more complex molecules to emerge. Please note: I am not trying to change your beliefs; rather, I would like you to see why the edits you are adding do not belong. Finally, please note that as I told you before, you are violating our three-revert rule. We are a pretty tolerant community, but please respect our rules. The repeated reversion and the flagrant disregard of consensus would certainly justify a block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC) (I also aplogize for my edit summary which was a bit judgmental. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC))

Knowledge Seeker hit the nail on the head... I don't actually have go address your questions because its ludricrous to think abiogenesis is right or wrong based on successful things (even as simple as your examples) that we see in our everyday environment today. That doesn't hold for everyday objects we know were designed (cellphones) etc etc which are a part of our everyday existance. It stands to reason there were less efficient precursors both in public and only as prototypes which are long forgotten (can't find them as they were relatively rare and short lived in comparison to their descendants). Anyway, getting off topic.

You posed the questions and I do feel obligated to answer. For Mycoplasma; do you mean Mycoplasma genitalium, which has the smallest known genome? If so my previous link explains DNA precursors. If you don't find that sufficient; then don't fret... libraries have books on molecular biology; and I'm sure there is more detailed explanations on the Internet. But that page does provide a decent overview.

A process of catalyzing for purely organic molecules homochirality occurred recently; an experiment confirming a prediction from over 50 years ago where the researcher(s) were pessimistic laboratory demonstrations of "autocatalysis" would be possible. Then here is research compiled previous to that showing how drugs are manufactured with homocirality on a regular basis. Good tact though, best I've come across in a long time... after reading one of Sarfati's books years ago a neighbor gave me I had a low opinion of the guy (playing semantics with the word theory, and saying famous scientists from centuries ago believing in creation gains credibility for it); I might have to rethink that position. Nawww, like most creationists I get the sense he does not concede being wrong; and just moves onto the next scientific unknown to cast doubt on evolution... rather than bothering to support creation.

- Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear "Knowledge Seeker", I don't know how else to tell you this but TIME And CHANCE are simply not enough. For example, let's say that the most simple self-replicating bacterium is of the order of complexity as a 1000 piece puzzle (even though the bacterium is vastly MORE complex than that). Let's further assume that you have ALL the pieces together in the same box (which neither Miller nor any of his colleagues have so far been able to do). Let's further assume that all the powers of Nature are at your disposal (i.e. wind, rain, cold, heat, fire, and the ability to shake up the box). Let's further assume that you have 100,000 Billion Years with which to put the puzzle together (using only the powers of Nature) -- meaning that you can shake up the box, heat it up, freeze it, blow on it, or even pour its contents out on the ground and pray over it. Any yet, even a third grader can tell you that TIME + NATURE Acting ALONE will NEVER put that puzzle together. This is not simply a matter of speculation, but rather of fact: a fact that NO AMOUNT of Wishfull thinking, or Doctoral Degrees, and assertions of Faith in the "power of evolution" will ever be able to change. Therefore your problem is not with me, or what I have written, but rather with the facts of science. I also don't have a problem with your editing the tone of what I have said, but rather get the strong impression that you only want ONE SIDE of the story to be heard -- the side that can never solve the problem. In fact, you Sir, have lowered my opinion of Wikipedia, and I am getting the impression that you are ALL a bunch of bigots -- who don't really care about the facts, but only of propagating your own (baseless) opinions.

Let's assume your analogy isn't good. Unlike a puzzle which is one individual, has one solution, and isn't "complete" (functional) without all the 1,000 pieces. Then we will assert (don't need to assume this) that biology and abiogenesis don't have your contraints. Furthermore your puzzle pieces do not behave like atoms and molecules. Yes, chance and time alone is insufficient; so either you're right or you've forgotten to include things. Doctoral degrees can help illuminate those factual gaps. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

OK then, please show me ONE example of a Homochiralic protein (like the ones that ALL living things are made out of) ever coming together by chance.

I've already addressed this; but I'll reiterate and clarify for your benefit. Chance is not the only mechanism involved and you neglect something very important in your description. Homochiralic protein is in all current living things found thusfar. You are making implied assumptions that are unwarranted; and undermine any truths you wish to communicate. Also your statement weakly implies homochiralic protein would form by itself, and then would be used as raw material; this is not the case. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In other words, there is virtually NO reason why I should put ANY faith in the Power of evolution.

Also, your scenario also falls apart, by simple physics -- as a half-way formed pre-creature (of any sort) that cannot maintain itself (by replacing it's decaying (would-be) protein molecules, nor replicate itself will only DECAY back to it's original components. It will not sit around and maintain itself, nor make itself more complex (unless an outside intelligent force is acting upon it).

There is not a single thing you've said so far that leads me to think you understand physics (ie. tornadoes in junkyards) better than myself, or the many physicists that do not see the obvious flaws you've uncovered; and statements like "pre-creature" indicates you haven't incorporated the implications of evolution on biology (creatures are in a constant state of flux, and there is no "goal" or specific creature in mind for evolution). As to your statements about protein "decay"; is that alluding to irreducible complexity? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Some people believe in the "Big Bang", however, there isn't one shred of evidence that explosions ever create order. But perhaps there a new and "mysterious" form of Physics will one day be discovered to prove you correct and me wrong.

Truthteller, this is an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether abiogenesis is possible or impossible, it deserves its own entry that explains the definition and the history of the the hypothesis. The entry that you have been defacing is exactly that. Whether or not it is possible does not change the history of this postulation. Again, creationism has its own entry as does the creation-evolution controversy. Linking to this debate makes perfect sense to me, but hosting the debate on a page that defines and provides a definition to the hypothesis does not. Far from bigotry, the Wikipedia community strives for entries with a neutral point of view NPOV. As people have already pointed out, please remember what Wikipedia is Not WIN. No one is attempting to change you opinion on this matter, nor should your opinion be debated here. Knoma Tsujmai 12:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that it is very difficult if not impossible to disprove a hypothesis of this nature. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until an experiment can be created that will diffinitively prove or disprove it. In the case of abiogenesis, a (comparably) short running experiement in which nothing happens does not disprove the theory, because the modern theory of abiogenesis postulates that something happened over millions of years, between trillions upon trillions of molecules. This cannot be created in a lab. It is for this reason that there are no experiements that can be executed to disprove this modern theory of abiogenesis. If it is correct it will one day be proven, if incorrect it will always remain a hypothesis. Knoma Tsujmai 12:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I re-read your abiogenesis page again, and I must admit that your page is very neutral. You were right for rebuking me -- even though what I believe is based upon more than just "my opinions." I am speaking here about the more than 25 years of Personal Experiences (as in thousands of them) with the Creator Himself. Looking back now over the past few days, I have to admit that I think I was blowing off some steam at the (almost continual) bombardment (i.e. vandalization) of Western society by the Mass Media (i.e. Discovery Channel, National Geographic, Public Broadcasting, and probably over 90% of the Newspapers and Television stations in the US and Europe) -- who are always touting Evolution as if it were a Proven Fact of science (which it is emphatically not) -- like on the FRONT PAGE of today's Newspaper (with the assertion that we evolved from amoebas -- because we have similar things in common). However, is Similar DNA, etc. really "proof" of a common anscestor? Evolutionists (along with the Mass Media) are always telling us it is, but it is really? Why could it not just as well be "proof" of a Common Creator, who used something that works well over and over again -- like we do today with Rubber tires and Wheels with Steel Rims, and ball bearings -- that we (humans) use on Airplanes, Automobiles, Bicycles, Skateboards, etc. In fact, even MANY of our tools are round, as are door-knobs, ignition Keys, dials on instuments, radios and even light swiches on many lamps), but does this mean that wheels evolved by Chance? I rest my case -- and appologize again for using your web page to try to balance things out a bit. With that said, I may (in the future) be challenging you with your assertion of total neutrality. However, when I do I will try to be more diplomatic about it.

Sincerely, Randy Berg

Similar DNA is not proof, but it is compelling evidence... especially when unused DNA remains from bacteria in the human genome; its either sloppy work or a strong indication God – at the very least – set evolution in motion. Why does a Creator need to do the detail work... seems a little menial to me. I do not wish to offend, but many believers before you had many experiences with the Creator... yet they continued to believe in a flat Earth. In many ways evolution is fact; not all of it certainly... but it is a successful theory and the best explanation so far. As such, of course we should strive for accuracy, but its not of critical importance laymen understand precisely its limitations. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

To the Contrary, Royboy, Similar DNA is not even "compelling" evidence at all -- that evolution has (in ANY way) occurred, any more than it is compelling evidence of a Creator -- who chose to Use his own Blueprint / programming Language over and over again (with modifications to each different life-form that He Programmed from the Beginning (to function the way they do). As far as your "Flat Earth" assertion goes, it was (none other than Christopher Columbus -- a devout Christian, who used verses in the Bible to guide him to his convictions and) who went against the common "belief" of his day that the earth was flat -- and proved that it wasn't. It was also (none other than) Isaac Newton (another devout Christian) who invented Calculus and was perhaps the greatest scientist of all time. A great MANY of our other most famous Scientists were also devout Christians. But back to your "assertion" that evolution is "somehow" proved by the existence of DNA. This is emphatically NOT the case; however it does demonstrate your own propensity (and I do not mean ANY offense by this) to believe what you want to believe. For example, on my web page I descibe another (virtual) proof of a Creator -- that also deals with it's DNA. I am speaking of the "mystery" of what has been (appropriately) termed "Complete Metamorphosis". This is where (MANY 1000's) of Different Types of Butterflies and Moths and Flies and Flying Beetles, each enter into a cocoon stage, whereby their internal organs (literally) dissolve into a liquid, and then (somehow) --- within a matter of days -- "morph" (i.e. change very rapidly / transform) into something of a totally different appearance. In other words, this is very clear evidence of a MASSIVE amount of programming that went on within the DNA of each of these (probably 100's of 1000's) of Creatures -- all without the aid of "evolution" which can only propose very minor changes at one time (via proposed beneficial mistakes). Such assertions, however, completely Break Down with regard to each of these Creatures -- whose internal organs dissolve before morphing into something else (that is fully formed and "ready to fly". Nice Try though, And I do hope you have a good day -- and that you come to know the Living God even as I -- as the next life is going to make this one look like childs play (and I want as many people as possible to be there -- which is why I do what I do).

Sincerely, Randy Berg

Well, morphing from one thing to another is not such a mystery. My body is composed of parts of other living things that "morphed" into its constituent structures. I think the difficulty you're having, Randy, is understanding that science is an explanation. It's a way of looking at the world. It's not saying this is how the world is. It's saying this is the way the world can be explained. (Sometimes scientists have the same problem, when they forget that and take science for actually being the world rather than about the world.) It does its explaining without God, without magic. Wittgenstein compared it with a mesh that we see the world through. You are concerned with how the world really is. Well, perhaps your god did make everything. Science has nothing to say about that. You should try to recognise that. Trying to have your god impinge on science will always be a fruitless exercise because science's explanations work always within the bounds it sets itself. Any discussion of science that excludes gods is, in fact, neutral, because science by definition excludes them. It doesn't need them. But you are welcome to challenge its neutrality whenever it steps beyond the bounds it has set itself. Grace Note 23:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree; because it is compelling when in context with the rest of the literal and figurative mountains of evidence which support it.

I don't find it compelling at all. In fact, in the light of what we know about the complexity of the cell, and how it maintains itself, and divides, and transfers information (in the form of a program) from one part of the cell to another, it is amazing to me that anyone can think that something as complex as this could ever come about by chance. But then again, when we really don't want to CHANGE our lives, or surrender them to our Maker, then no amount of arguing, or facts, will be able to make us change.

How is "this is too complex" in any way convincing we should submit to your Maker? Time and again in history people such as yourself have thrown up their hands and said, we don't understand, God did it... and left it at that. If everyone did that I have my doubts we would have the medicine and technology we enjoy today.

I am not in the least bit against the advancement of Science, and especially as it relates to improving our lives and learning how things operate, etc.; however, I do think that evolutionists today have way overstated their case for what they believe, and that (upon closer inspection) it has failed as a valid theory to explain our origins. Matter simply doesn't (as far as we have ever observed) spontaneously order itself - as almost certainly has taken place with regard to a multidude of living creatures today.

(old earth, old universe, transitional fossils, speciation, etc.)

Most of the "evidence" for an old earth, and universe has LOTS of holes in it. Also, Time is not on the side of evolution either.

And you think scientists are unaware of those holes? I've read your website; every single thing on it is either misleading or has been shown to be false. For example your "critique" of radiometric dating is well understood by scientists; they predicted and understood why volcanic rock would give incorrect readings. Of course you understand one kind of reading can be corroborated by others to ensure accuracy.

You mean like was done with the famous KBS tuff. Below is a detailed account with regard to Radiometric Dating and how subjective and deceptive it is. http://www.earthage.org/radio/The%20Case%20of%20the%20KBS%20Tuff.htm

God and evolution do not have be in conflict,

They are though, as God is making demands on our lives, while evolution tries to tell us that He really doesn't care -- but is just sitting back and watching, either unable or unwilling to intervene with us lower life forms down here on earth.

How does evolution say he doesn't care?

Evolution goes one step further and says that God Doesn't even exist.

God CAN, and I would argue SHOULD sit back and watch, and still demand things from us in this life in order to make it to the next life.

If that were true, then How could He also tell us that He and His Son want to have a daily relationship with us, AND that unless we Seek Him and/or allow (and even invite) Him into our lives, we cannot come to KNOW HIM in the PERSONAL WAY that He says we must have. Matthew 7:21-23 Note also the words "KNEW" and our daily Practice.

If God was helping us and getting involved that would be cheating us of some of the struggle... at least that's how I look at it.

Then please expain the following verses: Rev. 3:20; John 6:37; John 3:36 (i.e. How can we possible "obey" someone whom we can't even know, or who never tells us anything?). John 10:27-28 (again, how can we "Follow" someone whom we can't even know, or who never speaks to us in any way, shape, or form. See also Isaiah 41:10 -- and note the words "surely help" and "surely uphold"... The fact is that if it were not for God's daily care, we would all perish. Not only has He provided us with a suitable environment in which to breath and walk and sleep, but He also provides us with daily food and water. That doesn't mean that He puts the spoon to our mouths, or magically makes the food "appear" before us, but that His unseen assistance is all around us, even though a great MANY of us don't even realize it, nor give thanks, nor go out of our way to seek to know and serve Him with our time and resources, nor to acknowledge that He has given us the life that we now have. Ps. 139:1-16

But the very fact that Christ came to earth and died for us is clear evidence that God does want to have a relationship with us, and that He is involved with those who will only allow Him to be their God -- even to the point of allowing us, or preventing us from being spontaneous (as opposed to nervous) in various circumstances. Prov. 16:1; Ps. 135:5-6

and I'll reiterate its not Godlike to include unnecessary DNA in our genome...

Now you're talkin. Please tell us more about God, and what He, or she, or it is like? Does He or she or it want anything at all from me, or can I just do as I please and ignore him or her or it for the rest of my life, and the one after that....

LOL! I'm glad you see the splinter in my eye; get the log out of yours. As to my point above, Godlike implies perfection... it isn't perfection to have leftovers in a lifeform. (keep in mind, this is not "decay" I'm talking about, but extra unneccesary information which is unused)

I think there is a LOT we still don't know about DNA. In fact, just recently it has been discovered that much of what we thought was "junk" is not junk at all, but serves a useful purpose. Email me if you want to know more on this.

vestigial organs and muscles, yet they are all over the place. You choose to believe things that are in conflict; but that's not God's fault. :') Anyway, your mention of Columbus illustrates the amount of care you put into opinions as they relate religion... Columbus like other sailors suspected the Earth was round (being on the open ocean gives that impression), and he accepted the calculations of Pierre d'Ailly of how much water there was between Europe and Asia. You can confirm this on Wikipedia itself; I'm assuming you have an internet connection. Columbus may have found solace, additional resolve, perhaps even using the Bible against (religious) flat earth critics; but his idea was founded on observations and deductive reasoning... not the Bible.

Actually I am not aware of ANY vestigial organs. All of the ones they thought were useless (100 years ago) have been found to have useful funcions after all.

Here's to your "Flat Earth" and where is came from: ::http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

Quite informative links, but I didn't say all Christians believed flat earth, did I? Stop arguing points I never made; don't attempt to read my mind; seek clarification prior to wasting my time. I'm not surprised well educated people thought the world was round; regardless of their religion. I will repeat this again since you didn't address it; vestigial muscles (which would be useful for living in trees) exist in a percentage of the human population; and your links do not mention the point you made I was actually disagreeing with. Which is that the Bible wasn't Columbus' "guide" to his convictions regarding a round earth; but as the links point out it was a generally accepted idea among the well educated.

At the end of one of your links it said: "When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." That is a ludricrous notion... at best the Bible is ambiguous; but when it lumps a bat in with foul, or mentions four legged "flying creeping things" I wouldn't call that accurate.

Bats Fly and fouls fly -- so in that regard they are very similar.

And as to your "four legged" creeping things, I do not consider that an error, but rather only that a distinction is being made between creatures that crawl verses those that "walk upon all fours" (i.e. upright, or semi-upright, like dogs) even though they have more than four legs.

As to your butterfly example, I'm sorry, but butterfly experts get along in their field of interest quite fine without resorting to God.

I suggest you check out the (top link) -- to a One-page article -- below, as it includes a quote from one of those experts you refer to in this regard.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/ori/ori-0502.htm

How does this god of gaps argument make for actual evidence of God? And the quote from the expert says (paraphrasing); we don't understand. It does not say, we don't understand, therefore it is reasonable to evoke god. I still suggest you talk to some non-creationist experts in butterflies; call me crazy but they might have learned something since 1997. Why is it creationist insist on adding their own emphasis; but won't add emphasis to Darwin where it belongs, such as highlighting it is problem (not a "major" or "fatal" problem) and no obvious simplier or intermediate forms. So its not obvious; evolution doesn't have to be easy and straightforward. Its a challenge for evolutionary scientists! That's what they get paid for and its what makes science exciting.

I prefer to simply give God credit where it is (clearly) due -- meaning that He didn't just sit back and let nature create Living creatures in all of their wonderful forms, but rather programmed the DNA of every one.

These also I thought were worth their salt.

http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_spotlight/spotlight_detail.php?PRKey=32

http://www.geocities.com/farfalla247/lifecycle.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/metamorphosis.asp

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-237.htm

http://www.harrypottermagic.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-9.htm

Here is some more on this subject: This comes from: ::Evidence of Creation or Extremely Rapid Change

I'm sorry but do you think it reasonable that I should go through all this information and explain to you why its wrong and misleading? I'm willing to have a discussion with you about issues you think put evolution in doubt; but I'm not here to debunk all of creationism. If you are unwilling to research that on your own; then so be it... I'm not going to research it for you to have it rejected out of hand. Religious people routinely say you have to be open to God to accept Him; its true and a good thing to say because the same can be said for evolution. Your website is beginners material; much of which is verifiably false if you bother to research explanations as to why trees can end up in coal; and why partial fossilization isn't a "problem" for science. Answers are available if you want to find them.

Actually I have already spent several years of my spare time researching and writing on upright fossil trees and I have come to the conclusion that (about 99% of them are not in situ) -- meaning that the whole Geological Time Chart is (almost certainly) bogus, and is instead simply evidence for Noah's Flood.

The transformation from caterpillar to butterfly poses a Major Problem for evolution. This is because caterpillars come from butterflies. But evolutionary theory says that life changes from one form to another slowly (i.e. over “millions of years”) as a result of multitudes of tiny mistakes in the DNA. If evolution were true, then how did the first two “protopillars” transform themselves into fully mature butterflies simultaneously in such a short time-frame (i.e. about three days)? I say “they” because both the male and the female are needed to make butterfly eggs. What makes this more amazing is that during “metamorphosis” the caterpillar’s internal organs dissolve into a liquid before they “morph” into a butterfly. What the first two “protopillars” did is the equivalent of a man and woman placing themselves in a deep sleep and within a few months being "transformed" into flying angels with wings -- and henceforth giving birth to "people" that would also (in time) transform themselves into angel-like beings.

Darwin said its a problem, not a major problem. You say its a major problem... I'd have to disagree. Your argumentation is without merit. Evolution is speaking about species, but an individual of a species can mature quite rapidly; you're confusing evolution with maturation. It happens all the time; normally it isn't as quick nor visually impressive. (ie. baby -> toddler -> child -> adolescent -> adult) we can see the transition over two decades occur quite slowly. But evolution does not dictate lifeforms mature slowly. Metamorphosis is a beautiful, unconventional and fast transition to maturity. The implication metamorphosis had to occur spontaneously, correctly and completely the first time (an adam and eve butterfly) is a strange concept. The things that do happen in metamorphosis is amazing, but so is a single fertilized cell turning into any lifeform; or a seed growing into a tree. Yet all these amazing things occur naturally; most are understood and explained by evolution; some are not. So what? It would be boring to be a evolutionary biologist if everything was explained.

For, without both male and female butterflies (with fully developed reproductive organs) you don’t have butterfly eggs, and without butterfly eggs, you don’t have caterpillars, and without caterpillars, you don’t have cocoons…

Male and female are not required; you should know better. Poor assumptions makes for poor reasoning. I'm willing to answer your questions, but I'm getting frustrated by your assumptions.

Note also that it wasn’t just the reproductive organs which formed, but also wings, wing veins -- with fluid that is pumped (both) into their wings, to make them straighten out, and then pumped out, to make them light again. But they also now have new jointed legs -- with all the ligaments and tendons and nerves connected in just the correct order so that the newly transformed creature can stand up and walk. And their wings also are jointed and have muscles attached in just the right place so that they can rapidly flap them back and forth to fly. They also have much more complex eyes and antennae that all just (sort of) spontaneously "developed". Even more amazing is that this mind-boggling transformation didn’t just happen once, but over 100,000 times with each species of butterfly, moth, fly and (flying) beetle.

In other words, in spite of the wishful imaginations of people who call themselves "scientists," the fact is that such evidence strongly "suggests" that these creatures were "programmed" to "transform" the way they do by an intelligence far superior than our own, and that the evidence of design is overwhelming: which leads to the (logical) Conclusion that there must be a Creator. But in spite of these facts, and major problems for the theory of evolution, (or even "Slow Creation") the American Media, popular "science" publications, and a great many University Professors -- whose Jobs require them to "toe the line" regarding evolution -- seem to be Hell-Bent on ignoring this evidence, along with the even more astounding "odds" against that first (purely hypothetical) self-replicating organism coming to life via purely Natural processes. In other words, they believe what they believe, in spite of the "odds" and overwhelming evidence against it. Or in other words, they have chosen a blind faith that is not supported by the facts -- as opposed to one that is. It is also very sad that such people have gained such a strong hold on our "Institutions of higher learning" that the truth is only important so far as it agrees with their AGENDA of brainwashing the public to believe something that is (almost certainly) a Fairy Tale.

Yes, its complicated facinating stuff;

Stuff that evolution had NOTHING AT ALL to do with either.

"Prove all things; hold fast to what is good." 1 Thes 5:21

- Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

==May 8th==

Note: Your new to Wikipedia, so its all good... but please do not alter the text of other people in discussions. If there are only certain parts you want to respond to, cut and paste them below... or indent your responses appropriately. Thx.

I've already addressed this; but I'll reiterate and clarify for your benefit. Chance is not the only mechanism involved and you neglect something very important in your description. Homochiralic protein is in all current living things found thusfar. You are making implied assumptions that are unwarranted; and undermine any truths you wish to communicate. Also your statement weakly implies homochiralic protein would form by itself, and then would be used as raw material; this is not the case. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In other words, there is virtually NO reason why I should put ANY faith in the Power of evolution.

No, what I'm saying is to think chance is the only thing involved in the evolution of Homochiralic protein is an over simplification; and indicates you haven't bothered to learn much about evolution. Frankly I'm dumbfounded as to how you could reach such a conclusion from my above paragraph.

Some people believe in the "Big Bang", however, there isn't one shred of evidence that explosions ever create order. But perhaps there a new and "mysterious" form of Physics will one day be discovered to prove you correct and me wrong.

Explosions allow for new order(s). This occurs in star formation (old star explode, new stars and solar system are built from the raw material), and when asteroids hit earth (or volcanoes explode) it can significantly change the order of things. Indeed explosions themselves do not create order; but the aftermath of explosions do. Its analogous to forest fires clearing out the bush, and allowing new life (order) in its wake.

I am not in the least bit against the advancement of Science, and especially as it relates to improving our lives and learning how things operate, etc.; however, I do think that evolutionists today have way overstated their case for what they believe, and that (upon closer inspection) it has failed as a valid theory to explain our origins. Matter simply doesn't (as far as we have ever observed) spontaneously order itself - as almost certainly has taken place with regard to a multidude of living creatures today.

Snow flakes, diamonds, stars, molecules (like water, methane, ozone, carbon dioxide, to name only a few) do indeed spontaneously order themselves according to natural laws. If they didn't the universe would be a pretty boring place. Furthermore evolution kicks off when things are "alive", abiogenesis is the field of study for our origins. Evolution can have a hand in explaining simplier lifeforms than what we observe today, but our true origins will be about chemistry, not biology, hence evolution has no say. Not only do you find fault with evolution because it has yet to discover something (which to you for some reason means it will never be discovered), but its about something evolution doesn't even cover. BTW, you and I are in total agreement that matter needed to order itself to create the multitudes we see today.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge; it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

Stop implying things won't be solved, when its illogical to do so. It's okay if you say, origins of life has not been solved. That's fine, but to blame evolution for that... or to say it won't be solved because only God could do it; that's over the line, and frankly crazy talk based on ignorant statements like - "show me how proteins came into existance by chance" (paraphrasing), or "matter simply doesn't (as far as we have ever observed) spontaneously order itself." The former is simplistic, and the latter is simply dead wrong.

You mean like was done with the famous KBS tuff. Here is the Link if you are ever interested (in learning the truth about this).

http://www.earthage.org/radio/The%20Case%20of%20the%20KBS%20Tuff.htm

Note also that your Example of my "misleading" information is exposed in the Link above.

I'm sorry, but what I note is someone posting their opinions on a website in such a manner as their POV cannot to be challenged. If your opinions are so insightful post them to talk.origins so that they may be given an airing. I'm not swayed by comments if they are made in a vacuum; especially a vacuum you control. If you spout that there is an agenda out there... I'd agree, your agenda is to keep creationist arguments in your head as valid. One way to do that is to collect them on a website and then refer to them constantly without actually researching scientific explanations beyond what you can dismiss.

Evolution goes one step further and says that God Doesn't even exist.

When does evolution do that?

If that were true, then How could He also tell us that He and His Son want to have a daily relationship with us, AND that unless we Seek Him and/or allow (and even invite) Him into our lives, we cannot come to KNOW HIM in the PERSONAL WAY that He says we must have. Matthew 7:21-23 Note also the words "KNEW" and our daily Practice.

An answer to that is obvious, the Bible is not His word. Anyway, what I was expressing was my opinion of what our relationship to God should be; I in no way intended it to represent how God is for everyone. Also we can know God personally; but that doesn't mean he "interfers" in a physical way in our world. God can communicate with us; but for Him to physically manipulate things on Earth is a step beyond that.

Then please expain the following verses: Rev. 3:20; John 6:37; John 3:36 (i.e. How can we possible "obey" someone whom we can't even know, or who never tells us anything?). John 10:27-28 (again, how can we "Follow" someone whom we can't even know, or who never speaks to us in any way, shape, or form.

Knowing Him and having Him create floods and manipulate genetic blueprints is two different things. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the way you have excerpted my comments above and commented on them in a separate section at the bottom. This makes a LOT more sense than me editing comments within the text (as this page gets longer and longer)..

Response

Roy: Your new to Wikipedia, so its all good... but please do not alter the text of other people in discussions. If there are only certain parts you want to respond to, cut and paste them below... or indent your responses appropriately. Thx.

Randy: I am sorry for deleting one or two of your comments; however I did not alter any of your words. I simply don't comment on everything I read and I meant no harm. But I will refrain from doing so in the future (on this forum). That does not mean that I will include everything said, when I cut and paste it, for I rarely comment on everything someone says. But when I do remove something from this (re-post), I will use the word "Snip" to indicate that I do not wish to comment on something that was said. In which case, anyone interested, can scroll back up to the original post to see what I snipped (if he or she chooses to).

It's okay, the comments you took out were of me getting upset anyway; didn't reflect well on me. :'D But generally discussion responses are indented like I'm doing now using : at the beginning of a paragraph. Two of them would indent further than this.

Roy: I've already addressed this; but I'll reiterate and clarify for your benefit. Chance is not the only mechanism involved and you neglect something very important in your description. Homochiralic protein is in all current living things found thusfar. You are making implied assumptions that are unwarranted;

Randy: I am merely stating a fact of science. You are correct though, that 20 or 30 years from now (or pehaps tomorrow), that scientists may (???) find a form of life that does not have homochiralic proteins. But until they do, it is a matter of pure faith to believe that ancient life forms were any different than what we observe today (except that many former species have died out).

Whenever you state a scientific "fact", I am forced to clarify. It is not a matter of pure faith, but of logical inference that life can be simplier than what we see today.

Roy: and undermine any truths you wish to communicate.

Randy: That is exactly what you already did when you asserted that everything on my web page (or something close to it) was erroneous. Now if you actually find something on my web page that is (historically or scientifically proven to be false) then please do bring it to my attention and I will either delete or change it.

Key word is proven... which you have a peculiar notion is all that matters in science. Absolutely everything we see indicates an old Earth; you pick out instances of poor samples for radiometric dating and sloppily assume all such dating is suspect; without reason apart from supporting your beliefs. You then assert that means continental drift only occurred for the Biblical period of time. But that makes no sense when we look at the age of moon rocks, red shift from distant galaxies in space and biological speciation on islands. What you site is accurate, but your assumptions and argumentation is very frustrating to look at. It would be like me being a detective at a crime scene, and some of my attempts to lift fingerprints were smugged (for reasons I can understand and explain). I won't use those in a court case; but that doesn't mean I can't get decent (not perfect!!!) prints elsewhere; and other corroborating evidence to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt. (not proven) Because like most things in the past; we aren't there to personally witness the events. We therefore must use what's at hand to the best of our abilities.

Roy: Also your statement weakly implies homochiralic protein would form by itself, and then would be used as raw material; this is not the case. - RoyBoy 800 19:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Randy: The fact is that we have NO IDEA how the first self-replicating organism could have (somehow) got itself going, and unless or until we are ready and willing to give credit where credit is due, I don't think we will grow as human beings (and especially not into the God-Like and compassionate, and spiritually mature beings we were meant to be)

You're assuming the conclusion again. How can you sit there and critique science when you've obviously made up your mind of Who did it, and what He did. You have to realize that even if God does exist; that doesn't mean you know what He did.

Randy: In other words, there is virtually NO reason why I should put ANY faith in the Power of evolution.

Roy: No, what I'm saying is to think chance is the only thing involved in the evolution of Homochiralic protein is an over simplification; and indicates you haven't bothered to learn much about evolution.

Randy: Evolution is (in my opinion) a JOKE that has been propagated on the naive by people who should know better.

I see nothing on your website that adequately supports that position.

Snip...

Randy: Some people believe in the "Big Bang", however, there isn't one shred of evidence that explosions ever create order. But perhaps there a new and "mysterious" form of Physics will one day be discovered to prove you correct and me wrong.

Roy: Explosions allow for new order(s). This occurs in star formation (old star explode, new stars and solar system are built from the raw material), and when asteroids hit earth (or volcanoes explode) it can significantly change the order of things. Indeed explosions themselves do not create order; but the aftermath of explosions do. Its analogous to forest fires clearing out the bush, and allowing new life (order) in its wake.

Randy: Living things are themselves highly ordered. But explosions themselves only destroy order (in all its forms). I also don't think they know how Stars are formed. And when a star explodes, it is gone forever.

Yes it is, but it provides the raw material for new stars and planets. This is basic stuff Randy; very basic. And because stars are very hot and use fusion, they create heavier elements that we are made of. And please don't project your ignorance of star formation on the rest of us. Thx. Also you are incorrect on explosions destroying all order; for example lightning (dunno if you count that as an explosion) creates ozone... and supernovas create heavier elements.

Randy: I am not in the least bit against the advancement of Science, and especially as it relates to improving our lives and learning how things operate, etc.; however, I do think that evolutionists today have way overstated their case for what they believe, and that (upon closer inspection) it has failed as a valid theory to explain our origins. Matter simply doesn't (as far as we have ever observed) spontaneously order itself - as almost certainly has taken place with regard to a multidude of living creatures today.

Roy: Snow flakes, diamonds, stars, molecules (like water, methane, ozone, carbon dioxide, to name only a few) do indeed spontaneously order themselves according to natural laws.

Randy: But the information contained in DNA (the backbone / program) of all life forms doesn't.

You are absolutely correct! Does that mean God exists, no... not yet at least. It means there needed to be mechanism which filters information; and that mechanism is natural selection. Anyway, I'm going to pound this into your head... molecules do act in complimentary ways... this occurs in simple stuff like water; and in larger stuff as well. Making molecular behavior a part of abiogenesis, not just time and chance. To think its only those two is to not understad, oversimplify and characiture abiogenesis. To do so is an afront to science, which you claim not to have a problem with.

Roy: If they didn't the universe would be a pretty boring place. Furthermore evolution kicks off when things are "alive", abiogenesis is the field of study for our origins. Evolution can have a hand in explaining simplier lifeforms than what we observe today, but our true origins will be about chemistry, not biology, hence evolution has no say.

Randy: Our true origin lies with the Creator, and is a result of His doing. The information in DNA is highly ordered, and could not have happened by mere time and chance.

Indeed it didn't, so stop saying it. So DNA is highly ordered, does that mean God had to have designed it? Or could there be a precursor to DNA? Think of it this way, English a popular language and continues to outmuscle rivals; there could be a time in the near future where English is the dominant language... was that always the case. No, of course not... there were previous languages, precursor's English borrowed from and improved upon.

Roy: BTW, you and I are in total agreement that matter needed to order itself to create the multitudes we see today.

Randy: I am not sure that we are in agreement as to how (or rather by whom)it was done though.

Indeed. :"D I'm not arguing I KNOW what it was, but I am attempting to show how, given the current evidence, abiogenesis is the most reasonable option. And abiogenesis does not rule out God; it rules out his guiding hand in creating life; but does NOT rule out God.

Roy: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge; it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

Randy: One day we will all come face to face with our Creator, and at which time we will all know how we got here -- and that it was not via time and chance, nor by the act of Nature (acting alone).

I'm doubtful that will occur. But we both have clear consciences we followed the evidence as it (or He) presented to us; and made our conclusions in agreement with our beliefs. I would submit that God would tell you, Randy... you were a true believer, but for goodness sake... its not time and chance alone! :"D

Roy: Stop implying things won't be solved, when its illogical to do so.

Randy: I believe one day, when we come face to face with our Creator, we will know without a doubt how we got here. However, to assert that we somehow got here by time and chance is not based on sound science, but rather on wild speculation and religious faith (in the power of evolution to preform feats that it simply can't do).

Indeed its not sound science; that's why scientists and evolutionists who know better don't maintain that's the case.

Roy: It's okay if you say, origins of life has not been solved. That's fine, but to blame evolution for that... or to say it won't be solved because only God could do it; that's over the line,

Randy: What is "over the line" is when people assert that we got here by time and chance acting through nature alone, or to say that this is somehow more scientific than to simply believe we were Created. Or to say that it is based on anything more than faith.

It's over the line to mischaracterize the thing your arguing against. Faith is insufficient on matters of science.

Roy: and frankly crazy talk based on ignorant statements like - "show me how proteins came into existance by chance" (paraphrasing), or "matter simply doesn't (as far as we have ever observed) spontaneously order itself." The former is simplistic, and the latter is simply dead wrong.

Randy: What I said is not crazy talk, but rather the truth. If you can show me where a living organism has been found that uses both right and left-handed amino acids, or explain how that first Mycoplasma could be formed by nature then please do so.

First off I don't have to show you anything in order for you to remember to remain open to possibilities; unless there is a good biological necessity for Homochiralic proteins... which there probably is now. :"D But that's not necessarily the case in the past with simpler lifeforms. Assuming Homochiralic is a given is to reduce alternatives before you've even considered them! So you want me to explain Mycoplasma evolution, or prove Mycoplasma evolution? Because the Internet has explanations, but of course not proof. The obvious avenue for mycoplasma evolution is that it evolved from a more complex organism. [1] Emphasis on the first sentence of this hypothesis: "Mycoplasmas are wall-less prokaryotes which have small genomes and are known to have evolved from ancestors of Gram-positive bacteria." The evolutionary path proposed is a hypothesis; but the ancestry of mycoplasmas is fact by DNA comparisons. [2]

Have you noticed every single time you propose a scientific anamoly with evolution, I'm quite capable of answering your questions with references which at worst say... we don't know. You propose that making proteins is beyond us; and that having 13 or 20 amino acids is evidence against evolution. Heh, that's some seriously biased opinions... seriously dude, we have 13, how long will it take to have 20... of course that doesn't matter to you, its not even the issue. You'll just focus on the next "problem" with abiogenesis without giving and inch on your beliefs.

Radiometric Dating comment by Roy, is not included here, as he chose not to do so.

Ummmm... sure. Probably for the best anyway. :'D

Randy: You mean like was done with the famous KBS tuff. Here is the Link if you are ever interested (in learning the truth about this).

http://www.earthage.org/radio/The%20Case%20of%20the%20KBS%20Tuff.htm

Note also that your Example is exposed in the Link above.

Roy: I'm sorry, but what I note is someone posting their opinions on a website in such a manner as their POV cannot to be challenged. If your opinions are so insightful post them to talk.origins so that they may be given an airing.

Randy: If anyone cares to comment on why what I said is untrue (if that be the case) then all they have to do is email me and explain why they believe the way they do. They are also free to comment on anything I say on any of the numerous debate forums that are available online. However, I, personally, have already spent about 2 years of my spare time debating evolutionists online, and derive very little pleasure from their (almost continual) personal attacks. It was also the Talkorigins site that prompted me to write an email to Dr. Kent Simmons with regard to the blatant lies he (still) has on his site. Here's the Link: http://www.earthage.org/intro/13%20of%2020%20amino%20acids.htm To their credit though, Talkorigins removed their link to his page after I confronted them about it. However, all they would have had to do was spent (about) 10-20 minutes of their own time to verify what was said before posting it to know that it was bogus. It was also the Talkorigins site that intitially caused me to consider writing a paper on Polystrate Fossils (which I eventually did) -- and posted my findings Here: http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm

I see, interesting back story. I've read it, and look at the talk.origins response... I agree with them.

"Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades." [3]

And I took this from an article linked to that page: "Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood creationists", have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation. "Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it." [4]

Here is the Full Version -- that Talk Origins Doesn't want to post.

Below is a summary of why I came to the conclusion I did (i.e. that none of the upright trees there are in situ, but rather have all been transported.

Extensive Roots Systems Or Root Systems Extensively Missing? | Note: If the above Link doesn't take you right there, then scroll down about 2/3rds into the document. It starts just above Reference #57. See also: 1 in 50 trees "appear" to be in situ.

See also: Appendix A: The Underclays of Joggins Below is a summary:

"Not all of the above beds qualify as "underclays", for many of them do not underlie a seam of coal or carbonaceous material, but rather are surrounded by shale or sandstone. Also, according to Logan (who also measured this section), few if any, are composed of clay.

Of the 24 coals, coaly shales, and carbonaceous shales that Dawson records in this section, only 19 have anything that remotely resembles a "soil/underclay" beneath them. Only one of these is listed in the table above since it was the only one Dawson said was an ancient soil; however, he said it contained Poacite (leaves) rather than Stigmaria. In this regard, Logan also lists at least two coals in this section that do not have "underclays" (with roots and/or rootlets) beneath them. Duff and Walton1 also list three coals in the Joggins Formation that do not have an underclay (seat-earth) beneath them.

The bituminous limestone of coal group 2 is not mentioned by Logan. It also is not mentioned by Dawson in his (1868) sequel of Acadian Geology; however, it is in the 1855 edition and in his 1853 paper. It not only has rootlets of Stigmaria, but also shells of Modiola, Cypris (later called Cythere, and today known as Ostracodes). We are also told that an erect tree is "rooted" in it.

Comments: From the table above there are 26 beds that contain only rootlets. In addition, there are 3 "underclays" with no roots at all, and 5 that have roots or stools (i.e. large roots) but no (mention of) rootlets. If we include the 4 (other) beds beneath coals that were not claimed (by Dawson) to be underclays, then we have a total of 38 out of 44 beds with either no roots at all, or which contain only roots or rootlets. Only 5 beds are listed that contain both roots and rootlets; none are said to contain "roots with rootlets", or "roots with attached rootlets". One of the five is said to have roots and rootlets of erect stumps, so it is probable that such rootlets were attached; however, this shale is immediately above a coal rather than below one. Therefore, out of 44 possible soils, only 3 contain both roots and rootlets that are also situated beneath a coal. When we take into account Dawson's eagerness to prove that the coals were formed in place, it is fairly safe to say that if any of these "soils" contained roots with attached rootlets, he would have eagerly said so. However, since he didn't, then to say that such beds represent in situ growth of multiple "forests" is highly questionable."

You don't have to agree with me, but if you keep altering this section then that tells me that either you are afraid of the truth, or that you lack integrity. --Truthteller 04:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore I'm unsure how upright trees in one location can led one to confidently assert there was a worldwide flood. Floods can be very devastating, and very localized.

Randy: I'm not swayed by comments if they are made in a vacuum; especially a vacuum you control.

Sounds like something I'd say :"D.

Randy: I do not have a monopoly on the truth. Neither do you. If anyone finds ANYTHING on my site that is verifiably untrue, and takes the time to point it out to me, I will either remove it, change it, or include a comment regarding its validity.

How wonderfully assuring; while you maintain the time and chance chant.

Roy: If you spout that there is an agenda out there... I'd agree, your agenda is to keep creationist arguments in your head as valid.

Randy: Actually I think they should be taught in the classrooms of the world, and that the students should be allowed to make up their own minds. But as it is, they are only taught one view, that is becoming less and less believable as we learn more and more about how Living things work.

The exact opposite is the case if you keep up with the research.

Roy: One way to do that is to collect them on a website and then refer to them constantly without actually researching scientific explanations beyond what you can dismiss.

Randy: Feel free to point out anything on my site that is untrue. If so, I will change it, as I desire people to know the truth and for that truth to set them free (to know God, and His Son, and to become the beings that their Creator wants them to be.) But just because you, or someone else says that something (or "everytyhing") on my site is untrue does not make it so.

Don't start that Randy, you make more typos than me. I watch you correct them. Your site could be on balance "true", but it remains misleading. Saying radiometric dating is not a rock solid dating method is completely true; and people should be reminded of that. But then to say, well that means all radiometric dating is garbage; well that's misleading and wishful thinking.

Randy: Evolution goes one step further and says that God Doesn't even exist.

Roy: When does evolution do that?

Randy: When it (falsely) asserts that evolution is somehow "scientific" -- as opposed to being based on BLIND Faith (in what their professor told them to believe). Or when it says that we are the products of mere time (i.e. "mythions" and "mythions" of years) and chance, (with a LOT of LUCK thrown in).

None of that contradicts God necessarily; it contradicts elements of the Bible; but to equate the Bible with God is your belief. You consider that belief truth etc etc, but I'll reiterate its faith. Which is fine! Truly is... but to confuse it with being the only interpretation is kind of scary.

Randy: If that were true, then How could He also tell us that He and His Son want to have a daily relationship with us, AND that unless we Seek Him and/or allow (and even invite) Him into our lives, we cannot come to KNOW HIM in the PERSONAL WAY that He says we must have. Matthew 7:21-23 Note also the words "KNEW" and our daily Practice.

I'm going to steer clear of further discussion on that; I've mentioned several times I do not consider the Bible the Word of God... so you saying it over and over and using it for evidence; won't accomplish much in supporting your case on rational grounds. Which is what I'm interested in.

Roy: An answer to that is obvious, the Bible is not His word.

Randy: I believe that it is -- and that we will be judged by what it says, even if we chose to ignore it.

What it says isn't remotely agreed to by the faithful; so I'd be a little stressed trying to figure out how I would be judged by the Bible; I just try to get along with everyone.

Roy: Anyway, what I was expressing was my opinion of what our relationship to God should be; I in no way intended it to represent how God is for everyone. Also we can know God personally; but that doesn't mean he "interfers" in a physical way in our world. God can communicate with us; but for Him to physically manipulate things on Earth is a step beyond that.

Randy: Speaking from both experience AND what we are plainly told in the Scriptures, I can say that you are EMPHATICALLY WRONG here. God is a LOT bigger than you appear to make Him out to be, and He controls a LOT more than you seem to realize. For example, Let's say I LIKE Suzie AND she LIKES Me. Let's further assume that her best friend tells me that she LIKES me. Does that mean that I will now be able to walk up to her and establish a healthy and wholesome relationship with her and make her laugh and have lots of fun together (since we both LIKE each other). The anwer is an EMPHATIC NO. That's because God, whether we like it or not, decides who we click with, how well we click with them, and who we clash with. Proverbs 16:1,9; Psalm 135:5-6 -- and MANY more.

Randy, seriously dude, just because you don't understand it... does not mean its not understandable. That's simply another god of gaps argument; we don't click, dunno why not... only God knows. For example eHarmony.com does character profiles and has good success getting people who click. If you want to understand clicking, take some psychology courses for darned sake!

Randy: Then please expain the following verses: Rev. 3:20; John 6:37; John 3:36 (i.e. How can we possible "obey" someone whom we can't even know, or who never tells us anything?). John 10:27-28 (again, how can we "Follow" someone whom we can't even know, or who never speaks to us in any way, shape, or form.

You could simply be talking to yourself; which isn't a bad thing... meditation and self-reflection are healthy. I should do it more often; but Wikipedia is so addictive. :'D Frankly I don't see those verses as any more accurate or authoritative as implying a bat is an unclean foul.

Roy: Knowing Him and having Him create floods and manipulate genetic blueprints is two different things. - RoyBoy 800 06:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Randy: Knowing Him and NOT knowing Him are also two different things -- that control who we are and how we behave. Matthew 7:21-23

Indeed very different things; and they do alter how we behave. But one is not necessarily all bad, and the other all good. People who believed in God committed and/or were complicit in genocide; people who were (at least officially atheist, Soviets) also did that. To KNOW God is not to become a great person; I consider a person thru his beliefs AND his works. I'm just concerned the benefits of religion are counter-balanced by its negative aspects when it becomes dominant.

"Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous."

- Frank Herbert (Dune Messiah)

- Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found some free time, so here goes:

Roy: I've already addressed this; but I'll reiterate and clarify for your benefit. Chance is not the only mechanism involved and you neglect something very important in your description. Homochiralic protein is in all current living things found thusfar. You are making implied assumptions that are unwarranted;

Randy: I am merely stating a fact of science. You are correct though, that 20 or 30 years from now (or pehaps tomorrow), that scientists may (???) find a form of life that does not have homochiralic proteins. But until they do, it is a matter of pure faith to believe that ancient life forms were any different than what we observe today (except that many former species have died out). Even if we found a species of life that had both forms of proteins, it still could not order it's own DNA, just as a monkey could never type a book (in a known language) by randomly pressing keys on a computer. Nor will you every get letters and words to appear by throwing paint at a wall.

Whenever you state a scientific "fact", I am forced to clarify. It is not a matter of pure faith, but of logical inference that life can be simplier than what we see today.

Randy: Of course it "can", but so far, every different type of Life form that we have every studied is incredibly complex. But the Metamorphosis of multitudes of insects is should tell us that such things didn't happen by chance, nor over "mythions of years", but rather by the active hand of a Creator/God -- unless of course we really don't want to Give God any credit (and in which case we may try to ignore what is staring us in the face, and pretend or imagine that "somehow" evolution had something to do with it.

Roy:I agree... they didn't happen by "chance" (and time) alone; and evolution doesn't assert such a thing. And let me point out you really want to give God credit; hence any gap in our knowledge you reflexibly credit to Him. I'm sorry but that's the unknown staring us in the face in the examples you cite; not (necessarily) God.

Snip

Roy :Key word is proven... which you have a peculiar notion is all that matters in science. Absolutely everything we see indicates an old Earth;

Randy: That statement tells me that either you are dishonest, or have never taken the time to check out the facts. I used to believe that Old Earth Garbage only because I thought it made sense, and that scientists could'nt be wrong. Then I became aware of God's existence and slowly realized that we have been lied to, and that scientists were BIASED and were actually LOOKING for an excuse to not believe in a Creator, and so they have turned to the (scientifically baseless) theory of evolution -- meaning that they have to have an OLD EARTH in order to prop up their theory and lead the uniformed naive astray. And that more I have looking into the facts in this regard, the more convinced I have become that the earth, and solar system, and Universe really are young.

Good Day.

Roy: So let me get the sequence straight... you became a Creationist and that's what made you convinced the scientists were biased against God (even though many scientists believe in God) and the evidence is faulty. I would like to think if the evidence was actually that bad it would have been those mistakes which led you to discredit evolution first; and then fall back to Creation. But apparently it was Creation first; re-examining the evidence second; which indicates to me another bias might be involved. Finally, I have to express deep skepticism that uninformed naive people are following science and education rather than choosing certain religions and beliefs. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Abiogenesis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Searching for the phrase 'origin of life' redirects to the 'abiogenesis' page, noting that non-scientific (e.g. not conforming to the dogmas of science) hypotheses on the origin of life can be found on the 'creation myth' page. This is not a neutral point of view. It reflects a bias in favor of materialism (a central dogma to the religion of scientism) while relegating competing hypotheses to the category of mythology. The theory of abiogenesis (life arising from non-living matter) is no less an article of faith than any other so-called creation myth.74.115.76.249 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC) rated top as high school/SAT biology content - tameeria 14:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)