BF2S Forums How do dinosaurs and creationism co-exist?

JaMDuDe wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

Life cannot spontaneous generate. Spontaneous generation is a hypothesis that is 100% faith based.

Well, given that I've already proven that God doesn't exist it's the only alternative that remains.

Youve proven that God isnt floating above the clouds, nothing more. Hes not limited to mathmatics for this universe.

Amino acids arent even close to creating life. Can you show me the experiment?

Amino acids are quite close to building life - a heck of a lot closer than a bloke in the sky with a beard. Polypeptides make up the basic protein building blocks of RNA which is central to genetics, which are quite important in life. Scientists have not yet been able to spontaneously create all the amino acids that would be required to form any sort of life, however, some forms of amino acids have been spontaneously created from basic atomic particles and current scientific theories support the belief that many more, if not all, amino acids could be created in this fashion. The first of these experiments (Miller/Urey Experiment) was conducted in 1953 and since then understanding of genetics has come a long way - especially with the mapping of the human genome.


I see you take quite a dim view of matierialism (belief in what we can see, feel and touch). I think it says a lot that the only people who disagree with evolution are those who follow a religion. Who are undeniably biased, since they have been indoctrinated by the teachings of their religion, which they believe to be more reliable than statements made by scientists.

JaMDuDe wrote:

The miller-urey experiment didnt use the right chemicals. They used the chemicals that would make amino acids, not what was on earth. If all you need for life is water, chemicals, and energy why has it never been done?

I found this to be some interesting reading - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … mp;id=3209

Not the right chemicals? Methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water - they sound like chemicals that would plausibly be around on earth -  Hydrocarbons, which form the basis of organic chemistry.
They are just chemicals, water and energy.

"why has it never been done?" It has, how do you think we got here.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-12 13:41:48)

The bible seems to omit a lot of stuff like that....

JaMDuDe wrote:

Unoriginal if you have some random amino acids they arent just going to fall into place and create life. Ok, my bad, scientists can BUILD life from those things.

Why not? Ever done a chemistry experiment, strange stuff happens when chemicals combine in extreme conditions. The sort of conditions that scientists recreate.

JaMDuDe wrote:

Ill probably get flamed for this, but here it is anyway! http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/ … enesis.asp

Hahahahahaha.

What about all the other experiments creating amino acids and nucleotide base elements conducted since the Miller/Urey experiment. This site offers no explaination for them and there have been MANY in assorted conditions. An early example being Juan Oro's experiment, which produced large quantities of adenine and took place in an aqueous solution, not in atmosphere.

JaMDuDe wrote:

If you put random amino acids in a test tube, a living organism isnt going to appear. Never mind an ocean.


Spontaneous generation has never happened. Even in miller-urey experiment where they had the wrong conditions they only got amino acids. Even if they could get amino acids in the correct conditions it would still be very far from life. I dont know much about these other experiments, but i doubt they had the correct conditions. Could you give me a good link or something?

The universe is widely accepted as infinite.  It's a case of random permutations eventually becoming a self sustaining, reproductive reaction.  Saying it's never happened is meaningless, because it's not the same as saying "It's impossible for this to occur".  So, do you really think it's impossible for this to occur?  Remember we aren't talking about something on the scale of a test-tube or an ocean, we talking within an infinity of time and an infinity of space.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

If you put random amino acids in a test tube, a living organism isnt going to appear. Never mind an ocean.


Spontaneous generation has never happened. Even in miller-urey experiment where they had the wrong conditions they only got amino acids. Even if they could get amino acids in the correct conditions it would still be very far from life. I dont know much about these other experiments, but i doubt they had the correct conditions. Could you give me a good link or something?

The universe is widely accepted as infinite.  It's a case of random permutations eventually becoming a self sustaining, reproductive reaction.  Saying it's never happened is meaningless, because it's not the same as saying "It's impossible for this to occur".  So, do you really think it's impossible for this to occur?  Remember we aren't talking about something on the scale of a test-tube or an ocean, we talking within an infinity of time and an infinity of space.

Technically nothing is impossible, we just havent figured out how to do everything yet. We dont know if the universe is infinite. I know that randomness is not the best explanation. You make a good point, ill say there is infinite time and space for a minute. If we have infinite time and space, why did life form almost at the same time the conditions were right for it? Id expect life to take tens of billions of years to randomly form in the "soup". Are you saying that this is just another case of extreme luck?

JaMDuDe wrote:

If you put random amino acids in a test tube, a living organism isnt going to appear. Never mind an ocean.

Might do. That's the whole point. It's not impossible. It is possible for some amino acids to combine into polypeptides and it is possible for polypeptides to become a form of mRNA. You have to remember what random means - they could by pure chance be the right amino acids in exactly the right conditions.

JaMDuDe wrote:

Spontaneous generation has never happened. Even in miller-urey experiment where they had the wrong conditions they only got amino acids. Even if they could get amino acids in the correct conditions it would still be very far from life. I dont know much about these other experiments, but i doubt they had the correct conditions. Could you give me a good link or something?

Yes it has. The Miller-Urey experiment is just the first in a long series of experiments. Think about it, the experiment happened in 1951 - 55 years ago! Look at how far science has come since then.
They didn't necessarily have the wrong conditions in the Miller-Urey experiment either, since opinion is divided as to whether oxygen became a primary part of our atmosphere, before or after the first stages of biological evolution had occurred. Where the Miller-Urey experiment really falls down is on the fact that it does not produce all the necessary amino acids to form any sort of life, at least not on their own. The amino acids created in the experiment were all 'left handed' amino acids, the hydroxy acids and other organic compounds produced however would also be useful in the creation process. If nothing else the Miller-Urey experiment proved that organic compounds could arise through non-organic processes, which is a very important step to have taken.

Oro's experiments producing amino acids and adenine from Hydrogen Cyanide and Ammonia in an aqueous solution is probably far closer to how it really occured. Adenine is a VERY important building block for life, "one of the four nitrogenous bases that combine with a phosphate and a sugar (deoxyribose for DNA and ribose for RNA) to form the nucleotides represented by the genetic code: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). In RNA molecules, the nitrogenous base uracil (U) substitutes for thymine. Adenine is also a fundamental component of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a molecule important in many genetic and cellular functions.". Remember G, C, T, and A, the component parts of strands of DNA, RNA and mRNA, adenine is A.

The Murchison meteorite also proved that different forms of amino acids are found in space, some of these amino acids combining with the amino acids that could quite possibly have formed on Earth could have led to the early stages of life.

There are gaps which need to be filled. But their is, in my opinion, enough data to prove that it was possible for organic chemicals to form into simple biogenetic matierials.

A quick question --

isn't time abstract?  We like to think of it as measurable, but in the universe I think time is non existent.  At least that's what I read somewhere.

Bertster7 wrote:

Why did life form when conditions were right for it? You've just answered your own question. Life formed because conditions were right for it to form. There were many millions of years when this could have occurred. Not just a case of extreme luck.

That didnt answer my question. The chances are higher than once in many millions of years. I believe the current odds are once in a time older than the universe. Just because the conditions are right for something doesnt mean its just going to appear. For random amino acids and everything else needed for life (we dont know how they formed) to fall together and make life takes a very long time. At random, it takes more than many millions of years.

PuckMercury wrote:

Does the existence of dinosaurs cause a kink in the theory of creationism?  Or, is it simply a convenient omission from the Bible?  How do you explain dinosaurs from the confines of religion and creationism?  Are you of the mindset that dinosaurs are simply an elaborate hoax?

I don't recall anywhere in the Bible saying dinosaurs never existed. The Bible also doesn't mention monkeys, is that another "convenient omission"?

The Bible, Old and New Testament, and the Quoran both speak in parables. When the Bible says that Eve was created from a rib from Adam (I'm translating this passage from Portuguese, I am not sure if thats exactly how it is told in English) it can mean many things, but not necessarily that God actually made Eve from a piece of Adam. Actually, Adam and Eve don't even have to have actually existed...

I know the Bible directly mentions ostriches. Ostriches are funny.

You'd have a pastor or preacher tell you that there is some obscure passage in the bible mentioning great dragons or some shit.
The fact is this debunks all religions, for how could God not mention one of his creations in full detail, everything else was mentioned in detail.
Wake up people, religion is the greatest thing that hinders man & separates him from becoming one with a common goal, when & if we ever reach that day we will see greater things than the 7 wonders of the world.