# Smithsonian and evolution



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 9, 2012)

Just got back from a GREAT 4-day vacation to Washington, DC!   Wow, what a place.   I had never been there before, and I could not believe all there was to see!  Even the places I thought might be boring had interesting things inside!!!   IMO, the Air and Space museum and the Holocaust museum had the most lasting affect.

Anyway, I wanted to discuss the Natural History museum with you guys.    I was amazed at how much disinformation and deception they display there!    Numerous things that I know science has dis-proven are still displayed for others to read!   For example, whale evolution....which numerous evolutionary scientists still debate....was displayed.   They had good ole 'ambulocetus ' (walking whale  lmbo) hung up for all to see....and in a swimming position, even though it was a full land-walking mammal.     They had our "ancestors" with all the "artist conception" long hair....dark skin....thick eyebrows....etc.    I heard others commenting about how hilarious it was, too!     Propaganda       They even had a "How butterflies helped evolution" area....but, for some reason, they did not discuss how butterflies could have evolved!       No discussion of how the fossils of bats or platypus are, you guessed it, bats and platypus!   

The Air and Space museum was AWESOME!   That Hubble telescope is worth every penny!     

Bandy


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 9, 2012)

"Easy Believeism".
It's a problem in Christianity.
It's a problem in evolution.


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 9, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> "Easy Believeism".
> It's a problem in Christianity.
> It's a problem in evolution.



Thats actually a really good point RT.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2012)

How was the Museum of Religion?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> "Easy Believeism".
> It's a problem in Christianity.
> It's a problem in evolution.



Well put Ron. Neither has it wrong but neither has it right.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How was the Museum of Religion?



That's what I was referring to....the Atheists Smithsonian Museums.     Faith in Time.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well put Ron. Neither has it wrong but neither has it right.



One of them could be right, but not both.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> One of them could be right, but not both.



Both could be wrong.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 9, 2012)

As Nobel Laureate George Wald states....  “we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”

Faith in Chance....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Both could be wrong.



Logically, yes.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Propaganda





Maybe the current administration could be using that as propaganda... Republican propaganda would look like what you would want to see


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Both could be wrong.



Both could be right!

I'm not a naysayer on much, I 'see' what God allows me to 'see'.

If there are things in caves that look like space men instead of apes, then so be it..I don't have a problem believing there is much more than what we see right here on this earth....if I believe in the supernatural, both good and evil, then my 'imagination' is limitless.

I believe in God by faith.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 9, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe the current administration could be using that as propaganda... Republican propaganda would look like what you would want to see



Any political anything is gonna be propaganda, that's all they got.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 10, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> "Easy Believeism".
> It's a problem in Christianity.
> It's a problem in evolution.



I wasn't actually referring to Christianity or to evolution.
I was referring to people.
People from both sides proclaim facts and details they cannot know.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 10, 2012)

I think anyone who looks even a million years into the past is looking into a dark cave.
All the fossils in all the mountains of the world would only confuse us more.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Anyway, I wanted to discuss the Natural History museum with you guys.    I was amazed at how much disinformation and deception they display there!    Numerous things that I know science has dis-proven are still displayed for others to read!   For example, whale evolution....which numerous evolutionary scientists still debate....was displayed.   They had good ole 'ambulocetus ' (walking whale  lmbo) hung up for all to see....and in a swimming position, even though it was a full land-walking mammal.     They had our "ancestors" with all the "artist conception" long hair....dark skin....thick eyebrows....etc.    I heard others commenting about how hilarious it was, too!     Propaganda       They even had a "How butterflies helped evolution" area....but, for some reason, they did not discuss how butterflies could have evolved!       No discussion of how the fossils of bats or platypus are, you guessed it, bats and platypus!


2 things:
a) Did you tell someone there about what you consider holes in their presentation?
b) Have you considered taking your family to the Creation Museum to reorient them?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> 2 things:
> a) Did you tell someone there about what you consider holes in their presentation?
> b) Have you considered taking your family to the Creation Museum to reorient them?



lol    I'm sure if I know the 'holes', they know the holes.   I was surprised that they had the coelacanth and other 'living' fossils presented.    No explanation, though, for how they could have remained unchanged for all of time.  

Actually, I have been thinking about a trip to the Creation Museum.   Would be nice to see how they present the fossil evidence.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I think anyone who looks even a million years into the past is looking into a dark cave.
> All the fossils in all the mountains of the world would only confuse us more.



One thing we aren't confused about; it takes a catastrophe to make a fossil.


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

Wow this is wild stuff. I've spoken with some theists before, debated, etc. I've only ever met one person in real life that flat out denied biology & evolution. It was a Jehovah's witness.

It freaks me out every time i hear about it on the internet. Sad Stuff


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

Are you saying that you've only ever met one theist that didn't believe in evolution?


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Are you saying that you've only ever met one theist that didn't believe in evolution?



Only one that outright denied it, some didnt understand it at all, or accepted most of it. Generally the most common position I've come across is the divinely inspired evolution. stuff like that. (in real life, internet doesn't count)


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

Four said:


> Only one that outright denied it, some didnt understand it at all, or accepted most of it. Generally the most common position I've come across is the divinely inspired evolution. stuff like that. (in real life, internet doesn't count)



Well, it's good to see you've escalated your debating to the next level.        IMO, the 'divinely inspired evolution' group isn't working with all the facts.


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Well, it's good to see you've escalated your debating to the next level.        IMO, the 'divinely inspired evolution' group isn't working with all the facts.



I guess it's perspective. . . I see it as the opposite. I see the evolution denial position much like how i view the people that are still trying to prove the earth is flat.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

Welcome to a place where you can learn the reasons many (including Nobel prize winners, innumerable PHDs, etc) don't believe in evolution.     

I had mentioned the whale evolution that was 'preached' at the Smithsonian.....   I take it you are a firm believer in what they list as the lineage?


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Welcome to a place where you can learn the reasons many (including Nobel prize winners, innumerable PHDs, etc) don't believe in evolution.
> 
> I had mentioned the whale evolution that was 'preached' at the Smithsonian.....   I take it you are a firm believer in what they list as the lineage?



lol..

I'm not familiar with whale evolution, I can't speak on the subject. I'm a firm believer in the scientific method, and any theory that has withstood the rigors of said method.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

Four said:


> I guess it's perspective. . . I see it as the opposite. I see the evolution denial position much like how i view the people that are still trying to prove the earth is flat.



How do you think inantimate matter evolved into consciousness?


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How do you think inantimate matter evolved into consciousness?



I believe that's apart of abiogenesis, not evolution.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

origin of life is a topic they'd rather not discuss.   lol


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How do you think inantimate matter evolved into consciousness?



They're still workin' on that one, String


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

Four said:


> I believe that's apart of abiogenesis, not evolution.



Ok, the start before evolution.

 What are your thoughts on abiogenesis? Do you put your faith in it or hold it a just a theory?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> They're still workin' on that one, String



They should probably start whistlin', it helps with work that seems to have no end.


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, the start before evolution.



Well, in some respects yes, but there is a pretty clear distinction between the two fields. I guess technically abiogenesis is a field, and evolution is a theory within the field of biology, but modern biology is so reliant on the results of evolutionary theory that the relationship is closer.

_"Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."_

Perhaps more simply, evolution is genetic change in organisms from parent to offspring.

Abiogenesis, is the study of the organic being created from the inorganic.



stringmusic said:


> What are your thoughts on abiogenesis? Do you put your faith in it or hold it a just a theory?



It's an interesting field... There are a few competing theories out there, i don't necessarily subscribe to one over the other. Many of them lean on each-other in some way or another.

I think the Miller-Urey experiment is pretty cool, were they were able to recreate (although somewhat crudely at the time) early earth conditions and actually observe the forming of organic compounds from inorganic compounds. 

Another way Sidney W. Fox's work were he basically cooked lava rocks and amino acids and it formed proteinoids, and the proteinoids had combined to form small spheres  called protobionts that clumped together in chains as do blue-green algae, pretty cool stuff. They even reproduced asexually and had a sort of cell-wall . . they didn't have DNA though.

I don't have faith in any of it, To me faith is the belief in something without evidence. I acknowledge evolution as fact, it's easily observable, and well established. That doesn't mean we know all we can know on it, they're still mapping more and more genomes as well as finding fossils, not to mention evolutionary psychology! 

In terms of abiogenesis, it seems clear that the organic must have come from the inorganic, and there are some reproducible experiments that show some pretty good progress. But the theories in this field aren't nearly as tried and established as evolution.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> IMO, the 'divinely inspired evolution' group isn't working with all the facts.




.....or, they are working with _all_ the facts.  HArd to deny evolution has occurred.  I went to a pretty well known Christian University for my undergrad.  Even the 7-day creationists teaching there admit evolution has occurred.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> .....or, they are working with _all_ the facts.  HArd to deny evolution has occurred.  I went to a pretty well known Christian University for my undergrad.  Even the 7-day creationists teaching there admit evolution has occurred.



JB, it is a standstill on this forum. The guys that are anti-evolution overlook the thousands of examples of evidence that shows evolution and stick to the small handful of examples that have not been proven yet in a few species.
On the other hand they tout a divine creator through deductive reasoning without even ONE example of who,what or how. Simply using words like supernatural and "not bound to our laws" as proof.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> .....or, they are working with _all_ the facts.  HArd to deny evolution has occurred.  I went to a pretty well known Christian University for my undergrad.  Even the 7-day creationists teaching there admit evolution has occurred.



et tu, Brute?     Where do you believe evolution has occured?  I'm talking macro-evolution.    What lesser organism evolved into a much more complex organism?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> JB, it is a standstill on this forum. The guys that are anti-evolution overlook the thousands of examples of evidence that shows evolution and stick to the small handful of examples that have not been proven yet in a few species.
> On the other hand they tout a divine creator through deductive reasoning without even ONE example of who,what or how. Simply using words like supernatural and "not bound to our laws" as proof.



It's a standstill because you guys, as George Wald states, believe the impossible....that life came about by chance.


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> et tu, Brute?     Where do you believe evolution has occured?  I'm talking macro-evolution.    What lesser organism evolved into a much more complex organism?



the concept of macro and micro evolution isn't really a scientific concept, to the best of my knowledge it was coined by creationists so they can try to ignore evolution.

There is no clear definition of species. Evolution occurs constantly, every time an organism is created.

edit: the difference between what you can macro and micro evolution is just scale.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> et tu, Brute?     Where do you believe evolution has occured?  I'm talking macro-evolution.    What lesser organism evolved into a much more complex organism?



From: http://life3.beyondgenes.com/

"when we consider that for each mode of life involving greater complexity, there probably exists an equally advantageous style based on greater simplicity of form (as often found in parasites, for example), then preferential evolution toward complexity seems unlikely a priori. Our impression that life evolves toward greater complexity is probably only a bias inspired by parochial focus on ourselves, and consequent overattention to complexifying creatures, while we ignore just as many lineages adapting equally well by becoming simpler in form. The morphologically degenerate parasite, safe within its host, has just as much prospect for evolutionary success as its gorgeously elaborate relative coping with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in a tough external world.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

by 'evolution', I'm referring to an organism with 200+ genes adding genes over time and becoming an organism with 100's or 1000s of genes.    For evolution to be true, we should see it all the time, but, the only time we see genetic information added is when lab coats splice it in.

That was another thing I found funny at the Smithsonian....and which I know you guys believe....that Homo Erectus and Neanderthals bred.....but they still called them different species.    lol      interbred=same species.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

geeezzzzz, Bullet, ease up with the cut-and-pastes!!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> It's a standstill because you guys, as George Wald states, believe the impossible....that life came about by chance.



Parry/thrust.....
I believe life has always lived somewhere before here. How it got here is what I'd like to find out.


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> by 'evolution', I'm referring to an organism with 200+ genes adding genes over time and becoming an organism with 100's or 1000s of genes.    For evolution to be true, we should see it all the time, but, the only time we see genetic information added is when lab coats splice it in.



eh? genetic information is added all the time in the form of mutations, which are imperfect copies of DNA. Lots of it is tossed out, however.



BANDERSNATCH said:


> That was another thing I found funny at the Smithsonian....and which I know you guys believe....that Homo Erectus and Neanderthals bred.....but they still called them different species.    lol      interbred=same species.



Like i mentioned earlier, we have no perfect definition of species. interbred != same species necessarily.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Parry/thrust.....
> I believe life has always lived somewhere before here. How it got here is what I'd like to find out.



you won't.         just moves the problem somewhere else.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> geeezzzzz, Bullet, ease up with the cut-and-pastes!!!!!



Says the Guy that quotes Flew and Wald....

Can't help it if they make sense and say it better than I can put into words.
I'll admit that with most of this stuff I am out of element but luckily I can get the point across...with examples... from guys that know it much better than I do.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> et tu, Brute?



Now I feel like a traitor.....hear me out......



BANDERSNATCH said:


> Where do you believe evolution has occured?  I'm talking macro-evolution.    What lesser organism evolved into a much more complex organism?



Macro, not sure.  But, we definitely have micro evolution all around us.  The evolutionist' tree of life has one trunk.  A creationist tree of life is like an orchard.  They _both_ have branches.  How can a creationist say evolution does not occur while acknowledging species evolve all the time?

Where the evolutionists get stuck is assuming that if life spontaneously occurred, it did so in just one form.  Why would that be?  That is just as limiting as believing God created life.

I do believe God created life, and evolution is the engine that drove it to where we are today.  I do not know how many forms he created.  I believe humans are very unique within the animal kingdom, and as such are evidence of a creator.

Outside of that, I don't know.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> you won't.         just moves the problem somewhere else.



And your solution to the problem is a being that has always existed and created something from nothing. What is the minimal gene set of that being?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Says the Guy that quotes Flew and Wald....
> 
> Can't help it if they make sense and say it better than I can put into words.
> I'll admit that with most of this stuff I am out of element but luckily I can get the point across...with examples... from guys that know it much better than I do.



Guys that "speculate" it  (as Hawkings did)    You are quoting speculation.   If that's how you debate, then carry on.  

Are you comparing my one sentence quote to your paragraphs of mouse clicks?   lol


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And your solution to the problem is a being that has always existed and created something from nothing. What is the minimal genes set of that being?



I believe, as Flew stated, that since it's impossible for life to have just come together, that there was a Mind behind it's design.    Chemicals didn't care to be anything other than what they were.    I think if you guys could ever get that into your heads -- that chemicals weren't 'trying' to be anything else or better, you'll be on your way to 'enlightenment'   

There was no "kickstart"....no Origin-Of-Life BBQ


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I believe, as Flew stated, that since it's impossible for life to have just come together, that there was a Mind behind it's design.    Chemicals didn't care to be anything other than what they were.    I think if you guys could ever get that into your heads -- that chemicals weren't 'trying' to be anything else or better, you'll be on your way to 'enlightenment'
> 
> There was no "kickstart"....no Origin-Of-Life BBQ



I'll believe that too if you can show me ANY proof.

Agreed on the chemicals not wanting or trying to be anything other than what they are.  It is when something brings them together that they react whether they "want to" or not.
What that something is has us at odds.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Guys that "speculate" it  (as Hawkings did)    You are quoting speculation.   If that's how you debate, then carry on.
> 
> Are you comparing my one sentence quote to your paragraphs of mouse clicks?   lol



So saying a supreme being with a Mind HAD to make it is not speculation????????


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

Don't wanna get the whip for another copy/paste so I'll give ya a URL.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2012)

Four said:


> I think the Miller-Urey experiment is pretty cool, were they were able to recreate (although somewhat crudely at the time) early earth conditions and actually observe the forming of organic compounds from inorganic compounds.


Do we even know what "early earth conditions" even were, especially enough to recreate them? 



> Another way Sidney W. Fox's work were he basically cooked lava rocks and amino acids and it formed proteinoids, and the proteinoids had combined to form small spheres  called protobionts that clumped together in chains as do blue-green algae, pretty cool stuff. They even reproduced asexually and had a sort of cell-wall . . *they didn't have DNA though*.


And I would say that is a problem when trying to recreate what actually happened. The scientist doing these experiments don't know how to recreate exactly what happened in the beginning, the reasons you and I have for that probably differ.



> That doesn't mean we know all we can know on it, they're still mapping more and more genomes as well as finding fossils, not to mention *evolutionary psychology*!


 



> In terms of abiogenesis,* it seems clear *that the organic must have come from the inorganic, and there are some reproducible experiments that show some pretty good progress. But the theories in this field aren't nearly as tried and established as evolution.



Not to me, and not to a lot of people, including other scientist I'm sure.


----------



## Four (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do we even know what "early earth conditions" even were, especially enough to recreate them?



We have a fairly good idea. Good enough to replicate it enough to see a similar reaction to what was theorized prior to the experiment



stringmusic said:


> And I would say that is a problem when trying to recreate what actually happened. The scientist doing these experiments don't know how to recreate exactly what happened in the beginning, the reasons you and I have for that probably differ.



That is a little bit of a problem, we have a good idea though. Is the difference you think the earth is under 10,000 years old? lol



stringmusic said:


>



eh? evolutionary psychology has come up with some pretty cool ideas as to why homo-sapians act certain ways.



stringmusic said:


> Not to me, and not to a lot of people, including other scientist I'm sure.



Right well, some people think Elvis is still alive.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 10, 2012)

Four said:


> Right well, some people think Elvis is still alive.



And some think he evolved from an ape....one is just as likely as the other.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> And some think he evolved from an ape....one is just as likely as the other.



Actually apes and Elvis each evolved from a common ancestor.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How do you think inantimate matter evolved into consciousness?



I don't know personally.  But the talking snake story isn't a very attractive explanation to me.


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> and some think he evolved from an ape-like creature



ftfy


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> We have a fairly good idea. Good enough to replicate it enough to see a similar reaction to what was theorized prior to the experiment


We can barely predict the weather a week away, I find it hard to believe we know much about the conditions of earth that long ago.





> That is a little bit of a problem, we have a good idea though.* Is the difference you think the earth is under 10,000 years old?* lol


No sir it's not.





> eh? evolutionary psychology has come up with some pretty cool ideas as to why homo-sapians act certain ways.


I imagine if they are correct in their ideas, it would be similiar to some 2,000 year old writings I know of.





> Right well, some people think Elvis is still alive.


Believing elvis is still alive and taking abiogenesis as truth is as far apart as East and West.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> And some think he evolved from an ape....one is just as likely as the other.





bullethead said:


> Actually apes and Elvis each evolved from a common ancestor.



Yea mtnwoman, how do you think Elvis learned to dance like that?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I don't know personally.  But the talking snake story isn't a very attractive explanation to me.



Why?


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> We can barely predict the weather a week away, I find it hard to believe we know much about the conditions of earth that long ago.



Unless you care to quantify what "that much" is, i suggest you quit harping on this point. We obviously can get close enough to get inorganic matter to form into organic compounds / amino acids, the building blocks of life.




stringmusic said:


> I imagine if they are correct in their ideas, it would be similiar to some 2,000 year old writings I know of.



Of course you would. I think generally evolutionary psychology doesn't have such displeasure with the physical, as the Torah based religions do.




stringmusic said:


> Believing elvis is still alive and taking abiogenesis as truth is as far apart as East and West.



abiogenesis is just the study of the inorganic turning organic, which we KNOW happens because we can replicate it. We know the early universe didn't have inorganic matter, and now it does. It's like denying that helium was created from hydrogen.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> *Unless you care to quantify *what "that much" is, i suggest you quit harping on this point. We obviously can get close enough to get inorganic matter to form into organic compounds / amino acids, the building blocks of life.


I could ask you the same thing.



Four said:


> We have a* fairly good idea*.Good enough to replicate it enough to see a *similar reaction *to what was *theorized* prior to the experiment






> abiogenesis is just the study of the inorganic turning organic, which *we KNOW happens because we can replicate it.*


With influence from lab coats, hardly what probably actually happened.

"We have a_ close idea _of what _might_ have happened, enough so, that we can replicate it enough that a _possible theory _can be reached"...... Yep.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why?



You're asking me to explain why a talking snake doesn't make sense?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

Six million dollar ham said:


> You're asking me to explain why a talking snake doesn't make sense?



How about this, what would make sense to you for the origin or man, anything?


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

You're hilarious with your attempts to ignore what happened. You keep trying to point out that science doesn't know all the variables, and that's true. But science is trying, it's searching, experimenting, looking for truth getting better and better each time. So why would you discount and laugh at the hard work and efforts of people devoting there lives to further knowledge, the same type of people and same methods used to develop and discover the antibiotics you use, the gun you hunt with, the instruments and methods used to help your wife and child survive child birth. You can laugh at these "lab coats" all you like, but you look like a fool. I cant hear what your saying over the sounds of your actions.

They mixed up methane, ammonia and hydrogen, with no oxygen and nitrogen, because it's thought that that's what the early earth was like. They added electricity and got the organic from the inorganic, complain all you want about a lack of knowledge, and missing variables but it happened, they turned the inorganic to organic. It's peer reviewed and studied by multiple sources. Is it an exact replication of how the inorganic turned organic some billions of years ago? Unlikely, but they'll keep looking, keep exploring, keep testing and refining there theories. You'll keep Heehaawing about some tales from the desert told by average illiterate, superstitious and ignorant people.

My only regret is that any children you have or might have will have to listen to it as if it's true.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> You're hilarious with your attempts to ignore what happened. You keep trying to point out that science doesn't know all the variables, and that's true. But science is trying, it's searching, experimenting, looking for truth getting better and better each time. So why would you discount and laugh at the hard work and efforts of people devoting there lives to further knowledge, the same type of people and same methods used to develop and discover the antibiotics you use, the gun you hunt with, the instruments and methods used to help your wife and child survive child birth. You can laugh at these "lab coats" all you like, but you look like a fool. I cant hear what your saying over the sounds of your actions.
> 
> They mixed up methane, ammonia and hydrogen, with no oxygen and nitrogen, because it's thought that that's what the early earth was like. They added electricity and got the organic from the inorganic, complain all you want about a lack of knowledge, and missing variables but it happened, they turned the inorganic to organic. It's peer reviewed and studied by multiple sources. Is it an exact replication of how the inorganic turned organic some billions of years ago? Unlikely, but they'll keep looking, keep exploring, keep testing and refining there theories. You'll keep Heehaawing about some tales from the desert told by average illiterate, superstitious and ignorant people.
> 
> My only regret is that any children you have or might have will have to listen to it as if it's true.



Four, you know Miller's experiment not only 'assumed' that there was a sea of chemicals available, but also drowned out the resulting amino acid in TAR!!!      

I applaud science for trying to figure out nature, as it has helped millions, and taught us more than all who have lived before us knew.   On the plane to Washington the other day I made note that only a very very small percentage of people who have ever lived have flown.   What a privilege! 

thank you, scientists, for all you do.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> You're hilarious with your attempts to ignore what happened.


Thanks, I like to make people laugh, but I am not trying to ignore anything, I know the scientists did the experiments. I'm not sure where you came up with this?



> You keep trying to point out that science doesn't know all the variables, and that's true. But science is trying, it's searching, experimenting, looking for truth getting better and better each time.


So whats the problem? I'm pointing out something that you admit to be true and it seems to be frustrating to you.  



> So why would you discount and laugh at the hard work and efforts of people devoting there lives to further knowledge, the same type of people and same methods used to develop and discover the antibiotics you use, the gun you hunt with, the instruments and methods used to help your wife and child survive child birth.


HUH?? When did I "laugh and discount" scientist who come up with medicines and guns and the meds to help my wife and son?

 I just don't believe science can replicate what happened in the beginning, one big reason is I don't think they even know what early earth conditions were, it's a guess. What instrument could be used to tell us what it was like that long ago? Point out to me some good ways we know what early earth conditions were. 



> You can laugh at these "lab coats" all you like, but you look like a fool. I cant hear what your saying over the sounds of your actions.


Again, I haven't laughed at anything, people who make assumptions look like fools.



> They mixed up methane, ammonia and hydrogen, with no oxygen and nitrogen, because it's thought that that's what the early earth was like.* They added electricity *and got the organic from the inorganic, complain all you want about a lack of knowledge, and missing variables but it happened, they turned the inorganic to organic. It's peer reviewed and studied by multiple sources. Is it an exact replication of how the inorganic turned organic some billions of years ago? Unlikely, but they'll keep looking, keep exploring, keep testing and refining there theories. You'll keep Heehaawing about some tales from the desert told by average illiterate, superstitious and ignorant people.


Hence my "labcoats" comment.

 I think it's a great feat for science to think what early earth was like and then make an experiment based on those thoughts(please pick up on the sarcasm) I just don't take it as complete truth or worship science like a god like most atheist do.



> My only regret is that any children you have or might have will have to listen to it as if it's true.


I don't really care about your regrets.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

Another problem with this conversation is that you somehow think I hate science, which is not the case. I like science a lot, I just don't worship it or sip everything they tell me from a cup.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Four, you know Miller's experiment not only 'assumed' that there was a sea of chemicals available, but also drowned out the resulting amino acid in TAR!!!


Yea but it was "close enough" for it to be taught in schools and used on the GON forum to refute us Christians. 



> I applaud science for trying to figure out nature, as it has helped millions, and taught us more than all who have lived before us knew.   On the plane to Washington the other day I made note that only a very very small percentage of people who have ever lived have flown.   What a privilege!
> 
> thank you, scientists, for all you do.



X2


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

I wasnt trying to use the Miller–Urey experiment to disprove Christianity, I was asked this question



stringmusic said:


> How do you think inantimate matter evolved into consciousness?



I then said that evolution doesn't talk about that issue, that's abiogenesis, then spoke about some competing theories in the field . . that's it . . then the experiments i spoke about got called into question in various ways.

The bible refutes Christianity, as most people that read it find out, the Miller–Urey experiment isnt needed.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> The bible refutes Christianity, as most people that read it find out, the Miller–Urey experiment isnt needed.



lol    How do we have Christianity without the New Testament?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

I became a Christian BECAUSE of what was written in the New Testament.   Can you refute what I read?


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    How do we have Christianity without the New Testament?



We can't, but you certainly can be a christian without reading it. As nearly all early Christians were, as well as many today.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

For those of you that don't know, the 'Miller Experiment' was performed by Stanley Miller in the early 1950's....yes, I said 1950's....when he mixed together some chemicals, popped it with electricity, and got some amino acids.   That was 60+ years ago, and "they've" got nowhere since!!!   lol  HUGE problems with the Origin of Lifers....mixed handedness of proteins  (life uses left handed) no mechanism to form peptide bonds, etc...

"Nipping at the heels"!!!!     What a joke!    

Let me prophecy....when you're on your death bed, they'll still be "nipping at the heels" and trying to find life somewhere else other than on the privileged planet.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> We can't, but you certainly can be a christian without reading it. As nearly all early Christians were, as well as many today.



That's true....I'll give you that.


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> For those of you that don't know, the 'Miller Experiment' was performed by Stanley Miller in the early 1950's....yes, I said 1950's....when he mixed together some chemicals, popped it with electricity, and got some amino acids.   That was 60+ years ago, and "they've" got nowhere since!!!   lol  HUGE problems with the Origin of Lifers....mixed handedness of proteins  (life uses left handed) no mechanism to form peptide bonds, etc...
> 
> "Nipping at the heels"!!!!     What a joke!
> 
> Let me prophecy....when you're on your death bed, they'll still be "nipping at the heels" and trying to find life somewhere else other than on the privileged planet.



Are you ignorant your just being false? for one, they recently took the containers for the experiment and started using modern interments to see what actually happened, they discovered 23 amino acids, were as they originally only found 5.

Also, what about Dr. Sidney W. Fox's experiments with lava rock? creating cell like self-replicating protobionts.

Those are also only for one model, there are plenty of other proposed models of how this happened that people are looking at, experimenting with, and refining. 

Who knows when the next big breakthrough will occur, but this stuff isn't easy. History has shown it's not safe to bet against scientific advancement / discovery.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> Is it an exact replication of how the inorganic turned organic some billions of years ago? Unlikely, but they'll keep looking, keep exploring, keep testing and refining there theories. You'll keep Heehaawing about some tales from the desert told by average illiterate, superstitious and ignorant people.



Heehaawing??

Anyway, is the premise of the search for origins that there is no God?  If so, doesn't that limit the possible answers, and, indicate that the answer _is_ knowable?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> Those are also only for one model, there are plenty of other proposed models of how this happened that people are looking at, experimenting with, and refining.
> 
> Who knows when the next big breakthrough will occur, but this stuff isn't easy. History has shown it's not safe to bet against scientific advancement / discovery.



I personally think science and Christiainity are not mutually exclusive.  

We have billions of years of history on this earth.  We believe life has evolved, yet, the initial phase of life ceased once it got started?


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Heehaawing??
> 
> Anyway, is the premise of the search for origins that there is no God?  If so, doesn't that limit the possible answers, and, indicate that the answer _is_ knowable?



No, the premise is that there is life, and there once was not life. How did that happen?



JB0704 said:


> I personally think science and Christiainity are not mutually exclusive.



Meh, i don't know, depends how you think about it. A lot of things in the bible are scientifically false, but then again you can do stuff like say its a "metaphor" etc. Some people's version of Christianity is is mutually exclusive, some isn't. 

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that republished the NT with the miracles taken out? I suppose that isn't mutually-exclusive.



JB0704 said:


> We have billions of years of history on this earth.  We believe life has evolved, yet, the initial phase of life ceased once it got started?



There are some theories about that if you're interested. It has to do with the amount of oxygen & nitrogen in the atmosphere today.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

a veteran OOL researcher, Leslie Orgel, who died late 2007, didn't think we were "nipping at the heels" of figuring it out.  His last essay, titled "The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth" lays out the insurmountable problems of life starting out in the hypothetical 'primordial soup'.  

One of OOL's greatest researchers, who worked along side Mr Miller, didn't think we were progressing at all only a few years ago at his death.   He must not have known about the extra amino acids.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

Four, did I make your ignore list or something?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that republished the NT with the miracles taken out? I suppose that isn't mutually-exclusive.



Saw his bible in the Smithsonian this weekend!   Interesting....and, yes, he did the Bullet....cut and pasted from several versions what he wanted to keep.   I think you're right; he focused on the teachings of Jesus, exclusively.   

The Jefferson Bible...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Four, did I make your ignore list or something?



You mean more people than me are ignored?    lol    I thought it was because I was from Florida!!!   lol   Go Tebow!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> You mean more people than me are ignored?    lol    I thought it was because I was from Florida!!!   lol   Go Tebow!!!


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Four, did I make your ignore list or something?



Nope, i dont have anybody on it 




BANDERSNATCH said:


> Saw his bible in the Smithsonian this weekend!   Interesting....and, yes, he did the Bullet....cut and pasted from several versions what he wanted to keep.   I think you're right; he focused on the teachings of Jesus, exclusively.
> 
> The Jefferson Bible...




I believe it was titled the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. ..


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> I believe it was titled the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. ..



I think you're right....."The Jefferson Bible" was the name of the Smithsonian's display discussing it in the American History museum.    He called himself a 'christian', but not in the sense we know it today.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2012)

Four said:


> Nope, i dont have anybody on it


Did post #67 stink that bad?


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

I assume these were what you were looking for me to adress string?



stringmusic said:


> Thanks, I like to make people laugh, but I am not trying to ignore anything, I know the scientists did the experiments. I'm not sure where you came up with this?



I got this because when i brought up an interesting experiment were the inorganic turned organic, you just went on about variables and inaccuracy of conditions. My point was yea, so what it happened!



stringmusic said:


> So whats the problem? I'm pointing out something that you admit to be true and it seems to be frustrating to you.



My frustration is that i feel you're talking about what we can / cant know about early earth to draw attention away from the fact we got organic from inorganic.



stringmusic said:


> HUH?? When did I "laugh and discount" scientist who come up with medicines and guns and the meds to help my wife and son?



The labcoat comment, and your mocking comparison about how we cant predict the weather, the implication is that scientists are quacks that fudge some data and / or are inept.



stringmusic said:


> I just don't believe science can replicate what happened in the beginning, one big reason is I don't think they even know what early earth conditions were, it's a guess. What instrument could be used to tell us what it was like that long ago? Point out to me some good ways we know what early earth conditions were.



We know what the early universe looked like, we know how our solar system and earth were formed, we know about the geological / volcanic activity, we have a good idea what our early atmosphere was like due to gases trapped in rocks.



stringmusic said:


> Again, I haven't laughed at anything, people who make assumptions look like fools.



You be-little and mock the scientific method. Kind of like you do in the quote below this.



stringmusic said:


> I think it's a great feat for science to think what early earth was like and then make an experiment based on those thoughts(please pick up on the sarcasm) I just don't take it as complete truth or worship science like a god like most atheist do.



The only god is truth and the only worship is in the search for truth. I for one get excited about scientific discovery and theory, i think its cool. I think the mystery and vastness of the universe is thrilling, and the thought of understanding even a little bit more about it makes for great reading and interesting thoughts. I guess i get upset at people that mock it or outright deny it like the original poster.


----------



## Four (Jan 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Did post #67 stink that bad?



lol, if figured that's what you were talking about  (already replied) 

I didn't reply because it seemed like the discussion was digressing. I had said my piece.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2012)

Well maybe we are a little closer than 25 years ago.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 11, 2012)

It's not just a matter of getting organic from inorganic, although I have my doubts to the authenticity of the process that resulted in the claim.

It's actually a matter of getting something........ from nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> It's not just a matter of getting organic from inorganic, although I have my doubts to the authenticity of the process that resulted in the claim.
> 
> It's actually a matter of getting something........ from nothing.



I like that proposal. Can you explain how a God did it?


----------



## Four (Jan 12, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> It's not just a matter of getting organic from inorganic, although I have my doubts to the authenticity of the process that resulted in the claim.
> 
> It's actually a matter of getting something........ from nothing.



I don't know what "it" you are referring to, but the original topic of the thread is evolution, which is just change between generations of organisms. The topic we've most recently been discussing is abiogeneis which IS getting organic from inorganic.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't know what "it" you are referring to, but the original topic of the thread is evolution, which is just change between generations of organisms. The topic we've most recently been discussing is abiogeneis which IS getting organic from inorganic.



And if that puzzle is solved to the satisfaction of the masses, the question will remain.....where did the organic acids required come from?  Naturally occurring?  Why?

This is the basis of my belief in God's existence....something from nothing.  It happened.  Was it inorganic matter and gases, or God?


----------



## Four (Jan 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And if that puzzle is solved to the satisfaction of the masses, the question will remain.....where did the organic acids required come from?  Naturally occurring?  Why?
> 
> This is the basis of my belief in God's existence....something from nothing.  It happened.  Was it inorganic matter and gases, or God?



or it always existed? this isnt something we have a good handle on yet.

interesting stuff though


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

Four said:


> or it always existed? this isnt something we have a good handle on yet.
> 
> interesting stuff though



Yep!


----------



## Four (Jan 12, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yep!



BUT the topic of this thread is denying evolution. Which is a far cry from denying something like a multi-verse hypothesis, or a big bang big crunch hypothesis.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2012)

Four said:


> BUT the topic of this thread is denying evolution.



But I don't do that.  I think I am somewhere between you and Bandy when it comes to beliefs in how life has evolved.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I like that proposal. Can you explain how a God did it?



I couldn't even begin.
Beyond human understanding or description.


----------



## Four (Jan 12, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I couldn't even begin.
> Beyond human understanding or description.



That answer is synonymous with saying god didn't do it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I couldn't even begin.
> Beyond human understanding or description.



Exactly.
I think the same could be said about how life started without a God and it would be beyond our understanding or description......for now.


----------

