Evolution and Creationism

[LegionnaireX]

:wack I really love the way you talk about me.

The cells that make you up are basically prokaryotes with additions, additions that allow cells to do more but aren’t required for it to live.

Who taught you biology? The cells that make up a human are animal cells which are eukaryotic and have a nucleus. Prokaryotic cells mostly bacteria. What type of idiot do you guys take me for? Also, PR, refer me to a website with pictures and diagrams of this archeobacter. Is there any evidence? If there isn't, than it is just another empty theory. Back yourself up.

To the subject of how life began. You evolutionists have to make up some very ludacris stuff for this one. None of theses theories have any substance, they are empty, and the product of evolutionary imagination. I have heard of two theories:

#1.Structures of complexity naturally formed on the earth, and naturally became living.
#2. Life came from outer space.

Problems with #1 are the following: We have not witnessed life forming naturally. We cannot even create life ourselves using non-living material, so what makes you think that it can originate by itself? This theory is strikingly similar to that of spontaneous generation which is found so stupid and idiotic in currect times. It simply isn't possible to create a living organism from non-living chemicals. It seems that the scientific community has abandoned reason.

Problems with #2. First off, this does not explain the origins of life. It just explains the orgins of life on earth. And if a meteor would have hit, it would have had to have had an atmosphere and warm temperatures. Bacteria cannot live cold climates, especially without any kind of moderation, or chemical system in the atmosphere. And even if it hit, the blast most likely would have been large enough to kill the bacteria.

You guys have to really on faith, just as we have to rely on faith. Face the facts.

[TB666]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Oct 18 2004, 01:46 AM


Problems with #2. First off, this does not explain the origins of life. It just explains the orgins of life on earth. And if a meteor would have hit, it would have had to have had an atmosphere and warm temperatures. Bacteria cannot live cold climates, especially without any kind of moderation, or chemical system in the atmosphere. And even if it hit, the blast most likely would have been large enough to kill the bacteria.

You guys have to really on faith, just as we have to rely on faith. Face the facts.

Actually it can live, it just can't grow.
That is why they always freeze them in labs.
Once they have returned to their normal state they will start to grow and reproduce.
And since life began in the ocean they could have survied(sp) the blast.

[LegionnaireX]

And since life began in the ocean they could have survied(sp) the blast.

I thought the theory went that life began on the meteor.

[Bigfootedfred]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Oct 17 2004, 08:01 PM

I thought the theory went that life began on the meteor.

no its somthing to do with amino Acids forming the first protein.

someone else more knowledgble than i will give an explination.

[TB666]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Oct 18 2004, 02:01 AM

I thought the theory went that life began on the meteor.

I'm talking about life on earth.
Where life really started we will never know since we don't know with planet had life first and it is a safe bet that we were not first.

[Scrappy Jenks]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Oct 17 2004, 08:46 PM
Who taught you biology? The cells that make up a human are animal cells which are eukaryotic and have a nucleus. Prokaryotic cells mostly bacteria. What type of idiot do you guys take me for? Also, PR, refer me to a website with pictures and diagrams of this archeobacter. Is there any evidence? If there isn't, than it is just another empty theory. Back yourself up.

Its clled Endosymbiotic Theory. Most biologists agree that Eukaryotes developed at a time when prokaryotes were more specialized, ie some were like modern mitochondria, some like Chloroplasts, etc. The theory states that one prokaryote ate a specialized one and failed to digest it, a symbiotic relation developed and the new hybrid cell was better adapted to life. I think you can see where this is going....

[Syron]

Who taught you biology? The cells that make up a human are animal cells which are eukaryotic and have a nucleus. Prokaryotic cells mostly bacteria. What type of idiot do you guys take me for?

What!!!!! That is EXACTLY what I said. Eukaryotes ARE Prokaryotes with adittional organelles. Look.....Eukaryotes make up animals (and plants btw) because they are the only ones capable of properly interacting with replicated cells Those additioanal organelles such as the golgi body/apparatus and others allow for greater communication and also allows for transmission of material in the colony therefore the Eukaryotes would natural tend towards a symbiotic colony

I like the fact that you've obviously done some reading, I know you wouldn't have been taught Pro and Eukaryotes, however I suggest you read a little more about it than just definitions! When you learn about amino acids and protein formation you'll see just how interliked Pro and Eukaryotes are.

Mmmm.......who taught you biology? :wack

Also, PR, refer me to a website with pictures and diagrams of this archeobacter. Is there any evidence? If there isn't, than it is just another empty theory. Back yourself up.

Archaea

Unlike you we don't state things that aren't true. Recently another creature in this group was found survive above autoclave temperatures, and that's damn high. I can find more if you want but i think I've made my point.

Problems with #1 are the following: We have not witnessed life forming naturally. We cannot even create life ourselves using non-living material, so what makes you think that it can originate by itself? This theory is strikingly similar to that of spontaneous generation which is found so stupid and idiotic in currect times. It simply isn't possible to create a living organism from non-living chemicals. It seems that the scientific community has abandoned reason.

Non-living? For the millionth time organic compound is a misnomer, it isn't living are you actually going to read it this time?

Problems with #2. First off, this does not explain the origins of life. It just explains the orgins of life on earth. And if a meteor would have hit, it would have had to have had an atmosphere and warm temperatures. Bacteria cannot live cold climates, especially without any kind of moderation, or chemical system in the atmosphere. And even if it hit, the blast most likely would have been large enough to kill the bacteria.

Firstly I would suggest reading the previous posts, they adress what you say anyway. You don't know much about science so there is little point argueing, a dense atmosphere is not required, neither is a lot of warmth and possibly some bacteria would be dispersed clear of the explosion.



Oh, and the theory is that life began in the ocean......life coming from outer space is only a possibility.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Who taught you biology? The cells that make up a human are animal cells which are eukaryotic and have a nucleus. Prokaryotic cells mostly bacteria. What type of idiot do you guys take me for? Also, PR, refer me to a website with pictures and diagrams of this archeobacter. Is there any evidence? If there isn't, than it is just another empty theory. Back yourself up.

:devil

That was funny...

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/msh/p_...a/p_aawrpb.html

don't believe them... they are just another empty theory and those images are made up by atheist evolutionists set on a world conspiracy to drive god out of your lifes and eat your little childrem :devil

This one i invented myself straight from underwater vulcanoes:

Bacteria cannot live cold climates, especially without any kind of moderation

but their spores can endure freezing with liquid nitrogen (-195ºC).

To the subject of how life began. You evolutionists have to make up some very ludacris stuff for this one.

Once again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, they are two different pices of the same puzzle.

[LegionnaireX]

What!!!!! That is EXACTLY what I said. Eukaryotes ARE Prokaryotes with adittional organelles.

Not exactly. Prokaryotic cells have no attached organelles, but they have very much the same organells. A prokaryotic cell has no nuclues either. A eukaryotic cell has attached organelles, and has a nucleus. They are completely different types of cells.

like the fact that you've obviously done some reading, I know you wouldn't have been taught Pro and Eukaryotes,

You know this? Actually this is exactly what I am studying in school now. Cells are in the 7th grade curriculum.

Unlike you we don't state things that aren't true. Recently another creature in this group was found survive above autoclave temperatures, and that's damn high. I can find more if you want but i think I've made my point.

Okay. Than they are just another group along with protists, ameoba, etc? They are not simple than. Someone said they were simple life forms.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Not exactly. Prokaryotic cells have no attached organelles, but they have very much the same organells. A prokaryotic cell has no nuclues either. A eukaryotic cell has attached organelles, and has a nucleus. They are completely different types of cells.

No they are not. Both function with the same basic chemical processes. A double helix DNA strand gets translated into an RNA molecule that then is read by a ribossome that puts together aminoacids to form proteins. Fermentation and many other basic chemical operations are similar in both groups. Prokaryotes are remarkably similar to mithocondryas and cloroplasts wich leads to believe that these two organeles were once independant prokaryotic cells themselves, which is supported by the fact that they have their own DNA which controls most of their activity (protein synthesys, division...). Hence the endosymbiotic theory.

Okay. Than they are just another group along with protists, ameoba, etc? They are not simple than. Someone said they were simple life forms.

They are prokaryotes. Amoebas which are protists are far more complicated since all protists are eukariots and thus much more evolved. And compared to the average eukaryotic cell, yes they are simple.

Some Taxonomists consider them a whole new kindom, separated from the traditional Monera, because their characteristics show that they were around before the average Monera (thus the name Archeo= ancient + bacteria).

[Syron]

Not exactly. Prokaryotic cells have no attached organelles, but they have very much the same organells. A prokaryotic cell has no nuclues either. A eukaryotic cell has attached organelles, and has a nucleus. They are completely different types of cells.

I know that for crying out loud!!! They are different cells....with the same origin and the same basic processes! Look up Endosymbiosis will you. The organelles are seperate organisms some with their OWN DNA as I have already said Eukaryotes are a form of cell EVOLVED from a Prokaryote to utilise the foreign DNA to replicate those organisms inside themselves!! Read PR's post for a more thorough explanation.

You know this? Actually this is exactly what I am studying in school now. Cells are in the 7th grade curriculum.

Then I'm scared for American education! You may have been told WHAT they are, the definitions as I put it, but you obviously haven't been taught WHY!

Okay. Than they are just another group along with protists, ameoba, etc? They are not simple than. Someone said they were simple life forms.

They are simpler but then again how much more simple do you want to get! Even simpler organisms would likely have an even better tolerance to certain conditions, it is the drawback of many Eukaryotic organisms that they are individually generally less condition-varying tolerant. I hope you do also realise that the simplest organism wouldn't be alive today as it would easily be brought to extinction by a more complex competitor?

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Originally posted by Syron@Oct 18 2004, 11:35 AM



Then I'm scared for American education! You may have been told WHAT they are, the definitions as I put it, but you obviously haven't been taught WHY!

Remeber guys, just because you know what the differance between an HB and a B pencil does not make you an artist . legionaireX, give it a rest with trying to refute what these guys say about microbiology, you are in grade 7 and you are argueing with people who have graduated from university with biology degrees.. These people most likely know more about biology than your science teacher. And dont responed with "Yeah right, how do you know that WBK!", because I too have been to university and know the courses required to graduate with a science degree and those required to teach science in primary school. You really should take in what you are learning here with regards to cellular biology, regardless of its implications about evolution. If you do this you will ace your tests when it comes to biology class : .

[Dr Zoidberg]

Wild Bill you said it! legionnarex, I cant believe you have the arrogance to argue with uni grads when your not even out of high school yet! Believe them when talk about biology, they know a hell of a lot more then your science teacer ever will. Just admit it, your wrong! Get back to us AFTER you graduate with honours in advanced microbiology!

Back to topic: EVOLUTION! EVOLUTION! EVOLUTION! Anybody who believes in creationism needs to have their head seriously examined! Creationists can only go off faith while the rest of the world can go off the reality of science...hmmm, I wonder which one is right?!

[ZaPPPa]

Legionarix,

I know many pages ago you challenged someone to give hard evidence of evolution.

I challenge you to give me the smallest shred of evidence of the existence of God and creation... Just the very smallest piece of rock-hard evidence. Not some theory like: "Evolution is not possible, therefore there is a God".. Real evidence..

What tends to irritate me when creationists talk is that they seem to think that they are right by default. In their opinion, as long as nobody else can prove that the theory of evolution is true, the world was created. And to top it off, they don't want to accept any other theory no matter how much proof is presented. Galileo was charged with herecy and only centuries later did the church finally admit that he was right... They didn't drop the charge however...

Are you also going to challenge the theory that the earth revolves around the sun? Just because a theory is hard to prove does not make it less true. It just takes longer for people to accept it.

[Portuguese Rebel]

And to top it off, they don't want to accept any other theory no matter how much proof is presented.

That's about it... with proofs flying from all fields of science they still can't accept it. No matter what is presented to them they will just push it away... Mainly because they have no genuine intention of testing their belief against proofs. And that in itself is fine by me, anyone can believe in whatever they want. It pisses me off however that they try to get that unscientific crap into museums and schools.

Until now that has only been a problem in the US and fundamentalist islamic countries but it is still of concern, since those children have the right to the highest level of scientific education too.

[Last_Crusader]

I must admit i'm quite puzzled by this thread... how can you argue for creationism in this thread before you have proved that God exists in 'existence of God'?

Aside: If you believe that creatures were made in under 6 days, how do you allow them to survive their creation? In order to create the amount of life required so that future generations aren't horribly inbred, the matter that was used to make them would have to be manipulated awfully fast, and to do so requires gargantuan amounts of energy, which would increase the temperature of the earth to the point where the heat is rather disadvantageous to life.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Aside: If you believe that creatures were made in under 6 days, how do you allow them to survive their creation? In order to create the amount of life required so that future generations aren't horribly inbred, the matter that was used to make them would have to be manipulated awfully fast, and to do so requires gargantuan amounts of energy, which would increase the temperature of the earth to the point where the heat is rather disadvantageous to life.

magic...

OR

6 days were actually ages...

Take your pick. :cool

[Last_Crusader]

The original Biblical text can be translated as either 'days' or 'epochs'

Originally posted by fatsheep@Sep 17 2004, 10:49 PM
Let me just insert my disclamer here

Evolution requires an old earth

Creation is flexible and can have either.

No where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old, that is just a common belief (misconception IMO) of many creationist scientists.

Let the fight begin! Er... debate

I just think everyone should know that the scientifically researched, up-to-date Seven Daughters of Eve makes the proven case that we are genetically connected back to a single women, whom the author prefers to call Eve. Just look it up for more info. Read the book about a year ago.

Originally posted by Bigfootedfred+Oct 17 2004, 08:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Bigfootedfred @ Oct 17 2004, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-legionaireX@Oct 17 2004, 08:01 PM

I thought the theory went that life began on the meteor.

no its somthing to do with amino Acids forming the first protein.

someone else more knowledgble than i will give an explination.[/b][/quote]
The base of evolution is flawed from its inception.

"In 1989 Robert Sauer and his biologist colleagues at MIT experimented w/ "re-biulding" proteins by taking away amino acids and replacing them w/ other amino acids. They found that some some parts of a protein chain are tolerant to substitutions but other parts are completely intolerant of such tinkering, showing that proteins are not arbitrary collections of componet chemicals but rare and sometimes unique combinations. Sauer and his colleagues confirmed Yockey's calculations that the probability of a specific folded protein coming into being by undirected evolution is 1 in 10^65. The practically infinite number of other combinations that could form at random are useless protein sequences that perform no constructive function for living organisms."

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Richard Milton


Evolution is flawed throughout, so I thought I would knock it out from under its feet, where it begins. Notice I underline "undirected." This is not because I believe that God guided evolution or that it is possible. Rather, CREATION+EVOLUTION THEORY IS UNFOUNDED BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON EVOLUTION BEING A VALID THEORY.