Creationist Lies
Out of context: Reply #56
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- Kes0
1. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.
--------------------------------...
Response: This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:* Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
* Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
* Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
* Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
* The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003).
* Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
* Something that no one has thought of yet.2. Intelligent Design does not ignore the variation and range of adaptibility displayed by living organisms.
------------------------------
Response: Stop trying to make Creationism and Intelligent Design the one and same thing you dishonest little man. ID allows for evolution, Creatioism does not3.No scientist has ever seen a dog become something other than a dog, or vice-versa.
------------------------------
Response: Of course not you muppet! It occurs of millions of years, and all evidence points to this. No scientist has actually "seen" gravity either. //Personally I think invisible midgets run around holding everything in place.4. There are gaps between all 32 mammal orders
-----------------------------
Response: Eugh, you are so tiresome. THere are is evidence of gradual change from one fossil to another, as the examples i listed you (did you even read them?). How on earth are you meant to show genome mutation in fossils? What do you mean by this? Fossils, if put next to each other, show a rodent getting bigger and bigger and bigger, until it becomes a dog! You can't see genes in bones you muppet!5. Furthermore, on transitional forms, the evidence is skimpy, usually based on a few bones and teeth. But the best this could show is the sorting of existing information.
-----------------------------
Response: Not true. Some fascinatingly complete and complex - and lot more than "just a few teeth" have been discovered. Also these are dated to show a change in time from one end to another. Just a sorting of information?? LOl what the fuck is that anyway dude? How about, a mammoth resorted its information and became an elephant - and stayed that way! gasp! evolution!6. Finally, Creationists and evolutionists interpret the geological layers differently because of our different axioms
-----------------------------
Response: LOL. I don't know about you "Creationist" types, but evolutionists don't actually INTERPRET the layers. Geologists do. The evolutionists use the data found by geologists.hehe