Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mind pointing to any valid scientific source that claims we "evolved from rocks"?
Probably his church website is the source of this "science". kdbrich , read about Miller Urey experiment: Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No rocks are involved. Only water, gases and electricity (lightnings):
..
used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.
At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.
used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.
At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.
I''m aware of Uley's experiment, yes.
And I'm also aware that the poster doesn't have a valid scientific source for their "rock" comments either.
That was just my pleasent, non-combative way of saying "You're full of bull-poop"
Here is an example of my train of thought....I live on Vancouver Island, where there is a healthy population of Cougars whose main prey are the small coastal blacktail deer. It is known that each adult cougar kills and eats approximately one deer per week. How many deer would god have had to create so both the deer and cougars survive? This scenario would hold true for all carnivores and their prey.
I've brought up this same line of thought when I've talked about Noah's Ark. The Bible states that there were only two of each species when Noah went for his boat ride but there is no explanation for how predators could survive when there are only two living animals after the imaginary flood. If the predators ate either one of their prey that would be the end of that species and the predators would starve to death. What would lions eat if they killed and ate one of several animals that they prey on? Common sense (which isn't really all that common) would tell us that any population of animals needs a sustainable source of food and it's laughable to think that lions ate potatoes and string beans until the population of their prey was large enough to sustain them.
I've brought up this same line of thought when I've talked about Noah's Ark. The Bible states that there were only two of each species when Noah went for his boat ride but there is no explanation for how predators could survive when there are only two living animals after the imaginary flood. If the predators ate either one of their prey that would be the end of that species and the predators would starve to death. What would lions eat if they killed and ate one of several animals that they prey on? Common sense (which isn't really all that common) would tell us that any population of animals needs a sustainable source of food and it's laughable to think that lions ate potatoes and string beans until the population of their prey was large enough to sustain them.
Not to mention that there are, by today's estimates, just over 5 million different species, 1.5 million of which have been catalogued.
Tight fit for ten million critters, I would say.
And also not to mention that any such flood would've killed each and every last plant as well, so that the vegan animals/bird/insects wouldn't have anything to eat either.
And also not to mention that any such flood would've killed each and every last plant as well, so that the vegan animals/bird/insects wouldn't have anything to eat either.
I've brought up that point as well in older posts but have never received an intelligent response. Would a carrot or apple tree survive after months at the bottom of the ocean? Somehow I don't think so. How about the bees that pollinate a great number of plants? How would they survive? I recall that someone once stated on this forum that the insects had their own floating leaves or whatever they were that allowed them to survive on their own little mini-arks. At some point all of this nonsense should reach a threshold in which believers should realize that what they're saying is impossible but that's never happened.
Kbdrich, I always wanted to ask you, what is your education and profession?
I have a Bachelor's Degree in MIS, and am working on my Master's Degree in Theology. I currently work as a SQL Server Database Administrator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
I''m aware of Uley's experiment, yes.
And I'm also aware that the poster doesn't have a valid scientific source for their "rock" comments either.
That was just my pleasent, non-combative way of saying "You're full of bull-poop"
I am also aware of the "experiment" involving combining chemicals and electrical impulses under very specific circumstances to create what some consider to be the precursors to life (not life itself). The problem, of course, is that they still haven't managed to replicate abiogenesis.
Based on what's been accomplished in research so far, creationism has as much or more validity as abiogenesis.
Any hypothesis that requires you to believe in miracles fails compared to anything that has working mechanisms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
