A Question for Creationists

[Bosh]

One, even if random molecules came together to form some semblance of life, it would still the ability to reproduce. No DNA, or other information carrying molecules.

Don't quite follow you here, are you saying that proto-life wouldn't have the ability to reporduce? If so you're wrong since there's a number of quite simple self-catalyzing cycles.

Even if such molecules existed, the machinery to translate them randomly appearing and working efficiently to maintain life randomly appearing would be improbable.

Right, its fairly improbable but if you've got enough pools of mud and enough hundreds of millions of years (let alone billions and billions of planets) then all the improbables add up fast, especially since the simplist self-catalyzing cycles are much simplier than DNA.

Also albiogenesis (sp!) (ie the creation of life) is a different topic from evolution (ie the change of life), so none of what you said applies to evolution per se.

But am I correct in saying that there's you percieve there to be no physical evidence on the earth that argues against evolution, just that evolution is a logical impossibility, right?

The Bible speaks of a time before man. Of creatures that walked the Earth long before Eden, when the planet was vile and untamed.

Also, unless I'm mistaken there's no death before the Fall? Thus there wouldn't be fossils.

[DaShi]

Sorry, Zhu. I tried. I ditched all my fanatical Christian friends. . .well for being fanatical Christians so that's as much as I've heard.


Self catalyzing cycles? That's interesting. How does that work?

[Bosh]

A catalist (sp?) is a chemical that makes a chemical reaction happen, in some cases one of the products of of this reaction is itself a catalist that in turn creates another reaction and this keeps on going (don't know how many step exactly) until you get the origonal catalist being produced again. Thus these things can basically reporduce indefinately as long as there's the things that the catalist catalyzes around for "food," they're simple enough that they can form accidentally fairly easily, and they can even mutate by having some of their components knocked around.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
A catalist (sp?) is a chemical that makes a chemical reaction happen, in some cases one of the products of of this reaction is itself a catalist that in turn creates another reaction and this keeps on going (don't know how many step exactly) until you get the origonal catalist being produced again. Thus these things can basically reporduce indefinately as long as there's the things that the catalist catalyzes around for "food," they're simple enough that they can form accidentally fairly easily, and they can even mutate by having some of their components knocked around.

Sounds like a regular enzyme. An enzyme could act indefinitely as long as there is enough substrate. But I've never heard of an enzyme catalizing a reaction that eventually creates an identical version of itself. I may look it up a bit tomorrow morning.

[Bosh]

Take a look at thingies called ribozymes, I think they're the sort of thing I'm talking about

[Urban Ranger]

[Deactivates cloak]

Hey Boshko!

/me looks for creationists

/me finds none

[Activates cloak]

[nationalist]

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I am a creationist in that I believe that God started the universe with the "Big Bang". However, I don't believe in the 6 days creation story. I don't see why the universe couldn't be billions of years old. The bible doesn't even say the age of the universe is 10,000 years. I think that evolution is true, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a God, or even that he didn't design the universe. Evolution may just be his creation mechanism. I guess you can call me a deist in my creation beliefs.

[Joe R. Golowka]

A creationist is someone who believes in the 6 days creation story and that the Earth isn't much older then 10,000 years. What you are, nationalist, is a theist. Most forms of theism is compatable with evolution and other scientific theories.

[-=Vagrant=-]

I thought that there were three different categories of creationists.
1)Old Earth C
2)Young Earth C
3)and the combination of those two.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm not sure how much is actually LDS doctrine,

That was all pure LDS from the BOM or other LDS writings. Not much of the Bible in it. The Bible is NOT better translated as orginzation since its pretty clear about Jehovah creating life out nothing or clay at the most. Of course clay has the just about the perfect chemistry for NOT supporting life but that is another issue.


Now the Bible can be construed, if you ignore stuff and make some unusual interpretations, into saying the Earth and the water came from preexisting material but there is no way to force fit the creation of life that way.

Mormons are into saying "The Bible is true when it is translated correctly." This protects the BOM a tiny a bit from all the mistakes that Joseph Smith when created his bogus testament. However it has nothing to do with the Bible since it is readily available in the original language. The Jews for instance have never used anything but the original language.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Aeson
The worst part is dating, because I know that every good mormon girl is looking for a return mormon missionary, which I most decidedly am not! And being brought up with the morals I do have, a good mormon girl is what I'm looking for. It's a paradox, as to convince her to marry me would be to corrupt her and maker her other than what I'm looking for.

You could move out of the State. How would ex-porn star Brandy Alexandre do. She is an ex-mormon from Utah. Probably a bit too old for you though.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DaShi


Sounds like a regular enzyme. An enzyme could act indefinitely as long as there is enough substrate. But I've never heard of an enzyme catalizing a reaction that eventually creates an identical version of itself. I may look it up a bit tomorrow morning.

Well it there are some that can come close to that.

Here is a link for a ribozyme that can partly copy RNA helixes.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01n.html

Can't really copy itself but very interesting anyway.

[Robert]

I cannot answer this question since it's not specific enough.
Do you mean a planet at the 'supposed' age of 'earth' ?

In that case the 'evolution' planet wouldn't contain inteligent life forms. (read the book 'rare earth' by 2 evolutionists) that's a sure thing.

but in fact the difference would be bigger.

- created world: as it is today. (unless mankidn wouldn't have fallen)
- evolved world: still nothing. ('something' would still be waiting to pop out of nothing )

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
In that case the 'evolution' planet wouldn't contain inteligent life forms. (read the book 'rare earth' by 2 evolutionists) that's a sure thing.

Two idiots. Unless of course you are making false claims for the book. Which apears to be the case. They only say the odds are low. Which is a highly speculative claim since they only have one planet to base their thinking on. Bad science is what that is.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387987010/qid=1022583673/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/002-8721106-7807247

Its not exactly unheard of for a creationist to distort things like you just did.

but in fact the difference would be bigger.

- created world: as it is today. (unless mankidn wouldn't have fallen)

Not true. A created world would not have

Layers of sediment billions of years old.

Fossils of species that are close to but not the same as they are today and deeper down species a little less close and then deeper still even less close.

Genes that are clearly decended from other genes via mutation.

Light from stars that took longer than the universe has existed unless of course you think the creator deliberatly created the universe to look deceptivly old. Not a nice or trustworthy entity that sort of creator.

Lots more differences if we are talking about Jehovah. Like evidence for an alleged Flood that left no evidence in our world.

- evolved world: still nothing. ('something' would still be waiting to pop out of nothing )

False. That is not evolution. That is the beginning of the Universe. There is fairly good physics and mathematics showing how a universe could indeed have popped out of a non-universe or even a pre-existing metaverse that had spawned universes for all eternity.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
Take a look at thingies called ribozymes, I think they're the sort of thing I'm talking about

Ooooh, very good, self-catalysing nucleic acids. I like that little argument myself. But the question is, why did ribozymes give way to amino acid-based enzymes?

Easy, four homogeneous nitrogenous base pairs, 26 chemically distinct nucleic acids. Allowed a much greater repertoire of catalytic activity. And nucleic acids make a damn sight better storage molecule than catalyst because of it's structure. The interaction of protein and nucleic acid is the complicated bit though, and not understood. How protein and nucleic acid developed the capability of translation (nucleic acid -> protein sequence). Crack that step, throw in lipids and you have the first rudimentary organism. Of course, this was the bit that took the billions of years. The rest is a snowball reaction from thereon.