Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
He said many true and irrelevant things in his video. Of the things there were relevant to the question, those did not follow from the true stuff. That is why I say he is just wrong.
Click to expand...
And that was even easier…
Click to expand...
Why should it be hard?
 
He is reality itself. He is living because He is a personable God. His only begotten Son lived and lives on.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
YOU pick a point and argue it. By all means use any means at your disposal to back up what you claim and it will be considered on its merit.
Click to expand...
I cannot recall when you have ever done this.
Click to expand...
We know you have a bad memory, Buffalo. You keep asking the same facile questions when they have already been answered and keep making the same nonsensical points when they have been comprehensively dismissed many times.

So try to remember this: I only post links to anything in order to back up something I have already discussed. Never as an end to themselves.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
buffalo:
40.png
Bradskii:
YOU pick a point and argue it. By all means use any means at your disposal to back up what you claim and it will be considered on its merit.
Click to expand...
I cannot recall when you have ever done this.
Click to expand...
We know you have a bad memory, Buffalo. You keep asking the same facile questions when they have already been answered and keep making the same nonsensical points when they have been comprehensively dismissed many times.

So try to remember this: I only post links to anything in order to back up something I have already discussed. Never as an end to themselves.
Click to expand...
Case in point: you insist on reposting garbage (just a few minutes ago) when it has already been pointed out to you quite some time ago that it is indeed garbage:
buffalo said:
“This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s.” Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
Click to expand...
Barely credible…
 
Last edited:
Miller Urey tried the experiment on earth and failed, as have all others. Abiogenesis in a closed loop cannot work as all who tried have discovered

@rossum however said he made himself
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
God is a theory as well, it’s faith that is our saving grace - just sayin
 
God is no theory - check the CCC
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
I think he is a closet Catholic…😀 He knows Catholicism pretty well. More so than many CINO’s.
Click to expand...
I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. I left Catholicism at about 15 and converted to Buddhism about 19. So, yes, I do have a good working knowledge of Catholicism.

rossum
 
Uriel1 said:
Miller Urey tried the experiment on earth and failed
Click to expand...
Your source is misinforming you. The M-U experiment was a “What happens if…” experiment. It did not fail, since it had no specific target. It did provide good information for the debate on abiogenesis. That is why it has been repeated, with variations, many times since. There is a lot of information that needs to be discovered, and M-U type experiments help us find that information.
Abiogenesis in a closed cannot work as all who tried have discovered
Click to expand...
Ah… a prophecy. Probably an incorrect prophecy. People who make prophecies about what science cannot do are very often shown to be wrong. Remember things like: “Science will never make a heavier than air flying machine.”
@rossum however said he made himself
Click to expand...
Standard Buddhism. Have you heard of karma? Or how about, “As you sow, so shall you reap”? That was what I was talking about.

rossum
 
Did you check the link? it doesn’t work
“Your source lied to you”
 
Uriel1 said:
Did you check the link? it doesn’t work
Click to expand...
The link works for me. It points to a PDF file, so if your device cannot display PDF files then that may be the source of the problem. The raw link is: http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/miller_prebiotic souppdf.pdf

The first two paragraphs read:
The idea that the organic compounds that serve as
the basis of life were formed when the earth had an
atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen
instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and
water was suggested by Oparin (1) and has been-given
emphasis recently by Urey (2) and Bernal (3).

In order to test this hypothesis, an apparatus was
built to circulate CH4, NH3, H2O, and H2 past an
electric discharge. The resulting mixture has been
tested for amino acids by paper chromatography.
Electrical discharge was used to form free radicals
instead of ultraviolet light, because quartz absorbs
wavelengths short enough to cause photo-dissociation
of the gases. Electrical discharge may have played a
significant role in the formation of compounds in the
primitive atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Notice that the point of the experiment was not to create life, but to “test this hypothesis” on the formation of amino acids.

rossum
 
I studied the experiment carefully at university in my biochemistry year and you @rossum seem to be unaware that the experiment was NOT a closed loop, but had a reservoir (filled via a tap) which was excluded from the system so that any amino acids formed were then not exposed to further sparks. If you were unaware of that, “Your source is lying to you”
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
We agree that the M-U experiment was not a “failed” attempt to create life in the lab. It was a test of the hypothesis that amino acids could form under a certain set of conditions. The experiment was a successful test of that hypothesis.

rossum
 
No @Rossum. You need to acknowledge that the Miller-Urey experimental apparatus was designed with a tap and reservoir out of the main loop so that the 11 amino acids produced would not be broken down. If you did not know this that would explain why you were unaware that the apparatus design condemned Miller-Urey to failure as an experiment
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Fine. Re-run the experiment with an apparatus the size of a planet, with winds, current, tides, storms, lightning etc. Will that make you happier?

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top