<p>I dont know if anyone has said this yet (the thread is so long!) but I watched this video that said that a meteor hit the earth containing amino acids that when it was on a crash collision to earth, the impact became so great that the amino acids chemically changed and became peptides or some other more complex form. </p>
<p>Thats where life forms began evolving. </p>
<p>but thats just what i watched from the video... the title had the word Origins in it as well... but i dont remember exactly since it was months since i last watched it. </p>
<p>So in other words... people are saying that life did not start here? this is just out of what ive seen.</p>
<p>Thats in lots of biology books also. In the mid 20th century, this meteorite hit australia, and they were took it apart and examined it and found huge amounts of amino acids and other things. Another possible source of organic material. This would also give much more time for life to arise.</p>
<p>Geoevolution claims that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon "over millions of years." However, the elevation at which the Colorado River enters the canyon is about 1 mile lower than the top of the canyon. If the river were to carve through that hunk of rock, we would have a cave or a tunnel, not a canyon. In order for the canyon to be formed by the Colorado River, it would have to flow UPWARDS by about 1 mile.</p>
<p>"In the mid 20th century, this meteorite hit australia, and they were took it apart and examined it and found huge amounts of amino acids and other things"</p>
<p>Someone's commented abt this earlier in this thread. The amino acids might've come from an unfortunate animal which the meteorite fell on. If one can believe that amino acids survived through the intense heat that must've been produced as the meteorite fell through the atmosphere, then the assumption that it fell on an animal and only the amino acids survived the collision is a lot more plausible.</p>
<p>A while ago, a group of scientists simulated conditions on earth before life.</p>
<p>They basically had this soup full of different elements to represent what the Earth was basically like before life began. Then, they passed electricity through this soup, and after repeated shocks, began to see traces of amino acids.</p>
<p>A while ago, a group of scientists simulated conditions on earth before life.</p>
<p>They basically had this soup full of different elements to represent what the Earth was basically like before life began. Then, they passed electricity through this soup, and after repeated shocks, began to see traces of amino acids.</p>
<p>Heres an article from The Discovery Institute showing flaws within the Miller-Urey experiment. Just something to think about. </p>
<p>There were problems, however. Scientists were
never able to get beyond the simplest amino acids in their
simulated primordial environment, and the creation of proteins
began to seem not a small step or couple of steps, but
a great, perhaps impassable, divide.
The telling blow to the Miller-Urey experiment,
however, came in the 1970s, when scientists began to conclude
that the Earths early atmosphere was nothing like the
mixture of gasses used by Miller and Urey. Instead of being
what scientists call a reducing, or hydrogen-rich environment,
the Earths early atmosphere probably consisted of
gasses released by volcanoes. Today there is a near consensus
among geochemists on this point. But put those volcanic
gasses in the Miller-Urey apparatus, and the experiment
doesnt work in other words, no building blocks of life.</p>
<p>What I find most ridiculous out of the entire ghetto intelligent design "movement" is that they use such poor wording to deliberately confuse anybody in getting their "points" across.</p>
<p>Miller and Urey made amino acids in their experiment. That's all there is to it.</p>
<p>(and what's with introducing such derogatory and juvenile terminology into a scientific context? Ghetto? Care to opine on culture or race next?)</p>
<p>Sigh. The Miller-Urey experiment merely illustrated that amino acids do, indeed, develop without some God fellow blowing into a bunch of mud. The circumstances were different - and, apparently, seeing as we're here now, it worked 6 billion years ago. </p>
<p>One thing you are right about, fountiansiren, is that "it" is not science ("it" referring to intelligent design). You IDers are remarkably good at using lots of big words to confuse people into thinking that what you have is science. </p>
<p>I'll put it in another context: </p>
<p>Person 1: I say the earth is flat!</p>
<p>Scientific community: You're crazy. Here are the reasons the world is round...</p>
<p>Person 1: Aha! A controversey! See, there IS something to talk about!</p>
<p>No. As always, there's nothing. Focus on praying, not embarrasing the human race with some psuedo-science nonsense.</p>
<p>This is a matter of perspective (as is many many many things such as abortion, stem cells, gay marriage, war in iraq, etc.).</p>
<p>From my point of view, life has had billions of years to get to where it is now, and THAT is an extremely long time.</p>
<p>I am a scientist [in training]. To me, there must be scientific evidence that supports any theory. The theory of evolution, although it does not have concrete proof, does have solid evidence that is widely accepted amongst biologists. Intelligent Design and Creationism, on the other hand, do not have scientific support. Those who believe in those serious underestimate the power of science.</p>
<p>Then again, I AM a scientist [in training], and not a bishop. So that's how I see it.</p>
<p>Nothing in biology makes sense if evolution never occurs.</p>
<p>I've become tired of debating ID. There is no debate. Evolutionary theory will develop in the next 50 years, I promise you, but never will a supreme being factor into the equation.</p>
<p>I consider myself to be pretty civil when it comes to scientific debate. I try my best to see both sides. But here, in this case, there is no other side. There is a factual theory being investigated by scientists. You are not one of these people. You are not familiar with their work. You are the hair on a baboon's a** of an investigator. You are a hindrance. You are nothing to science.</p>
<p>Enough with the arm-chair philosophizing. You're not in this game. No amount of true science will sway you. So here's to you: a totally scientific use for The Religious Text of your Choice...</p>
<pre><code> determine its carbohydrate content and then shove it down your throat.
</code></pre>
<p>Personally, I've seen science do a lot of things:</p>
<p>vaccines for many many diseases like polio and smallpox
biopharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals, nanotech, the list goes on.</p>
<p>The tylenol/advil/excedrin/whatever you take when you need it? Were the active ingredients created by scientists in a lab, or brought down from the heavens by a group of priests?</p>
<p>Let me guess, God guided the scientists into creating things like kanamycin, ampicillin, penicillin, carbenicillin, tetracycline, (I'm just naming antibiotics off the top of my head now) or created those things Himself and put them in the lab for the scientists to find.</p>
<p>Sorry to be blasting like this, but I'm tired, sick, and in a bad mood right now.</p>
<p>The 600 mg of acetaminophen and 10 mg Dextromethorphan HBr coursing through my body right now were certainly created in the lab. =) 'cause if God was the creator of these things, then I'd think he'd be able to concoct something a bit more effective</p>
<p>By the way, I didn't mean to mock religion or the ways of God in any way in one of my previous posts, but in hindsight it sure looks like I did.</p>
<p>"Let me guess, God guided the scientists into creating things like kanamycin, ampicillin, penicillin, carbenicillin, tetracycline, (I'm just naming antibiotics off the top of my head now) or created those things Himself and put them in the lab for the scientists to find."</p>
<p>Those antibiotics were discovered without having to rely on evolutionary theory. Evolution is At BEST a useless science, an endeavor to satisfy curiosity. After all, has evolution led to any cures or inventions? Shouldn't we spend the money we pour into finding the origin of life instead into more beneficial research?</p>
<p>"Nothing in biology makes sense if evolution never occurs."
It made sense enough to Louis Pasteur, didn't it?</p>
<p>"Evolutionary theory will develop in the next 50 years, I promise you, but never will a supreme being factor into the equation."
Hmm...all the other sciences have nice, neat equations that, while not necessarily all-encompassing, provide a reasonable explanation of their field. I checked the high school biology texts, and there is no equivalent for evolution. OK, let's assume that it's simply too hard for high schoolers to understand. If that is so, shouldn't we wait until college to discuss it instead of introducing it in this "Brave New World" fashion to high school and middle school students? After all, we don't share string theory with younger kids...</p>
<p>IMO, evolutionary theory should be classified with string theory. Both have no evidence but rather are (admittedly clever) interpretations of inconclusive data.</p>
<p>BTW, you guys still haven't brought gravity back from its coffee break...</p>
<p>How could you know? You haven't given us any yet. Stop for a moment and consider whether you may have been, er, "psychologically re-engineered," Brave New World-style to be more receptive to evolution (Magic School Bus, kids' museums, Jurassic Park)</p>