Science vs. creationism

[Mitch]

This topic is being brought up over and over again, and so am I :p
I was recently reading about some new debates and issues revolving around the world of Science Vs. Creationism.
Apparently, it's becoming more and more prominent in science classes that creationism is being taught. Which I am completely against. We can see science in our every day lives, while creationism is still a belief and should be left that way until proven otherwise, it SHOULD NOT be taught in classrooms.

[Cattraknoff]

There is significant evidence supporting the idea of a creator. Enough to be taught as a viable option, imo.

[Ed Jones]

I disagree. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of a creator. It has been proven time and again that it is all fiction and lies!

Furthermore, the idea of religion influencing politics is completely ridiculous. Religious texts written thousands of years ago have no place in modern society and modern politics.

[Mr Jolly]

There simply isn't a scrap evidence supporting the idea of there being a creator, it's nonsense.

The creationists are that stupid they usually scoff that evolution is just a theory and that's why it's not true. Firstly, that would still not prove creationism was correct it actually makes them hypocrites for condemning one theory and supporting another. But the biggest mistake is "evolution" is not a theory, evolution has scientific proof. Only the evolution of man is still a theory. But considering that evolution is going on all around us I don't see the chance that we evolved as being all that slim.

[Cattraknoff]

There simply isn't a scrap evidence supporting the idea of there being a creator, it's nonsense.

The creationists are that stupid they usually scoff that evolution is just a theory and that's why it's not true. Firstly, that would still not prove creationism was correct it actually makes them hypocrites for condemning one theory and supporting another. But the biggest mistake is "evolution" is not a theory, evolution has scientific proof. Only the evolution of man is still a theory. But considering that evolution is going on all around us I don't see the chance that we evolved as being all that slim.

Proteins are long chains made up of combinations of molecules called amino acids. These proteins are responsible for carrying out a great deal of the functions of life; That is to say that they are absolutely vital in every living organism on the planet. Each of these proteins are often made up of chains of 200 of these amino acids. Proteins are very specific, and will not work if just one of these acids is incorrect. The chances of these proteins being "right" by chance, is one in 200 factorial, which is to say 200x199x198x197... etc.

The number you get is greater than all the stars and planets in the known universe.

[Mr Jolly]

That doesn't mean that someone or something made them deliberately. In fact I'd say the opposite, the more complex something is the less likely it was created on purpose.

Evolution works on chance, that's the whole point. To take any single item out of context will give the impression that it's far too complex and unlikely. But the way protein is created leaves very little chance, so you work back to the system which creates protein. That would be highly unlikely too, until you work back to see how that developed. The further back you go, the more likely it is, in a universe that's so huge.

[Cattraknoff]

That doesn't mean that someone or something made them deliberately. In fact I'd say the opposite, the more complex something is the less likely it was created on purpose.

Evolution works on chance, that's the whole point. To take any single item out of context will give the impression that it's far too complex and unlikely. But the way protein is created leaves very little chance, so you work back to the system which creates protein. That would be highly unlikely too, until you work back to see how that developed. The further back you go, the more likely it is, in a universe that's so huge.

It is not chance, it is an utter impossibility for functioning life to arise with no influence. Even if one of these single proteins were by chance created, that protein could only do a single job, and there would still be required countless others.

As to complexity lessening the chances of it being created on purpose, that would depend on the being(s) that created the life. Humans could not create something so complex... Something else, on the other hand is another matter.

I am of the opinion that life is too perfect to have arisen of its own accord. To say that there is no evidence to support this idea is absurd. Just as it is absurd to deny evolution in its entirety.

[Mitch]

I was listening to CBC Radio a few days ago and a man speaking about how Atheism is just as bad as Fundamentalism (Evangelism, Islamic Extremism). But that's another story.
Religion and Science can coexist, there is evidence of neither a creator nor a spontaneous creation. Albert Einstein was a very spiritual person, but most physicists are. Physicists are the most accepting scientists of religion because they can accept mystery and other ideas.
As Cattraknoff said, the likeliness of proteins forming properly is VERY VERY low. There had to be some sort of driving force behind it.
There are more and more discoveries now a days, but more and more questions come up as well. I have noticed that more people are moving to Agnosticism, they believe that there had to have been some sort of creator or god, but are still skeptical.

[Mr Jolly]

It is not chance, it is an utter impossibility for functioning life to arise with no influence. Even if one of these single proteins were by chance created, that protein could only do a single job, and there would still be required countless others.

As to complexity lessening the chances of it being created on purpose, that would depend on the being(s) that created the life. Humans could not create something so complex... Something else, on the other hand is another matter.

I am of the opinion that life is too perfect to have arisen of its own accord. To say that there is no evidence to support this idea is absurd. Just as it is absurd to deny evolution in its entirety.
I haven't denied any influence, I've denied a creator. There is clearly an influence which creates, a biological one. Protein isn't just "magic-ed" into existence, our bodies create protein biologically. This is what I'm saying about taking things out of context. For a single strand of protein to suddenly arrive on the planet would be very unlikely, but in the right context such a complex thing is created easily. The further back you go the less complicated and amazing life becomes. That is what evolution is all about, when life began it wasn't so complicated, it evolved that way.

And life is far from perfect, evolution has been fine tuning it for millions of years. Why would a creator with such amazing powers make so many mistakes and still be getting it wrong today?

[Cattraknoff]

I haven't denied any influence, I've denied a creator. There is clearly an influence which creates, a biological one. Protein isn't just "magic-ed" into existence, our bodies create protein biologically. This is what I'm saying about taking things out of context. For a single strand of protein to suddenly arrive on the planet would be very unlikely, but in the right context such a complex thing is created easily. The further back you go the less complicated and amazing life becomes. That is what evolution is all about, when life began it wasn't so complicated, it evolved that way.

And life is far from perfect, evolution has been fine tuning it for millions of years. Why would a creator with such amazing powers make so many mistakes and still be getting it wrong today?

So that we continued to adapt. The imperfections themselves are required for a different form of perfection.

[Mr Jolly]

That doesn't make any sense. A different form of perfection?

This sounds like a vague "God moves in mysterious ways" argument which is always used to explain the constant inconsistencies involved in religion. This argument seems to be that "God" created evolution, an interesting idea but still without a scrap of evidence.

[Cattraknoff]

That doesn't make any sense. A different form of perfection?

This sounds like a vague "God moves in mysterious ways" argument which is always used to explain the constant inconsistencies involved in religion. This argument seems to be that "God" created evolution, an interesting idea but still without a scrap of evidence.

Were life "perfect", it would not adapt, nor evolve. It would have stayed in its original form, whatever that may have been. The imperfection brings about evolution, the imperfection brings about growth. The fact that humans as well are imperfect gives us our ability to learn. Life is indeed perfect as it is; That is to say that it is just as it should be, as was intended.

The evidence is in how we are not able to create life ourselves from nothing. The evidence is in the fact that it has never seemingly since happened spontaneously. All life comes from pre-existing life. The proteins are but one of many factors that are brought into play. Combine all that is necessary, and you have odds beyond imagining, even in its simplest forms.

[Mr Jolly]

So because humans cannot, yet, create life that gives evidence of a creator?

The first primordial life was really quite basic and not such an amazing leap as you are trying to make out. I would admit that there would need to be a creator if I thought, like primitive man did, that nothing had gone before us. Life has evolved from very simple parts, the universe is made up of very simple parts and it is so huge that the chance involved is lower than you think. Anything is possible given enough time and space, and we've got a universe full.

[Prometheus]

I believe the only lab experiments ever conducted about the origins of life involved some interestingly impractical situations. For instance, one involved the heating of some gas, the electrical shock of condensation, and then a "cold trap" for the resulting chemical (which is only one or two I think out of the dozens they expect were needed). How would a chemical be naturally heated, electrified, then cooled to lower temperatures than it started at and stay at that temperature? This is the only known way to create these chemicals, that I have heard of.

I know that's all quite vague, I am not sure on all the details. However now that I talked about the impracticality of basic organic materials developing naturally...

Most evolution believing scientists believe that there was no oxygen on Earth until life created it. The reasons being that there was no source for the oxygen, and that oxygen would destroy the basic organic materials that are needed to create life. However, we currently have a thing called the ozone layer, made up from O3 (O2 reacts with the sunlight in the high atmosphere and O2 breaks up into O and O, each combine with an O2 to create two O3s, or something). The ozone layer blocks at least 97% of the radiation from the sun and other sources, some say up to 99%. If there was no radiation shield around the early Earth as they claim, even the most basic organic compounds would be destroyed. Even if life was planted here somehow with no ozone layer, the radiation would literally destroy any life. The DNA would be changed so drastically that it could not function.

I know this does not "prove the existence of God", but it calls for a serious re-examination of current theories, and the possible inclusion of outside influences.

Oh and... "This post has been given the official Bainer seal of approval." ;)

[Cattraknoff]

I believe the only lab experiments ever conducted about the origins of life involved some interestingly impractical situations. For instance, one involved the heating of some gas, the electrical shock of condensation, and then a "cold trap" for the resulting chemical (which is only one or two I think out of the dozens they expect were needed). How would a chemical be naturally heated, electrified, then cooled to lower temperatures than it started at and stay at that temperature? This is the only known way to create these chemicals, that I have heard of.

I know that's all quite vague, I am not sure on all the details. However now that I talked about the impracticality of basic organic materials developing naturally...

Most evolution believing scientists believe that there was no oxygen on Earth until life created it. The reasons being that there was no source for the oxygen, and that oxygen would destroy the basic organic materials that are needed to create life. However, we currently have a thing called the ozone layer, made up from O3 (O2 reacts with the sunlight in the high atmosphere and O2 breaks up into O and O, each combine with an O2 to create two O3s, or something). The ozone layer blocks at least 97% of the radiation from the sun and other sources, some say up to 99%. If there was no radiation shield around the early Earth as they claim, even the most basic organic compounds would be destroyed. Even if life was planted here somehow with no ozone layer, the radiation would literally destroy any life. The DNA would be changed so drastically that it could not function.

I know this does not "prove the existence of God", but it calls for a serious re-examination of current theories, and the possible inclusion of outside influences.


Oh and... "This post has been given the official Bainer seal of approval." ;)


Indeed.

I endorse this product and/or statement.

[Mr Jolly]

Scientists believe life created oxygen? I heard oxygen was created in stars by nuclear fusion, I'd like to hear how "life" creates it.

[Mitch]

nuclear fusion = hydrogen, not oxygen, different things.
Well, life currently creates oxygen, most visible in plants and trees. Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen.

[Mr Jolly]

nuclear fusion = hydrogen, not oxygen, different things.

Nuclear fusion does not equal hydrogen, what are you talking about?


Well, life currently creates oxygen, most visible in plants and trees. Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen.


That is not the creation of oxygen, carbon dioxide is made up of carbon and oxygen. There is no oxygen being created.

[Prometheus]

The nuclear fusion in the sun requires Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and it is widely agreed upon that the Earth's early atmosphere was almost all Hydrogen and Helium, from some of the same sources that the Sun got it from. This is after the Earth settled down and became more solid. Almost all the oxygen was in water, liquid or solid, not free gas. The theories I've seen explain that micro-organisms started to create oxygen. As life grew more complex, it started to produce oxygen as waste. The first "cyanobacteria", I think it was called, took in water and produce oxygen gas.

There is also the fact that the amount of oxygen required to produce an ozone layer far exceeds the natural concentrations seen in space and the sun. I believe the estimated amount of naturally occurring oxygen (not created by life) in the universe is less than .5%, whereas the Earth's ozone is currently maintained at about 21%.

Also, atmospheric oxygen is not found in rocks before approximately 2.3-2.5 billion years ago, whereas the first life is supposedly found 3.5 billion years ago.

However, suppose there was oxygen on the Earth at its formation (in any state, not in a compound with other elements). How would the genetic material survive?

If there is no oxygen, radiation would prevent life from forming on its own, and destroy it if it was present at all. If there is oxygen, it would destroy most of the required chemicals and amino acids that would have created life, and so far it looks like there was no oxygen.

[Locke]

The nuclear fusion in the sun requires Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and it is widely agreed upon that the Earth's early atmosphere was almost all Hydrogen and Helium, from some of the same sources that the Sun got it from. This is after the Earth settled down and became more solid. Almost all the oxygen was in water, liquid or solid, not free gas. The theories I've seen explain that micro-organisms started to create oxygen. As life grew more complex, it started to produce oxygen as waste. The first "cyanobacteria", I think it was called, took in water and produce oxygen gas.

There is also the fact that the amount of oxygen required to produce an ozone layer far exceeds the natural concentrations seen in space and the sun. I believe the estimated amount of naturally occurring oxygen (not created by life) in the universe is less than .5%, whereas the Earth's ozone is currently maintained at about 21%.

Also, atmospheric oxygen is not found in rocks before approximately 2.3-2.5 billion years ago, whereas the first life is supposedly found 3.5 billion years ago.

However, suppose there was oxygen on the Earth at its formation (in any state, not in a compound with other elements). How would the genetic material survive?

If there is no oxygen, radiation would prevent life from forming on its own, and destroy it if it was present at all. If there is oxygen, it would destroy most of the required chemicals and amino acids that would have created life, and so far it looks like there was no oxygen.

While extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof, I do not see, aside from empirical bigotry, why it cannot be even pondered that perhaps ours is and was an extraordinarily rare situation and that life sprang up in the conditions that then existed (wherein no outside influence was exerted). Logically, it follows that at one point or another patterns of self-propagating matter would spring up.

[Prometheus]

While extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof, I do not see, aside from empirical bigotry, why it cannot be even pondered that perhaps ours is and was an extraordinarily rare situation and that life sprang up in the conditions that then existed (wherein no outside influence was exerted). Logically, it follows that at one point or another patterns of self-propagating matter would spring up.

Of course, you are free to believe what ever it is you choose, with or without proof. However what you just said sounds like it's reasonable to believe something when there is no evidence for, in fact when there is evidence against it. Placing any religion, and the theory of evolution, in the same basket of practicality.

[Mr Jolly]

The nuclear fusion in the sun requires Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and it is widely agreed upon that the Earth's early atmosphere was almost all Hydrogen and Helium, from some of the same sources that the Sun got it from. This is after the Earth settled down and became more solid. Almost all the oxygen was in water, liquid or solid, not free gas. The theories I've seen explain that micro-organisms started to create oxygen. As life grew more complex, it started to produce oxygen as waste. The first "cyanobacteria", I think it was called, took in water and produce oxygen gas.

There is also the fact that the amount of oxygen required to produce an ozone layer far exceeds the natural concentrations seen in space and the sun. I believe the estimated amount of naturally occurring oxygen (not created by life) in the universe is less than .5%, whereas the Earth's ozone is currently maintained at about 21%.

Also, atmospheric oxygen is not found in rocks before approximately 2.3-2.5 billion years ago, whereas the first life is supposedly found 3.5 billion years ago.

However, suppose there was oxygen on the Earth at its formation (in any state, not in a compound with other elements). How would the genetic material survive?

If there is no oxygen, radiation would prevent life from forming on its own, and destroy it if it was present at all. If there is oxygen, it would destroy most of the required chemicals and amino acids that would have created life, and so far it looks like there was no oxygen.I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. There was clearly oxygen on the planet in one form or another, oxygen is created by nuclear fusion in stars not by life. I think what you mean to say is that no oxygen gas was on Earth and this was produced by "life".

Firstly, I don't see what difference that makes. Life started in the oceans, which we all know are made up largely of oxygen, one oxygen atom to every two hydrogen one in fact. Primordial life didn't need oxygen as gas, it could absorb it in other ways.

If your point is life couldn't survive without o-zone due to radiation from the sun, you have no proof the o-zone didn't exist. Even the lack of oxygen gas in the atmosphere proves nothing. You wouldn't find o-zone in rocks at any time, it's not at the planet's surface.

I know for a fact that it does not require life to produce o-zone, o-zone is a bi-product of arc welding. It is produced by sunlight, and that's something the Earth's had for a long time.

I agree that if Earth lacked oxygen life wouldn't survive, but there has been oxygen on the planet since the dawn of time. Besides the atom's which man has managed to change through nuclear research, the planet's elements should be pretty constant I would have thought.

[Cattraknoff]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. There was clearly oxygen on the planet in one form or another, oxygen is created by nuclear fusion in stars not by life. I think what you mean to say is that no oxygen gas was on Earth and this was produced by "life".

Firstly, I don't see what difference that makes. Life started in the oceans, which we all know are made up largely of oxygen, one oxygen atom to every two hydrogen one in fact. Primordial life didn't need oxygen as gas, it could absorb it in other ways.

If your point is life couldn't survive without o-zone due to radiation from the sun, you have no proof the o-zone didn't exist. Even the lack of oxygen gas in the atmosphere proves nothing. You wouldn't find o-zone in rocks at any time, it's not at the planet's surface.

I know for a fact that it does not require life to produce o-zone, o-zone is a bi-product of arc welding. It is produced by sunlight, and that's something the Earth's had for a long time.

I agree that if Earth lacked oxygen life wouldn't survive, but there has been oxygen on the planet since the dawn of time. Besides the atom's which man has managed to change through nuclear research, the planet's elements should be pretty constant I would have thought.

Prior to there being oxygen gas in the atmosphere the oceans would have no dissolved oxygen in the water. This means no life, unfortunately. Trace amounts could however be created by an electric discharge (ie: lightning strike) in the water.

If you would also note he says there was no oxygen found in the rocks, not ozone. Oxygen gas is required for making said ozone.

[Mr Jolly]

Prior to there being oxygen gas in the atmosphere the oceans would have no dissolved oxygen in the water. This means no life, unfortunately. Trace amounts could however be created by an electric discharge (ie: lightning strike) in the water.

If you would also note he says there was no oxygen found in the rocks, not ozone. Oxygen gas is required for making said ozone.

Oceans are made of oxygen, one part to every two parts hydrogen. That means that there is oxygen on the planet, if there is oxygen then there can be life. There doesn't need to be oxygen gas, the oxygen can be absorbed from water. Besides this, life can survive without oxygen, many micro-bacteria do.

I misread the comment about rocks, but I don't see what difference it makes. There doesn't need to be oxygen gas to sustain life, that's simply not true.

You seem to be forgetting that life began in the oceans, where there is an abundance of oxygen and miles of protection from the sun's radiation. All this stuff about ozone is meaningless, there's no risk of too much radiation at the bottom of the ocean.

[Cattraknoff]

Oceans are made of oxygen, one part to every two parts hydrogen. That means that there is oxygen on the planet, if there is oxygen then there can be life. There doesn't need to be oxygen gas, the oxygen can be absorbed from water. Besides this, life can survive without oxygen, many micro-bacteria do.

I misread the comment about rocks, but I don't see what difference it makes. There doesn't need to be oxygen gas to sustain life, that's simply not true.

You seem to be forgetting that life began in the oceans, where there is an abundance of oxygen and miles of protection from the sun's radiation. All this stuff about ozone is meaningless, there's no risk of too much radiation at the bottom of the ocean.

And where then would the required electric shock come from?

[Mr Jolly]

What required electric shock?

Simple primordial life can separate oxygen from water, plants do this today. If there was oxygen on the planet, which clearly the oceans are full of, plants can release this oxygen into the atmosphere.

[Cattraknoff]

What required electric shock?

Simple primordial life can separate oxygen from water, plants do this today. If there was oxygen on the planet, which clearly the oceans are full of, plants can release this oxygen into the atmosphere.

Not for that.

I believe the only lab experiments ever conducted about the origins of life involved some interestingly impractical situations. For instance, one involved the heating of some gas, the electrical shock of condensation, and then a "cold trap" for the resulting chemical (which is only one or two I think out of the dozens they expect were needed). How would a chemical be naturally heated, electrified, then cooled to lower temperatures than it started at and stay at that temperature? This is the only known way to create these chemicals, that I have heard of.



This one.

[Prometheus]

Mr Jolly, you seem to be missing my point on some things.

First, my argument has nothing to do about oxygen sustaining life. I know very well many forms of life do not require oxygen.

Second, I never meant about life "creating" oxygen as an element, I meant creating it as a free element, O2, oxygen gas. I do realize my words sounded like the former, I apologize.

My argument is that with free oxygen, amino acids can not survive. Oxygen binds with them, rendering their properties unless for life. However without oxygen in the atmosphere, there can be no ozone layer (O3), thus massive amounts of radiation would enter and destroy organic compounds.

Atmospheric oxygen (O2) is required for creation of ozone (O3). The sunlight reacts with the O2 and splits it in to two free atoms which bind with an O2, creating O3. Ozone is highly unstable and breaks down to O2 and O, where the O sometimes binds with another O2, or with another O. It's a cycle, and it requires high amounts of oxygen (at least 21% to maintain our current levels, as I said).

As for your argument that life could have originated on the bottom of the ocean, that seems unlikely to impossible. There is no possibility of an electrical charge helping to create the necessary compounds. Also, if there was oxygen dissolved, it would also destroy organic compounds that would form if it were possible. Also, water shields only certain types of radiation. There are many types of radiation from space, originating from the Sun, the galaxy, outside of it, and some from unknown sources. These range from protons and electrons, to x-rays and gamma rays. Water is very weak as a radiation shield, even for the types it does effect.

There is also the question of where the oceans came from in the first place. The most common theories currently are biochemically, and/or by water-rich comets. Again, oxygen in water, and there being water on Earth does not equal large amounts of atmospheric oxygen.

[Mr Jolly]

Not for that.



This one.

That refers to a lab experiment, that doesn't mean that the origin of life works the same as a lab experiment.

Mr Jolly, you seem to be missing my point on some things.

First, my argument has nothing to do about oxygen sustaining life. I know very well many forms of life do not require oxygen.

Second, I never meant about life "creating" oxygen as an element, I meant creating it as a free element, O2, oxygen gas. I do realize my words sounded like the former, I apologize.

My argument is that with free oxygen, amino acids can not survive. Oxygen binds with them, rendering their properties unless for life. However without oxygen in the atmosphere, there can be no ozone layer (O3), thus massive amounts of radiation would enter and destroy organic compounds.

Atmospheric oxygen (O2) is required for creation of ozone (O3). The sunlight reacts with the O2 and splits it in to two free atoms which bind with an O2, creating O3. Ozone is highly unstable and breaks down to O2 and O, where the O sometimes binds with another O2, or with another O. It's a cycle, and it requires high amounts of oxygen (at least 21% to maintain our current levels, as I said).

As for your argument that life could have originated on the bottom of the ocean, that seems unlikely to impossible. There is no possibility of an electrical charge helping to create the necessary compounds. Also, if there was oxygen dissolved, it would also destroy organic compounds that would form if it were possible. Also, water shields only certain types of radiation. There are many types of radiation from space, originating from the Sun, the galaxy, outside of it, and some from unknown sources. These range from protons and electrons, to x-rays and gamma rays. Water is very weak as a radiation shield, even for the types it does effect.

There is also the question of where the oceans came from in the first place. The most common theories currently are biochemically, and/or by water-rich comets. Again, oxygen in water, and there being water on Earth does not equal large amounts of atmospheric oxygen.This planet is one huge magnet, as it moves it creates electrical current. Electrical currents run through the oceans and the planet's surface. There is a certain possibility that there would be an electrical charge in the oceans, there always is one.

I find it hard to except the argument that ozone makes a better shield than a couple of miles of ocean water, considering that the oceans are deep enough to block out almost all the light they seem to shield from radiation quite well. Your list of radiations is a straw man, ozone protects the planet from ultra violet radiation not gamma radiation. The deep oceans can clearly protect from ultra violet radiation.

[Cattraknoff]

That refers to a lab experiment, that doesn't mean that the origin of life works the same as a lab experiment.

Scientifically it's the only way they've managed to create the compounds necessary to form the amino acids which we've all by now agreed are absolutely vital for life.

I think you're grasping at straws here. First you say there's no valid evidence, and now here we have scientific experiments which you supposedly would base your opinion on (or should, given the fact that it's the generally accepted way of proving or in this case disproving anything), and still you ignore it and insist that it must have somehow happened some other way... Moreover, you say that there could not have been some outside influence, when all scientific evidence suggests it would have been extremely unlikely, or even impossible for this to happen without one.

This planet is one huge magnet, as it moves it creates electrical current. Electrical currents run through the oceans and the planet's surface. There is a certain possibility that there would be an electrical charge in the oceans, there always is one.

I find it hard to except the argument that ozone makes a better shield than a couple of miles of ocean water, considering that the oceans are deep enough to block out almost all the light they seem to shield from radiation quite well. Your list of radiations is a straw man, ozone protects the planet from ultra violet radiation not gamma radiation. The deep oceans can clearly protect from ultra violet radiation.

Blocking visible light is quite a different matter from blocking types of radiation. And the type of electricity referred to is an actual electric shock, which would not in all conceivable likelyhood occur therein.

[Mr Jolly]

Where have I said there's no valid evidence?

I said there was no evidence of a creator, an experiment showing that life "can" be created in certain lab conditions does not give evidence of a creator. I'm dismissing the experiment because it is a lab experiment, you can't argue the origins of life unless you know the origins of life. All we're doing is throwing theories around, but some are making nonsensical claims. oxygen, electrical current and everything else to create life is in ready abundance on the planet. The lack of ozone doesn't mean anything, life is protected in the same manner by the oceans.

[Cattraknoff]

Where have I said there's no valid evidence?

I said there was no evidence of a creator, an experiment showing that life "can" be created in certain lab conditions does not give evidence of a creator. I'm dismissing the experiment because it is a lab experiment, you can't argue the origins of life unless you know the origins of life. All we're doing is throwing theories around, but some are making nonsensical claims. oxygen, electrical current and everything else to create life is in ready abundance on the planet. The lack of ozone doesn't mean anything, life is protected in the same manner by the oceans.

The ozone layer is also responsible for keeping xrays and gamma rays out. The ocean does not protect from these. Also note that xrays and gamma rays are generally more harmful than UV rays, and I still wouldn't count on the ocean blocking even them.

EDIT: As to there being no evidence of a creator, the increasingly obviously unlikelyhood of life happening of its own accord could be credited as evidence thereof.

[Mr Jolly]

Blocking visible light is quite a different matter from blocking types of radiation. And the type of electricity referred to is an actual electric shock, which would not in all conceivable likelyhood occur therein.

Type of electricity? Now who's grasping at straws? Electrical current is the movement of electrons, there is no type option it all works the same way. The lab experiments used electrical current, the Earth produces it's own electrical current.

I think the oceans can block out ultra violet radiation if ozone can.

[Cattraknoff]

Type of electricity? Now who's grasping at straws? Electrical current is the movement of electrons, there is no type option it all works the same way. The lab experiments used electrical current, the Earth produces it's own electrical current.

I think the oceans can block out ultra violet radiation if ozone can.

What was indeed being referred to was a generally larger amount of electrical current than that which can be seen from the electromagnetic field. Oceans are different than ozone. Chemical properties of ozone allow it to block the radiation.

[Prometheus]

Type of electricity? Now who's grasping at straws? Electrical current is the movement of electrons, there is no type option it all works the same way. The lab experiments used electrical current, the Earth produces it's own electrical current.

I think the oceans can block out ultra violet radiation if ozone can.

There is a slight stream of electricity, and a shock of it. Something closer to a shock, something powerful enough to hurt someone, was used in the experiments. The only way nature produces such things is by large discharges, which only happen in the atmosphere.

Also, just because oxygen is in water, it does not mean it has the same chemical properties properties. You also have to remember the oceans were far different than they are now, back then. As I said before, sea levels were far lower as water built up. The reasons for which are yet still unknown I believe.

EDIT - Also, ultra-violet and gamma rays are extremely high energy and have short wavelength. They are filtered out by ozone, most of it never reaches the Earth. They are filtered out because of the chemistry involved with O2 turning into O3, other than that, the only way to block them are by very heavy atoms, very high density. Water molecules are not considered high density, in fact they are fairly low.

[Mr Jolly]

This is a straw man. What are these experiments you are referring to? Are you saying that man has created life in a lab?

Firstly, there has never been any man made life other than a bio-chemically constructed chromosome. Your argument relies a bogus experiment, until you actually know the origins of life you can't tell me what the correct current is. So far your argument that life is to complex to create by chance has proved nothing. All the ingredients for life were available on earth, and all the right conditions. There must have been the right conditions because life has evolved on earth. You can't deny that, we're here.

[Prometheus]

This is a straw man. What are these experiments you are referring to? Are you saying that man has created life in a lab?

Firstly, there has never been any man made life other than a bio-chemically constructed chromosome. Your argument relies a bogus experiment, until you actually know the origins of life you can't tell me what the correct current is. So far your argument that life is to complex to create by chance has proved nothing. All the ingredients for life were available on earth, and all the right conditions. There must have been the right conditions because life has evolved on earth. You can't deny that, we're here.

First, stop with this "straw man" shit. It's pointless. If you want to say something is irrelevant, just say it is.

Second, you refuse to even acknowledge what my argument actually is. I am saying the only possible way to form the necessary compounds to create life require a highly impractical environment, involving heating, electrical shocks, and cooling.

Oxygen destroys basic organic compounds, thus preventing the first cells to be formed, but all evidents supports a lack of atmospheric oxygen until life created it (took O from water and released it as O2 as a gas). No ozone in the atmosphere means no ozone (O3) layer can be sustained. No ozone layer lets short wave radiation onto the surface of the earth, x rays and gamma rays. Each are highly destructive to life, basic life would have no defense against it. Large oceans did not develop until after the first life developed. Even if they were around and life developed on the bottom, water does not protect against high energy short wavelength particles. All the evidence points to life originating on Earth to be impossible.

[Mr Jolly]

Exactly, your argument relies on knowing the secret of life. Until you can tell me the true origin of life you can't say that life couldn't be created on Earth. You don't know the way life was created, if you want to base your argument on a theory then any old theory will do.

You seem happy to go along with the experiments carried out by Stanley Miller, so surely you will also acknowledge his other experiments which show that there were a large amount of UV blocking compounds in the early oceans?

You see, not all the evidence points to it being impossible at all. One thing is clear though, there is some evidence to support the theories about the origins of life on Earth there isn't any evidence to support the theory of a "creator".

[Locke]

Exactly, your argument relies on knowing the secret of life. Until you can tell me the true origin of life you can't say that life couldn't be created on Earth. You don't know the way life was created, if you want to base your argument on a theory then any old theory will do.
You see, not all the evidence points to it being impossible at all. One thing is clear though, there is some evidence to support the theories about the origins of life on Earth there isn't any evidence to support the theory of a "creator".
Yes, the only thing that would point to this is an amorphous gap in scientific theory. If something as improbable as a Creator meddled on Earth in the beginning of life, then something equally improbably may easily have occurred.

[Mr Jolly]

That's true. You can pick holes in scientific theory all day long, but there is really an infinite number of possibilities for the origins of life, a "creator" is still only one of them. At least the scientific theories are based on facts, not faith.

[octoparrot]

science explains what religion can't.

[Cattraknoff]

science explains what religion can't.

Creationism does not by necessity stem from religious beliefs.

[Locke]

science explains what religion can't.

In fact, science describes very little concerning the beginning of the current universe.