(no subject)
Alright, this argument is extremely long and not yet finished, but still a fairly enjoyable read.
Me: I was just wondering if you were, in fact, a creationist or a proponent of ID and would like to have a calm friendly debate on the subject.
Him :fun fun fun
Him: have at it
Him: cuz this is where I stand
Him: I am an engineering major, right?
Him: So I, of course am gonna be more interested in scientific info and such than anything else
Him: This is what I have uncovered
Him: The Earth is composed of heavy elements
Him: such as iron, sulfur, oxygen, and other heavy elements
Him: these elements do not exist elsewhere naturally in this solar system in such abundance
Him: all the other planets are gaseous ones that made of lighter elements
Me: Save the first four, correct?
Him: yes that would be correct
Him: therefore i find it hard and impossible to believe that they all came from the same source
Him: second
Him: Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is a spiral galaxy
Him: The chances of a spiral galaxy occuring naturally are beyond improbable
Him: in fact, there have been no other observed spiral galaxies yet
Him: thats not saying much, but, eh
Me: Well, you make good points that reference actual data
Him: anyway, most other galaxies fall under one of two categories: elliptical or irregular
Him: those two types of galaxies would not safely support human existence due to roaming sloar systems and various black holes
Me: The milky way galaxy was recently found to be an irregular galaxy
Me: A barred spiral to be exact
Him: yes, in that a spiral-shape galaxy is highly irregular and ordered
Him: it works perfectly to support life
Him: it is a very safe structure, to put it one way
Him: thridly, going back to the Earth, if I may
Me: of course
Him: imagine a ruler that extends from one end of the universe to the other
Him: that represents nuclear forces
Him: with 1-inch marks
Him: now, gravity is down at the fairly weak end, and forces in the nuclues, are down at the high end
Me: the strong force, right?
Me: for atoms
Him: yes yes
Him: it an indicator acurrately plotting the Earth's gravity on that scale were moved even ONE INCH, it
would increase the Earth's gravity TEN BILLION FOLD
Him: That is the kind of precision that cosmic existence is dealing with
Him: ah
Him: I see where you stand
Him: Not only that
Him: but if the background temperature of the Earth were increased suddenly by as much as 1 degree, the planet would overheat and spiral into destruction
Him: and if it were decreased suddenly by one degree, it could plummet into a deadly winter
Me: I'm familiar with these notes
Him: Also, an interesting thing that was in a book that I read was
Him: The likeliness of having all those factors randomly line up
Him: would be like shooting at a target the size of an atom on earth
Him: from outer space
Him: and hitting the target
Him: just an interesting side note
Me: Well, heres the thing
Him: yeah go aheag
Him: ahead*
Me: You can say that if all the factors took place, the world and galaxy as we know it would not have formed
Me: but the fact remains that it is the way it is
Him: correct
Me: these cataclysmic changes did not occur
Me: so we have a functioning, yet highly unlikely setup for the devlopment of life
Him: im saying that the very existence of the Earth proves that it had to have been created and set the way
it is because the likeliness of it not occurring the way it did is astronomical
Me: True
Me: but, that rare chance occurred
Me: just because it is unlikely doesnt mean it is impossible
Him: not sure what you mean
Me: well, think of it this way
Me: you are in your room right now
Him: yes
Me: nothing, absolutely nothing is keeping all the air in that room from piling up away from you
Him: hmm?
Me: its just unlikely
Him: well theres gravity
Me: How old do you see the universe as?
Him: hmm
Him: well
Him: the Earth in my view is about 10000-15000 years old
Him: Not really sure as far as the universe is concerned
Him: probably close to that, assuming all creation occurred at once
Him: or in procession
Me: this is impossible
Him: how so
Me: look up at the night sky
Me: youll see many many stars
Me: some millios of light years away
Him: yes
Me: and yet they are still visible
Me: The speed of light is constant
Him: not true
Him: see
Him: the theory that I find the most interesting
Him: is that if, say, a body were travelling at the speed of light
Him: then light would pass that body at the speed of light
Me: a body cannot travel at the speed of light
Him: i know that
Me: its the universal speed limit
Him: im talking if that were possible
Him: that is what is theorized to possible occur
Him: and its most likely true
Me: Just keep in mind you are forming an argument based on a false assumption
Him: ok, nevermind that theory
Me: Now, i have to admit
Him: lets go with Entropy, my scientific best friend
Me: ah yes
Him: now if the universe were billions and billions of years old
Him: things would NOT have gotten more ordered, it would be utter chaos
Him: thats another problem I have
Him: Another is the fossil record
Me: the change of entropy for the universe is alway positive
Me: yet some reactions can have negative entropy
Me: these require energy to happen
Him: yes but those do not occur naturally or commonly
Me: the formation of water
Me: from hydrogen and oxygen is not spontaneous
Him: yes but that does not take millions and millions of years
Me: and?
Him: the idea that certain progressions that could result in positive results could take millions and
millions of years that have not since is not too trustworthy in my opinion
Me: well they are extremely unlikely
Me: the 2nd law doesnt want them to happen
Him: well, it's a law
Him: and it applies to systems
Me: you can stimulate them to happen, but for some theres porbably not enough energy in the universe
Him: water in itself is not a system
Me: yes it can be
Me: depends on your point of view
Me: but the fossil record
Him: yes yes
Me: what were you going to say?
Him: if there were gradual changes and such, then the fossil record would show layer upon layer with
ordered history
Him: but thats not what it is
Me: by and large it does
Me: but yes
Me: there are inconsistencies
Him: There are trees fossilized whole throughout several layers
Him: there is no evidence to suggest slow gradueal change
Him: lastly, where did life exactly come from?
Him: there is no original proof that shows where life came from
Me: a protocell
Him: life CANNOT come from nonlife
Me: there is no law that dictates thus
Him: There have been no produced results otherwise
Him: to bring life from nonlife
Me: life is a natural process
Him: and life always comes from life
Me: its not really special
Me: its...passive in a way
Him: but nonliving material cannot create life it has never happened
Him: not even in a lab
Him: under ideal conditions
Me: there are nonliving things that are considered organic
Me: amino acids and such
Him: yes, amino acids are living material, but where did THOSE come from??
Me: well
Me: there was a famous experiment concerning this
Him: oh
Him: wait
Him: lemme guess
Him: Miller's Experiment?
Me: yes
Him: The one that inexplicably used Ammonium in the simulated atmosphere to allow for the creation of
the amino acids?
Me: ammonium was very common in earth's early atmosphere
Him: No
Me: what we have now is an oxidizing atmosphere, then we had a reducing one
Him: There was no reason to believe that it was
Me: the atmosphere was very different then
Me: to give electrons to other compounds rather than recieve as we have now
Him: but there was no reason to believe that Ammonium was in the atmosphere, severak scientists have said so
Me: alright, subtract it
Me: you can still make plenty of lipids
Me: carbohydrates
Him: see, if you subtract it then the amino acids are not created
Me: nitrgoen could be obtained from another source
Me: free in the atmosphere
Him: but not likely, not only that, but youre going backwards now.
Him: youre showing what exists and youre trying to explain it backwards
Me: im just trying to concede points to be polite
Him: it has never been proved to have been possible
Him: yeah im getting passionate
Him: lol
Me: If I wanted to, I could ask for your data on the matter, links to reports these scientists have made..etc
Me: some nonbiased scientific source disproving ammonia
Me: but something else then
Me: structuring, biochemical analysis, geology?
Me: The grand canyon alone marks the age of the earth as very very old indeed
Him: The grand canyon is explained by the worldwide flood
Me: impossible
Him: not really
Me: no amount of water could drive a mile deep crevasse into the desert
Me: not all at once
Him: no certainly not all at once
Him: but not over millions and millions of years
Me: yes
Me: erosion
Him: but eh ill concede that one I havent researched it enough
Me: a river slowly pulls sediment away
Me: water dissolved minerals
Him: Another huge problem is this: The Theory of Irreducible Complexity.
Him: im changing the subject but im letting you have that one
Me: fine, lol
Him: The Theory of Irreducible Complexity was formulated by Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University
Me: but this is ID
Me: ID cannot be proven scientifically
Him: yes it can
Him: anyway
Me: you cant prove god
Me: not in a lab
Him: not trying to prove god
Him: just that things were created
Him: anyway
Blast901 (3:21:53 PM): ID requires a God, a creator, an intelligent being
Blast901 (3:22:07 PM): if it didnt have that its just evolution
Him: he showed and proved that several microscopic mechanisms of life COULD NOT have evoloved from simpler lifeforms, because they themselves were as simple as they could possible be
Him: such as cilia
Him: tiny hairs on cells
Him: that have tiny microcellular motors
Him: if you remove any one piece of the cilia, it doesnt function
Him: at all
Blast901 (3:23:44 PM): Im not truly familiar on cilia, but I know flagellae
Him: same deal there
Blast901 (3:24:08 PM): Endosymbiotic theory, are you familiar with that?
Him: no
Him: possibly but not in name
Blast901 (3:25:02 PM): a primitive eukarytoe simply does endocytosis on a primitve flagellate prokaryote
Blast901 (3:25:21 PM): this is explained by mitochondria having their own DNA
Blast901 (3:25:28 PM): they are self sustainable
Him: yeah but you are not taking simpler "missing link" cells that could have existed prior in an evolutionary chain
To be continued….
By the way, does anyone know the deal with those trees going through the layers of the fossil record? Creationists use it all the time, and I don't know how to debate it. But I do have an answer for the cilia thing, I just looked it up.
Me: I was just wondering if you were, in fact, a creationist or a proponent of ID and would like to have a calm friendly debate on the subject.
Him :fun fun fun
Him: have at it
Him: cuz this is where I stand
Him: I am an engineering major, right?
Him: So I, of course am gonna be more interested in scientific info and such than anything else
Him: This is what I have uncovered
Him: The Earth is composed of heavy elements
Him: such as iron, sulfur, oxygen, and other heavy elements
Him: these elements do not exist elsewhere naturally in this solar system in such abundance
Him: all the other planets are gaseous ones that made of lighter elements
Me: Save the first four, correct?
Him: yes that would be correct
Him: therefore i find it hard and impossible to believe that they all came from the same source
Him: second
Him: Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is a spiral galaxy
Him: The chances of a spiral galaxy occuring naturally are beyond improbable
Him: in fact, there have been no other observed spiral galaxies yet
Him: thats not saying much, but, eh
Me: Well, you make good points that reference actual data
Him: anyway, most other galaxies fall under one of two categories: elliptical or irregular
Him: those two types of galaxies would not safely support human existence due to roaming sloar systems and various black holes
Me: The milky way galaxy was recently found to be an irregular galaxy
Me: A barred spiral to be exact
Him: yes, in that a spiral-shape galaxy is highly irregular and ordered
Him: it works perfectly to support life
Him: it is a very safe structure, to put it one way
Him: thridly, going back to the Earth, if I may
Me: of course
Him: imagine a ruler that extends from one end of the universe to the other
Him: that represents nuclear forces
Him: with 1-inch marks
Him: now, gravity is down at the fairly weak end, and forces in the nuclues, are down at the high end
Me: the strong force, right?
Me: for atoms
Him: yes yes
Him: it an indicator acurrately plotting the Earth's gravity on that scale were moved even ONE INCH, it
would increase the Earth's gravity TEN BILLION FOLD
Him: That is the kind of precision that cosmic existence is dealing with
Him: ah
Him: I see where you stand
Him: Not only that
Him: but if the background temperature of the Earth were increased suddenly by as much as 1 degree, the planet would overheat and spiral into destruction
Him: and if it were decreased suddenly by one degree, it could plummet into a deadly winter
Me: I'm familiar with these notes
Him: Also, an interesting thing that was in a book that I read was
Him: The likeliness of having all those factors randomly line up
Him: would be like shooting at a target the size of an atom on earth
Him: from outer space
Him: and hitting the target
Him: just an interesting side note
Me: Well, heres the thing
Him: yeah go aheag
Him: ahead*
Me: You can say that if all the factors took place, the world and galaxy as we know it would not have formed
Me: but the fact remains that it is the way it is
Him: correct
Me: these cataclysmic changes did not occur
Me: so we have a functioning, yet highly unlikely setup for the devlopment of life
Him: im saying that the very existence of the Earth proves that it had to have been created and set the way
it is because the likeliness of it not occurring the way it did is astronomical
Me: True
Me: but, that rare chance occurred
Me: just because it is unlikely doesnt mean it is impossible
Him: not sure what you mean
Me: well, think of it this way
Me: you are in your room right now
Him: yes
Me: nothing, absolutely nothing is keeping all the air in that room from piling up away from you
Him: hmm?
Me: its just unlikely
Him: well theres gravity
Me: How old do you see the universe as?
Him: hmm
Him: well
Him: the Earth in my view is about 10000-15000 years old
Him: Not really sure as far as the universe is concerned
Him: probably close to that, assuming all creation occurred at once
Him: or in procession
Me: this is impossible
Him: how so
Me: look up at the night sky
Me: youll see many many stars
Me: some millios of light years away
Him: yes
Me: and yet they are still visible
Me: The speed of light is constant
Him: not true
Him: see
Him: the theory that I find the most interesting
Him: is that if, say, a body were travelling at the speed of light
Him: then light would pass that body at the speed of light
Me: a body cannot travel at the speed of light
Him: i know that
Me: its the universal speed limit
Him: im talking if that were possible
Him: that is what is theorized to possible occur
Him: and its most likely true
Me: Just keep in mind you are forming an argument based on a false assumption
Him: ok, nevermind that theory
Me: Now, i have to admit
Him: lets go with Entropy, my scientific best friend
Me: ah yes
Him: now if the universe were billions and billions of years old
Him: things would NOT have gotten more ordered, it would be utter chaos
Him: thats another problem I have
Him: Another is the fossil record
Me: the change of entropy for the universe is alway positive
Me: yet some reactions can have negative entropy
Me: these require energy to happen
Him: yes but those do not occur naturally or commonly
Me: the formation of water
Me: from hydrogen and oxygen is not spontaneous
Him: yes but that does not take millions and millions of years
Me: and?
Him: the idea that certain progressions that could result in positive results could take millions and
millions of years that have not since is not too trustworthy in my opinion
Me: well they are extremely unlikely
Me: the 2nd law doesnt want them to happen
Him: well, it's a law
Him: and it applies to systems
Me: you can stimulate them to happen, but for some theres porbably not enough energy in the universe
Him: water in itself is not a system
Me: yes it can be
Me: depends on your point of view
Me: but the fossil record
Him: yes yes
Me: what were you going to say?
Him: if there were gradual changes and such, then the fossil record would show layer upon layer with
ordered history
Him: but thats not what it is
Me: by and large it does
Me: but yes
Me: there are inconsistencies
Him: There are trees fossilized whole throughout several layers
Him: there is no evidence to suggest slow gradueal change
Him: lastly, where did life exactly come from?
Him: there is no original proof that shows where life came from
Me: a protocell
Him: life CANNOT come from nonlife
Me: there is no law that dictates thus
Him: There have been no produced results otherwise
Him: to bring life from nonlife
Me: life is a natural process
Him: and life always comes from life
Me: its not really special
Me: its...passive in a way
Him: but nonliving material cannot create life it has never happened
Him: not even in a lab
Him: under ideal conditions
Me: there are nonliving things that are considered organic
Me: amino acids and such
Him: yes, amino acids are living material, but where did THOSE come from??
Me: well
Me: there was a famous experiment concerning this
Him: oh
Him: wait
Him: lemme guess
Him: Miller's Experiment?
Me: yes
Him: The one that inexplicably used Ammonium in the simulated atmosphere to allow for the creation of
the amino acids?
Me: ammonium was very common in earth's early atmosphere
Him: No
Me: what we have now is an oxidizing atmosphere, then we had a reducing one
Him: There was no reason to believe that it was
Me: the atmosphere was very different then
Me: to give electrons to other compounds rather than recieve as we have now
Him: but there was no reason to believe that Ammonium was in the atmosphere, severak scientists have said so
Me: alright, subtract it
Me: you can still make plenty of lipids
Me: carbohydrates
Him: see, if you subtract it then the amino acids are not created
Me: nitrgoen could be obtained from another source
Me: free in the atmosphere
Him: but not likely, not only that, but youre going backwards now.
Him: youre showing what exists and youre trying to explain it backwards
Me: im just trying to concede points to be polite
Him: it has never been proved to have been possible
Him: yeah im getting passionate
Him: lol
Me: If I wanted to, I could ask for your data on the matter, links to reports these scientists have made..etc
Me: some nonbiased scientific source disproving ammonia
Me: but something else then
Me: structuring, biochemical analysis, geology?
Me: The grand canyon alone marks the age of the earth as very very old indeed
Him: The grand canyon is explained by the worldwide flood
Me: impossible
Him: not really
Me: no amount of water could drive a mile deep crevasse into the desert
Me: not all at once
Him: no certainly not all at once
Him: but not over millions and millions of years
Me: yes
Me: erosion
Him: but eh ill concede that one I havent researched it enough
Me: a river slowly pulls sediment away
Me: water dissolved minerals
Him: Another huge problem is this: The Theory of Irreducible Complexity.
Him: im changing the subject but im letting you have that one
Me: fine, lol
Him: The Theory of Irreducible Complexity was formulated by Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University
Me: but this is ID
Me: ID cannot be proven scientifically
Him: yes it can
Him: anyway
Me: you cant prove god
Me: not in a lab
Him: not trying to prove god
Him: just that things were created
Him: anyway
Blast901 (3:21:53 PM): ID requires a God, a creator, an intelligent being
Blast901 (3:22:07 PM): if it didnt have that its just evolution
Him: he showed and proved that several microscopic mechanisms of life COULD NOT have evoloved from simpler lifeforms, because they themselves were as simple as they could possible be
Him: such as cilia
Him: tiny hairs on cells
Him: that have tiny microcellular motors
Him: if you remove any one piece of the cilia, it doesnt function
Him: at all
Blast901 (3:23:44 PM): Im not truly familiar on cilia, but I know flagellae
Him: same deal there
Blast901 (3:24:08 PM): Endosymbiotic theory, are you familiar with that?
Him: no
Him: possibly but not in name
Blast901 (3:25:02 PM): a primitive eukarytoe simply does endocytosis on a primitve flagellate prokaryote
Blast901 (3:25:21 PM): this is explained by mitochondria having their own DNA
Blast901 (3:25:28 PM): they are self sustainable
Him: yeah but you are not taking simpler "missing link" cells that could have existed prior in an evolutionary chain
To be continued….
By the way, does anyone know the deal with those trees going through the layers of the fossil record? Creationists use it all the time, and I don't know how to debate it. But I do have an answer for the cilia thing, I just looked it up.