Evolution vs. Creation page 39

955 posts

Flag Post

I remember a post we had in here somewhere wherein someone posted links to various experiments regarding the formation of different parts of a primitive cell, like lipid bilayers, peptides, RNA and primitive replicators, a Basic Cell Assembly Kit so to speak, but I can’t find it. Does anybody else remember and can dig that up? I’d be ever so grateful.

Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

The Miller-Urey Experiment showed that extreme conditions can create the necessary amino acids for life. The Fox Experiments showed how those amino acids can form membranes and other precursors to life.

You should probably read the entire Origin of Life wiki entry though. Criticisms of my using wiki are stupid: I’m just lazy. If you can’t do the research yourself, you’re just as lazy as I am.

It’s stuff a lot of scientists would argue they figured out on their own. Dawkins specifically talks about how many people feel arrogant when admitting that they came up with such fundamental theories as abiogenesis and evolution in their early years, but it really is that obvious. It is not lacking modesty to say that abiogenesis and evolution are clear and obvious facts. The only questions are in the details. Our many models for abiogenesis are all possible, and I personally suspect that a combination of these possible models are most likely.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

By this, I simply met that nonliving things do not evolve.

Formation of amino acids
tPNA formation
Spontaneous formation of prebiotic RNA molecules

…and so on.

In other words, they can – or rather, specific reactions lead to systems that can evolve. All it involves is chemical reactions of increasing complexity that at one point become able to replicate themselves, and the rest is history.

I didn’t claim we’ve actually created living organisms, but that has never been the goal, nor is it really feasible.


Flag Post

Hahaha, I just found that exact same post. I just got ninja’d, but of course it’d be by Ajora if anyone. Also, this link compliments the above.

Flag Post

Yes, that one. Thanks.

Flag Post
Originally posted by Phoenix00017:

I was going to try a different segue, but I think norumaru’s was probably more direct and efficient. :)

This is a topic that became very close to me recently with my game CellCraft that got falsely slammed (warning, that page is an absolute train wreck…I really don’t recommend reading the comments) for being “Creationist Agenda” and having lots of “Intelligent Design Memes”. After hours of heated debates, name-calling, and ridiculous assumptions by some of the critics (who frankly were falling into traps they often criticize Creationists for using), well, we didn’t really get anywhere. But it was very eye-opening to me. While I’ve always been on the Evolution side I’ll admit up front that I’m by no means an expert on the subject and probably should do a little more research on my own.

I’m not sure exactly where I’m going with this. The debate that we saw was one of “should I have included evolution in my game”? Among other reasons, one concern I had was whether or not this would limit my use in classrooms or cause Creationist parents to prevent their kids from playing the game. This isn’t exactly the debate here, but is at least closer.

We’re 38 pages into this one, so where is the thread right now? Do we have certain claims on one side or the other that we’re working on? How are we defining “Creationism”? Is this “young earth” or just “God had a part of it, but it took millions of years anyway”?

Also, what do we mean by “Evolution”? Are we discussion origin of life at all, or only origin of species?

I liked your game, but it clearly was a attack piece as well. You can deny it all you want, because that is what you have to do.

The game was cool, but you should have left out evolution and creation.