C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:08 am

Dave1050 wrote:
Why not have a look at some science websites rather than a missionary organsisation ?


Missionary organisation? These are articles written by ph.D scientists who believe that the world we see around us demands a Creator just as Newton and Bacon did. And many living scientists do as well.
So what? Surely you don't think that missionaries should eschew qualifications? Or that those with qualifications should not become missionaries?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:05 pm

Are you suggesting we are all made from stardust? Burnell doesn't even mention first life or even evolution for that matter


Professor Bell-Burnell states quite clearly that the elements that make up the human body are synthesised within stars and nowhere else. We are essentially the products of nulear waste.

Unless you have an alternaitive scientific explanation.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:44 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Professor Bell-Burnell states quite clearly that the elements that make up the human body are synthesised within stars and nowhere else.
Surely this is accepted by creationists: it's transmutation, that goal of the famous creationist scientist Isaac Newton.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:24 pm

I think Bill Bailey used the word 'transmutation' in tonight's BBC Two programme, as a pre-Wallace and pre-Darwin word for the opposite of immutability of species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_transmutation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutation
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8449
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Dave1050 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:02 pm

Of course we are all made of stardust. Where do you think all the elements come from?

Where is your evidence for that very bold assertion?

I haven't seen the video, but it would seem to be pointing out the above.

How can you comment on a video you haven't even seen?

Whether you accept abiogenesis or just biogenesis, life - and everything - needs elements. What's wrong with a video concentrating on just one part of the hydrogen to heavier elements to life to modern creatures sequence?

Again, where is the evidence that life came from lifeless chemicals? The fact that stars contain the same elements as life is just as much evidence for a common designer (and a much more logical conclusion).
Dave1050
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:34 pm

Organism don't contain any chemical elements that aren't found in non-life.

The truth of how scientists know certain (non artificial) elements in the periodic table were first 'forged' in stars is 'out there' as they say. Not in space but on the World Wide Web.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8449
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:32 pm

Where is your evidence for that very bold assertion?


Spectroscopy.

Again, where is the evidence that life came from lifeless chemicals? The fact that stars contain the same elements as life is just as much evidence for a common designer (and a much more logical conclusion).


Explain how it is a much more logical conclusion ?

What is your alternative explanation for the origin of the elements that make up the human body ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:48 pm

Dave1050 wrote:
Of course we are all made of stardust. Where do you think all the elements come from?

Where is your evidence for that very bold assertion?
It's a basic tenet of astronomy, cosmology and stellar evolution.

I haven't seen the video, but it would seem to be pointing out the above.

How can you comment on a video you haven't even seen?
Because it's obvious from Peter's recommendation that that is what it was about. Had you watched the video more carefully (as I now have) you would have seen at about 13 minutes that many elements come from supernovae. "and nowhere else". At around 14 mins, the professor states explicitly that the elements in your body come from exploding stars.
Whether you accept abiogenesis or just biogenesis, life - and everything - needs elements. What's wrong with a video concentrating on just one part of the hydrogen to heavier elements to life to modern creatures sequence?

Again, where is the evidence that life came from lifeless chemicals? The fact that stars contain the same elements as life is just as much evidence for a common designer (and a much more logical conclusion).
Oh dear. I was going to recommend an article on stellar transmutation, but maybe you just need the closing paragraph:
The B2FH paper laid the foundation for stellar nucleosynthesis 50 years ago at this point and has been well established for a long time now. But of course, dishonest creationists like Kent Hovind love to show that they're more closely related to ostriches than apes when they bury their heads in the sand and ask questions like this:
"If the "Big Bang" produced hydrogen and some
helium, how did the other 105 elements evolve?"
Sounds almost like "why are there still monkeys, doesn't it?
http://angryastronomer.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/synthesis-of-elements-in-stars.html
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby cathy » Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:02 pm

Again, where is the evidence that life came from lifeless chemicals?

Dave you keep making this broad assertion without any definitions of what you mean. What do you mean by life and what do you mean by lifeless? Do you mean unreactive? Do you mean inorganic? What? I will work on the assumption that you don't know very much science and therefore by lifeless chemicals you are referring to all the chemical elements on the periodic table.

If so the evidence that life comes from lifeless chemicals is all around you!!! If we were to pick you apart atom by atom what we would have is a of lifeless chemicals - all from the periodic table. There are no other known chemicals, and there are no life forms that we know of that contain anything beyond those chemical elements. Therefore life comes from lifeless chemicals.

Now I'm not sure how much chemistry you know, but the majority of those lifeless chemicals will react with each other and that in a way is partly what life is The processes of life carried out by all living things depend on chemical reactions within cells. Hence life is reactions of lifeless chemicals. Obviously we are more than the sum of our parts but the evidence of life from lifeless chemicals is all around you.

Now are you really referring to first life? Abiogenesis?

If so, we know we have life - therefore we know life began. We know the earliest life was simple photosynthesing bacteria using chemical reactions involving 'lifeless' chemicals. We also know that the seven features that define something as living, mrs gren, are all based on various chemical reactions. Therefore the most logical explanation is the features of life arising bit by bit at a time from not living to fully living arose via chemistry. Not all features together.

However I am more than happy for you to place god in that gap as an alternative explanation until we have solved that particular puzzle and say that god created simple photosynthesising bacteria. Which solves all the problems you keep trying to bring up with evolution. The origins of life do not alter what happened when life arose. It is not a problem and if it is for you it is easily solved by putting god into the unknown gap.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby cathy » Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:09 pm

The fact that stars contain the same elements as life is just as much evidence for a common designer (and a much more logical conclusion).

Hm that is a bold assertion. Can you explain exactly how it is evidence?

Can you explain why it is a much more logical conclusion given we can see those elements being thrown out when stars die and explode and see them forming new planets/solar systems? Where do the elements from these explosions go exactly if not into making new solar systems?

Oh and you still havent' answered my questions - which are still not coming up on any creationist website search:.

What feature of chemical reactions have you found that specifically precludes the features of life?

How has this been tested? Has it been tested in all possible conditions? What evidence do you have that all seven features of life had to arise simultaneously (which nobody but creationists think is the case). How has that been tested? Where is it in the real literature? Where is it in the creationist literature?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:13 pm

Dave1050 wrote:It's clear what Newton and Bacon believed about a Creator from what they wrote. CMI are being up front and honest about what they believe and why they believe it. After all, they are simply stating what they believe to be true. It is for others to demonstrate and prove what they believe is NOT true.


Utter rubbish. Nobody is under any obligation to demonstrate that what CMI believes to be true is not "true". It is wholly up to CMI and CMI alone to demonstrate that its "creation science" is sound science. Given that CMI will not allow non-creationists to "peer review" its work, how on earth is anyone in a position to accept its science? How on earth is CMI honest when it refuses to participate in the scientific method and then claim it is presenting science?

Nor does your idiotic claim that Newton and Bacon are on your side stand up to the slightest scrutiny. It's tired old fundie boilerplate that has long been ripped to shreds.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:20 pm

Dave1050 wrote:
Or are we to conclude that you are another ideologue who thinks that his ideology i never wrong, only people who let it down.

It's not my ideology.

Before you do, it's worth pointing out that everyone here is well capable of making up heir own mind about religion, opting for whatever view hey feel comfortable with.

Of course eveyone can make up their own mind and I would encourage them to do so, BUT many views on religion are conflicting and they can't ALL be right or equally valid can they? So you have to decide which one is correct.


Shrug. They could all be wrong as well. Why does anyone have to decide which is "right" or "wrong" given that each religion is basically are a collection of views, some of which people find acceptable and some not.

I'll ask again - why do you think your views on religion are any more authoritative than others who have different views about religion?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:23 pm

Dave1050 wrote:
Or are we to conclude that you are another ideologue who thinks that his ideology i never wrong, only people who let it down.

It's not my ideology.



If creationism is not an ideology, why are creationists overwhelmingly ideologues, endlessly preaching their religious opinions and "worldviews"? See, for example, CMI and Answers in Genesis.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:27 pm

Dave1050 wrote:
Why not have a look at some science websites rather than a missionary organsisation ?


Missionary organisation? These are articles written by ph.D scientists who believe that the world we see around us demands a Creator just as Newton and Bacon did. And many living scientists do as well.


Rubbish. There is only one practising (and lowly) scientist in the key areas of evolutionary biology or geology and working in the UK who accept young earth creationism. Surprise, surprise, he is a religious fundamentalist.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: C.M.I. have a go at "first life" !

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:29 pm

Dave1050 wrote:
I am not a christian I am merely pointing out that I think your statements are offensive to those that are.


I dont think you should speak on behalf of other Christians, we can speak for ourselves. :D


And since when have you been the spokesman for other Christians?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron