Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sometimes one needs to be precise, dealing with people that reinterpret their holy books is one of those times.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
Sometimes one needs to be precise, dealing with people that reinterpret their holy books is one of those times.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
yeah.....
the experiment displayed......
three glass vials connected by glass tubes
one filled with solution believed to be composition of the sea (heated)
one filled with atmosphere believed to be concurrent
and one with a continual discharge of current between two electrodes (lightning)
sometime later the water turned brown
amino acids had formed
Audie
Veteran Member
"the" experiment?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That was merely the first experiment in abiogenesis. You are about seventy years out of date. Just for fun you should look at the size of home computers seventh years ago.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
A CREATIONIST ONLY 70 YEARS OUT OF DATE??!! THERE MAY BE HOPE!
Audie
Veteran Member
So what possible relevance does it have to my comment on a
supposedly poisonous atmosphere?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The Miller-Urey experiment. Why do creationists think that no advancements are made in the sciences after a first experiment or paper?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
forming life seems to be unusually complex
some people do experiments attempting to sort the scenario from the beginning
what if we turn back the clock?
if we go back far enough, can we be sure the earth will form life?
well of course it did
but fossil records and geology come to gather in various layers
the pieces of the puzzle come together and we find our earth not only primitive and dangerous
but the life in those times were drawing upon chemistry that modern life can't cope with
so....look to this planet as a means to produce an intelligent life form
you start with the little things that produce oxygen
you want the air to change
the intended form will breath that air
you keep going with the little things
the water needs to be 'cleaned' up
so when the weather moves over land fresh water will collect
and you keep working the various life forms......vegetable and animal
and when the moment arrives.....you pick a specimen and kick that species into high gear
primitive Man would have over run this planet and it's resources
long before the spirit of Man could gel
that garden event was that 'kick'
that event was not evolution
Audie
Veteran Member
Oh dear, I was giving too much credit, I thought maybe that was not it.
Audie
Veteran Member
Kind of a crude description, but reasonably on track, until you veer off into
fantasy with your "kick" etc.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I grew up reading about an observation
Man turned from the rest of the animal kingdom
in what seemed a sudden 'jump'
and people started looking for a missing link
I don't think they will find that .......rib
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There was no sudden jump. At least not one that creationists have ever been able to find.
ecco
Veteran Member
هُراءSee verse (23:12) and the word سلالة , the word means strain, it says that God created man
of strain made of clay(non living matter) and also the word سلالة means chain.
I understand it's very hard for you to see the beauty of the verse due to the language.
هراء, شىء تافه
gnostic
The Lost One
"During the formation of the Earth", I would say no, because in the earliest part of formation, as in the first half of a billion years:
- the Earth’s atmosphere would not support any life at this stage (eg no oxygen),
- the Earth’s crust and water (ocean) don’t exist yet, because the Earth would be in largely molten state, therefore the Earth would be very hot, so there were no Earth’s crust because the mantle was the Earth’s surface,
- and because of point 2, (with no crust), the Earth's gravity are not the same as now, so a lot of the gases that did form in the atmosphere, would escape into space,
- and lastly the earth would have undergone heavy bombardments from meteorites and planetesimal objects, which would also the temperature of the Earth during those impacts.
The Earth at the very beginning was too hot to support life, as there were no crust yet; it was just the core and the mantle.
It is only when the earth has cool down considerably, most likely as the greenhouse effect, when the gases venting from
But the impacts did help, partly by releasing more gases from mantle of the Earth into the atmosphere and the impacts of large meteors, causing the greenhouse effect. This effect will result in the upper parts of the mantle cooling down, to form the Earth’s crusts.
With the Earth’s crusts developed, it is able to retain oceans of water.
Eventually life will first appear as single-celled or unicellular microorganisms, like bacteria.
Eventually some multicellular organisms evolved from unicellular organisms, and that eventually into plants and animals.
But whatever or however life formed, it didn’t come from clay.
gnostic
The Lost One
Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, with ongoing testings and research, but it is the most promising of all the hypotheses on the origin life on Earth, as a proposed “scientific theory”. Abiogenesis is not actual “scientific theory”, yet.
The thing about abiogenesis is an explanation that relied on our current knowledge of biochemistry, hence how biology and chemistry worked together, ON THE GENE AND MOLECULAR LEVEL.
Biochemistry is simply explaining molecular biology, like proteins, genes, cells, in terms of chemical or molecular compositions, and attempting to apply knowledge on abiogenesis, on how life “may have” started on Earth.
None of the explanation required magic or supernatural powers or miracles from some mythological beings, be it called Allah, Yahweh, God, Jesus, Creator, Designer, or whatever names or titles you may give him.
If you understand some basic chemistry, then look at some biological molecules, you would see that protein isn’t made of only a single type of atom.
It (abiogenesis) doesn’t describe turning clay into human.
What abiogenesis does describe is how with the right condition, amino acids can formed. Amino acids are the building block of life, and it is essential makeup of proteins (living matter).
Neither proteins, nor amino acids, are made of clay.
And when life did exist, it started with single-cellular organism, and it was the only type of life to exist for a couple of billions of years, before the appearance of multicellular organisms.
What the Qur’an described is nothing more than myth and fable. What the Qur’an describes is like magic, like in Jewish folklore, animating man-shape stone or clay into resemblance of life, the necromancy of voodoo, where they can animate the dead back to life, as zombies.
You are ignoring the facts, that clay minerals don’t exist in the human body, not even as trace amount.
And the most common clay is kaolin clay, and the most basic molecular structure is hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates.
The compound hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates is represented as this:
Al2Si2O5 (OH)4
Although 4 of these elements exist individually in the human body, they don’t exist in this particular molecular structure (aluminium phyllosilicate Al2Si2O5).
The minerals from clay come from weathering of sedimentary rocks, like shale, siltstone or mudstone.
This molecule or more precisely, this mineral, is essential in clay, and this is not living matters.
Living matters required nitrogen and carbonara well as hydrogen and oxygen, all combined together, but not aluminium or silicon, which are found more abundant in rocks and clay.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
Just for the record, there are many species of bacteria that don't require oxygen to live (e.g. the bacteria living in your gut right now). In fact, some species of bacteria can not survive in the presence of oxygen. Oxygen can actually be a poison for some species.
gnostic
The Lost One
I have heard of that quite recently...something about anaerobe.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
There are facultative anaerobes that can live with or without oxygen (e.g. E. coli and brewer's yeast), aerotolerant anaerobes that aren't harmed by oxygen but don't grow or grow poorly in the presence of oxygen, and obligate anaerobes which are harmed by the presence of oxygen. The common places to find bacterial anaerobes are in the digestive tracts of animals and in soil.