Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments?

[root]

How does the existance of this material “prove” that a meteor carrying it actually did hit earth, or that the first RNA molecule was compound out of extraterrestrial molecules? This is exactly what I meant when I said, It’s not because I ate a cheese sandwich today, that we have to assume I ate one yesterday too.

OK, let us draw a line under the discussion of meteorites and their ability to bring organic material to the planet including energy from the impact forcing chemical changes in the organic matter. For at the very least, I am pleased you seem to acknowledge that "organic matter" does exist on comets including water..........

You are totally missing the point here Root. First of all, to assume most comets have nucleid acids based on 2 experiments couldn’t even be called scientific.

I think it would be far less scientific if i was to argue on the basis that the last two meteorites showed no organic material or water and stated that I still beleive they do based solely on that "some" may contain organic matter and we have not looked at the right ones. I can well imagine this position just not holding any credability. To find organic matter on 2 out of two random comets out of billions of comets just within our local solar system is very strong evidence that organic matter exist's on "most comet's". Deep impact may well be making it a third!!!!!, as I said. Water, Carbon Dioxide & Carbon Monoxide has already been confirmed as too Ice. Also, these were NOT experiments, they are a factual account of the results of the analysis of the actual material & not a simulation. If you feel I am talking bad science then cool, that is for you to judge. Impact analysis experiments must be taken seriosly, the ability to achieve the same results from re-testing can only make a test credible. Indeed the impact test for the survival of organic matter does give us the same answer, time & time again.

The actual energy of an impact can and does create peptides.

If you choose to continue to state that the science behind this is floored, then that truly astounds me............ But, it is your right to hold that position.

You are totally missing the point here Root. First of all, to assume most comets have nucleid acids based on 2 experiments couldn’t even be called scientific. For all we know this is just a fluke, and that wouldn’t take a lot of luck! Secondly there’s a difference between organic rich materials, which are produced easily by themselves, And the required nucleid acids, which don’t form that easily. Thirdly, no matter what you personally think of it, you have to admit there’s a difference between assumptions and known facts, just claiming this is proof 1000 times won’t make it so.

Again, you accuse me of going around in circles. So I will summarize finally.

Science asks - "where do proven organic material reside other than our own planet"

Answer - Comets.

Science asks - "could organic material survive an impact with Earth"

Answer - Yes

Other than questioning the actual science behind these conclusions, these are none the less scientific answers.

I have a feeling you’re suggesting that this impact energy in fact helps the theory of abiogenesis by using this impact energy as start-energy required for certain processes. But actually, bringing this inpact energy into the equation and looking at it from a chemical point of view actually shows us that the margin of mass from a delivering meteor is even a lot smaller then I previously suggested. Not only does the meteor now have to have a big enough mass not to burn up, but the mass that isn’t burned away must still be sufficient to deliver enough energy to break the large strings of the nucleid acids in smaller molecules. This also shows us how just a lil’ bit too big of a meteorite would bring enough impact energy not only to break the string up, but even to break the molecule up into the same scrap we had lying around on earth anyway. I didn’t want to go too deep of-topic on this, but since you metioned it yourself...

OK, I am suggesting what you are feeling. If you don't already know this then you should, though I suspect you do. I enjoy debating science, and as such I am very careful that I can show adequate support for all I calim. Yuop are now going where you should not go. Your "baffling" the issue. Let us break down what you bare saying:

I have a feeling you’re suggesting that this impact energy in fact helps the theory of abiogenesis by using this impact energy as start-energy required for certain processes.

Yes, I am claiming that it is possible and proven in a scientific laboratory.

But actually, bringing this inpact energy into the equation and looking at it from a chemical point of view actually shows us that the margin of mass from a delivering meteor is even a lot smaller then I previously suggested.

Why is this. Could you please explain why the energy produced in an impact actually reduces the margin of mass, could you also indicate what you mean by a "margin of mass"

Not only does the meteor now have to have a big enough mass not to burn up, but the mass that isn’t burned away must still be sufficient to deliver enough energy to break the large strings of the nucleid acids in smaller molecules.

Wow, sounds complex. OK, I agree the mass must not be too small for it will burn up. Again, look to the moon as a simple example of how many actually get through. I would try to find out how many comets fit the bill that would not burn up, it would number in the millions within our solar system alone. What do you mean by deliver enough energy?

This also shows us how just a lil’ bit too big of a meteorite would bring enough impact energy not only to break the string up, but even to break the molecule up into the same scrap we had lying around on earth anyway.

I agree with you, a lot of "Scrap" will be made. On the other hand, a significant ammount will survive. Indeed the probability of whole comets destroying all the organic matter is high. But it is no where near 100%

I didn’t want to go too deep of-topic on this, but since you metioned it yourself...

Your not going deep. Going deep would look at where and how comets form.

Of course it exist, and theoretically you could write up a scenario where it got delivered and then spontaneously formed certain molecules, not life, but some molecules required for it, but that still doesn’t make the theory of abiogenesis complete and it’s very unlikely that this was in fact the way life origenated.

Thankyou. At least we can acknowledge this.

Thats a very bold statement, and not the first time I caught you thinking in circles. I’d say that even the current condition of earth isn’t quite hospital for life to originate,

I like this. Thanks for calling me "Bold". and then immediately making a bold statement yourself.

and considering abiogenesis is far from complete, you’d have to respect my point of view on that.

I do.

But to get back on topic. The zircones only suggest the condition of earth. It is the scientists who try ever so hard to finish abiogenesis who reveal the planet was “perhaps” ready for it many years earlier. It’s quite a tainted revealing.

It is....... abiogenesis aside, the zircons don't lie........

Secondly I already showed that the factor time can not be considered to be a favourable factor for abiogenesis. If we can’t think of a way in wich life spontaneously arose in a short period of time in a hypothetical habitat or even a habitat created to stimulate the formation of it, How can we claim that just by giving it enough time, it eventualy must of happened even in an unlikely enviroment?

You have not already showed that a factor of time cannot be considered as a favourable factor.

what does Islam say about comets and how iron was sent to earth?

I am interested why you think "Iron" was brought to the earth?

 

[Bittersteel]

I am interested why you think "Iron" was brought to the earth?

coz I heard something like that.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_30.html

 

[Abdul Fattah]

OK, let us draw a line under the discussion of meteorites and their ability to bring organic material to the planet including energy from the impact forcing chemical changes in the organic matter. For at the very least, I am pleased you seem to acknowledge that "organic matter" does exist on comets including water.

I’ve seem not to have made my case al to clear. It was never my intention to claim it is impossible, but only that it is unlikely; that the requirements for such a thing to happen are quite high.

To find organic matter on 2 out of two random comets out of billions of comets just within our local solar system is very strong evidence that organic matter exist's on "most comet's". Deep impact may well be making it a third!!!!!, as I said. Water, Carbon Dioxide & Carbon Monoxide has already been confirmed as too Ice.

I suggest you look up the formula’s in statistics. Even if it were 3 out of 3 examened, it’s still 3 out of millions existing and therefor not a representive group to claim “most comets”.

The actual energy of an impact can and does create peptides. If you choose to continue to state that the science behind this is floored, then that truly astounds me............ But, it is your right to hold that position.

I never claimed the energy of an impact can’t create peptides, but simply that it doesn’t necesairly create them! That it is a possibility, depending on the circumstances.

Wow, sounds complex. OK, I agree the mass must not be too small for it will burn up. Again, look to the moon as a simple example of how many actually get through. I would try to find out how many comets fit the bill that would not burn up, it would number in the millions within our solar system alone. What do you mean by deliver enough energy?

[off topic]Sorry, I realise I have the tendancy to cram to much information in a small sentence and that by doing so the sentence can become confusing, even surrealistic. It’s like I have this budget to keep in mind when I use words, and I’m saving up for this nice sentance that would look quite well on the citchen table. [/off topic]
Well the moon doesn’t have a atmosphere, hence the many impacts, the actual impacts on earth are in fact a lot smaller.
Also by claiming that it's a likely thing to happen, just because in our solar system alone there's tons of them, you'r overlooking the fact that al those meteor you refer to a in a belt drifting around the sun, on a set course, and not likely to spend their holiday in hawaii. And I'd also be suspicios about milions that fit the bill. I'd guess it to be a much smaller number. But then again we can only guess, I don't work at NASA so I have no idea to the size shape and mass of al the meteors in our solar system. We also both have no idea to the content of those meteors exept perhaps for three of them. So basicly it's an estimation, or even better: an impression. We can't know. Let's not let our intuitive notion of the meteors in space cloud our judgement.
With the “enough energy” I mean that the energy required for peptides to form has a minimum hence the mass of the meteor, (wich directly influences the energy delivered) must also have a minimum requirement.

But actually, bringing this inpact energy into the equation and looking at it from a chemical point of view actually shows us that the margin of mass from a delivering meteor is even a lot smaller then I previously suggested.
Why is this. Could you please explain why the energy produced in an impact actually reduces the margin of mass, could you also indicate what you mean by a "margin of mass"

Strange that you should ask this, considering you posted the answer right beneath it:
Not only does the meteor now have to have a big enough mass not to burn up, but the mass that isn’t burned away must still be sufficient to deliver enough energy to break the large strings of the nucleid acids in smaller molecules.
In other words the “margin of mass” is the requirements a meteor must have for him to be able to deliver these molecules. This margin gets even smaller concidering the minimum: "not to burn up", is lower then the minimum: "not to burn up, but still be big enough even after entering the atmosphere so that enough impact energy is formed on collision. (sorry it's the long sentences-syndrome again )
Looking at it from a chemical point of vieuw also showes how fragile this molecules actualy are for "to much" impact energy to destroy it.

I agree with you, a lot of "Scrap" will be made. On the other hand, a significant ammount will survive. Indeed the probability of whole comets destroying all the organic matter is high. But it is no where near 100%

I never said 100%, I never claimed impossible. I said improbable.

Your not going deep. Going deep would look at where and how comets form.

[rant]Well in a evolution vs creation, I’d call this deep. A personal judgement I admit, but lets not bicker over these details [/rant]

I like this. Thanks for calling me "Bold". and then immediately making a bold statement yourself.

I never called you bold, I said your statement was. As for the hypocrosy, I guess you have a point, but then again, maybe it was my point to begin with

and considering abiogenesis is far from complete, you’d have to respect my point of view on that.
I do.

[pat on the back]I can tell by the discussion. No ceriously, I’m not being ironic, I discussed these matters with other people over the internet, and this is the most productive and respectful one I witnessed so far. That’s why I’m so eager to respond all the time Forgive me for going of topic but it doesn’t have to be flaming al the time right. [/pat on the back]

But to get back on topic. The zircones only suggest the condition of earth. It is the scientists who try ever so hard to finish abiogenesis who reveal the planet was “perhaps” ready for it many years earlier. It’s quite a tainted revealing.
It is....... abiogenesis aside, the zircons don't lie........

Of course, zircons don’t lie. Some scientist might -well not actually lie- but at least be subjective. The key word in the sentence here is “perhaps”. They just can't tell, It's a probability, a maybe, a "let's just assume this since it helpes our case". Not that I actually consider some sort of cover up conspiracy, this is more likely due to a subjective way of thinking in my opinion.

You have not already showed that a factor of time cannot be considered as a favourable factor.

Yes I already did, didn’t I? Hence the “I already showed”-part in the sentence. But apparnetly some of your arguments made me feel like repeating myself.

 

[root]

OK, Steve I am pleased that you acknowledge this theory as improbable for your own reasons but not impossible.

Well the moon doesn’t have a atmosphere, hence the many impacts, the actual impacts on earth are in fact a lot smaller.

this is rubbish Steve, the fact the moon has no atmosphere merely allows us to see the number of times all space bodies are impacted. The Earth has been hit every bit as much as the moon.

Also by claiming that it's a likely thing to happen, just because in our solar system alone there's tons of them, you'r overlooking the fact that al those meteor you refer to a in a belt drifting around the sun, on a set course, and not likely to spend their holiday in hawaii.

Their is not "Tonnes", their are over 2 billion of them within our solar system alone. Meteor impact with earth is the biggest threat that the Earth faces today. Only a few years ago creationists were telling us meteorites were in stable orbits as per the "perfect creation". Schumacker leevy 9 impacting on Saturn showed how wrong they are. Even the comet on the deep impact probes target was covered in impact craters........ Everywhere in the solar system we find evidence of meteor impacts, solar system bodies are covered with impacts and nothing is immune......... Meteorites/comets are constantly impacting & being knocked out of their orbit.

And I'd also be suspicios about milions that fit the bill. I'd guess it to be a much smaller number. But then again we can only guess,

Who said anything about being a "Guess". the information is out-their for those who look.

I don't work at NASA so I have no idea to the size shape and mass of al the meteors in our solar system.

I thought Islam encouraged knowledge & since we are debating this issue I am surprised you have not done a few minutes reseach on the information available.

We also both have no idea to the content of those meteors exept perhaps for three of them. So basicly it's an estimation, or even better: an impression.

This demonstrates a lack of willingness to find out. The origins of meteors are being understood all the time and we are waiting for the data obtained from deep impact to confirm or dismiss our current understandings of where they come from and how they formed. All comets are "dirty Ice balls" that are left over from the formation of the solar system.......... In essence, they are all the same and it is this "tail" of the comet that tells us this......

We can't know. Let's not let our intuitive notion of the meteors in space cloud our judgement.

Why do you say we can't know. Is it forbidden to know in your eyes for some reason.

With the “enough energy” I mean that the energy required for peptides to form has a minimum hence the mass of the meteor, (wich directly influences the energy delivered) must also have a minimum requirement.

Can you give me more information, I still don't understand where you obtained the "Minimum energy required".

 

[Bittersteel]

eh someone summarise the argument plz......who's stating what.....

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Well the moon doesn’t have a atmosphere, hence the many impacts, the actual impacts on earth are in fact a lot smaller.
this is rubbish Steve, the fact the moon has no atmosphere merely allows us to see the number of times all space bodies are impacted. The Earth has been hit every bit as much as the moon.

No it’s not, most comets burn up in the atmosphere so they don’t actualy “hit” earth.

Their is not "Tonnes", their are over 2 billion of them within our solar system alone. Meteor impact with earth is the biggest threat that the Earth faces today. Only a few years ago creationists were telling us meteorites were in stable orbits as per the "perfect creation". Schumacker leevy 9 impacting on Saturn showed how wrong they are. Even the comet on the deep impact probes target was covered in impact craters........ Everywhere in the solar system we find evidence of meteor impacts, solar system bodies are covered with impacts and nothing is immune......... Meteorites/comets are constantly impacting & being knocked out of their orbit.

LOL
I wasn’t talking about the meteors in our solarsystem, but about the meteors in our solarsystem able to fit the bill. Big difference ther Root.

Who said anything about being a "Guess". the information is out-their for those who look.

No it’s not, tell me where could you find the mass of all the meteores in our solarsystem? I’d doubt it a google search or a trip to the local libery ‘d be helpfull, but you’r welcome to try of course.

I don't work at NASA so I have no idea to the size shape and mass of al the meteors in our solar system.
I thought Islam encouraged knowledge & since we are debating this issue I am surprised you have not done a few minutes reseach on the information available.

Well yes, but Some data isn’t just available freely. As I said before, be my guest. I’d doubt you’ll be able to bring forth any accurate data. The only think you’d most likely come up with is something in the line of: the average mass of a meteor in that belt is. Or the masses of meteors in that belt vary from... to ....
It’s easy to accuse someone not to look things up when you do the exact same thing.(see quote below)

I would try to find out how many comets fit the bill that would not burn up, it would number in the millions within our solar system alone.

“If I would try”; did you try it Root? Tell me what requirements did you use for a meteor to fit your bill? Can we rely on your judgement. What is the exact number root? Did you not totally make this up, did you actually rely on something when making this claim? Is this not an opinion rather then a scientific fact? Can you honestly claim to have a good insight in when a meteor "fits the bill" seeing you can’t even grasp this impact energy thing? Can you honestly claim to have knowledge of what material each meteor in our solarsystem exist out?

We also both have no idea to the content of those meteors exept perhaps for three of them. So basicly it's an estimation, or even better: an impression.
This demonstrates a lack of willingness to find out. The origins of meteors are being understood all the time and we are waiting for the data obtained from deep impact to confirm or dismiss our current understandings of where they come from and how they formed. All comets are "dirty Ice balls" that are left over from the formation of the solar system.......... In essence, they are all the same and it is this "tail" of the comet that tells us this......

This has nothing to do with me not wanting to find out, you earlyer on statad that only 3 meteors have been examened so we have absolutely no clue as to the content of all the others, now you can blame me for being lazy, but that doesn’t even have anything to do with the fact that we ‘r unable to accuire such information? What you expect me to personally build a spacecraft and go look dig up inside some meteors to find organic material? As for your claims about the current "understanding of origen" that has nothing to do with the fact wether or not they carry organic material so is completely irrelevant!

Why do you say we can't know. Is it forbidden to know in your eyes for some reason.

Because it is an unknown fact to both of us, we are both making an estimation, none of us has this knowledge. I invite you to proof me wrong, but I seriously doubt you’ll be able to come forth with exact data. (= being a list with information about the exact shape's , mass and material of meteors, a sets of requirements based on calculations telling us wich mass is required and a cross refrence of the two telling us how many actually do fit the bill)

With the “enough energy” I mean that the energy required for peptides to form has a minimum hence the mass of the meteor, (wich directly influences the energy delivered) must also have a minimum requirement.
Can you give me more information, I still don't understand where you obtained the "Minimum energy required".

Imagen a bunch of organic material that is in a rock the size of my hand. Now if I were to drop it from my hand to the floor, although the proces would be simular to a meteor colliding with earth those organic materials won’t form peptides. This is mainly because I dropped it from to low a place.
Now imagen a rock entering the atmosphere, it partually burns up, so it’s now less then half the size it was before, imagen that the part that didn’t burn up is now equal to the rock I dropped earlyer. Now we will have a collision from a big enoughf hight, but still it won’t be suffiecient to form peptides. This is because the size of the rock isn’t big enough to produce suffiecient energy in the form of pressure and heat on impact for peptides to form.
So you can se that the “marge of mass” for a meteor able to deliver material goes even tighter. “Just big enough not to completely burn up” doesn’t cut it anymore, now it has to be big enough not to burn up, but also delever enough impact energy.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

eh someone summarise the argument plz......who's stating what.....

selam aleykum
Well basicly It's about abiogenesis, the theory that life arose spontaniously out of matter. The problem with the theory is that certain molecules couldn't possibly arise on earth due to enviromental circomstances. Many materialist claim that the molecules that formed the first living creature (an RNA-string) were delivered by an meteor colliding with earth. I however stated that this is in fact a very unlikely event since such an event has quite strict requirements to be able to accur. Root on the other hand is bending backwards to proof me wrong by tangling some of the points I made and turning my facts (a meteor requires a certain mass for this) into opinions ( I feel the requirements aren't as strict and there are in fact many meteors that could do this).

 

[Bittersteel]

oh i see........

Off Topic:

We know that Earth existed long before the appearance of humans. Allah says, "Wasn’t there a long period of time before humans were even mentioned?" (76:1)

does this verse refer to dinosaurs and other creatures?

 

[root]

selam aleykum

Well basicly It's about abiogenesis, the theory that life arose spontaniously out of matter. The problem with the theory is that certain molecules couldn't possibly arise on earth due to enviromental circomstances. Many materialist claim that the molecules that formed the first living creature (an RNA-string) were delivered by an meteor colliding with earth. I however stated that this is in fact a very unlikely event since such an event has quite strict requirements to be able to accur. Root on the other hand is bending backwards to proof me wrong by tangling some of the points I made and turning my facts (a meteor requires a certain mass for this) into opinions ( I feel the requirements aren't as strict and there are in fact many meteors that could do this).

Steve is right: However,

1. I am talking "Comets" & not meteorites. With meteorites I would agree more with Steve than I do. Since a comet is a deeply frozen bag of ice and other stuff & it has been scientifically proven that organic matter can survive an impact and more, it can change the structure of the organic matter.

2. Steve uses the Abiogenesis theory when the actual facts I have brought have little to do with Abiogenesis, though I agree it is very closely linked.

This is because the size of the rock isn’t big enough to produce suffiecient energy in the form of pressure and heat on impact for peptides to form.
So you can se that the “marge of mass” for a meteor able to deliver material goes even tighter. “Just big enough not to completely burn up” doesn’t cut it anymore, now it has to be big enough not to burn up, but also delever enough impact energy.

Hi Steve,

OK, I will say "Prove" your above "Bolded Position" and I will accept a truth in the face of a scientific herecy......... I know I can show proof of the exact opposite of what you are expecting me to beleive. Your trying to pass "Guff" as scientifically credible when it is not. I can prove that an impact of a little bigger than pea size can result in peptides, "This is impossible under your scientific "Guess-work"

Regards

Root

 

[Bittersteel]

Q.1According to Islam what is the chronological order of the creation of planet Earth,then living organisms and then the emergence of man?

like first the big bang happened then what followed......

hope you understand my question.
you do not have to elaborate on the points

Q.2He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid out for those who seek it-all in four days. Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly." (Qur'an, 41:10-11)

what does this mean?It refers to the planet Earth right,or wrong?And why was the smoke called to come to it by Allah?

 

[root]

Q.1According to Islam what is the chronological order of the creation of planet Earth,then living organisms and then the emergence of man?

Maybe we should ask what of the implications when living organisms are found to be older than our planet, Something tells me not very much. Though I for one would assume "Earth, Living Organism then the emergence of man". In the end it would not matter though which order was found to be correct from the stance of your question.......

"Smoke" Could mean absolutely anything, I guess it's all to do with how easy you fit a square peg into a round hole.....

1. Morning Mist
2. Comet\meteorite trails
3. Clouds
4. Even the raw material of the universe "Helium & Hydrogen" could be construed as "Smoke".

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Steve,

OK, I will say "Prove" your above "Bolded Position" and I will accept a truth in the face of a scientific herecy......... I know I can show proof of the exact opposite of what you are expecting me to beleive. Your trying to pass "Guff" as scientifically credible when it is not. I can prove that an impact of a little bigger than pea size can result in peptides, "This is impossible under your scientific "Guess-work"

Regards

Root

Well, if you can prove that, by all means, be my guest...

 

[Staffy]

A few points


Dear brothers and sisters in Islam,
Their are many things that we will not know simply because we do not need to know.......It is of no benifet for us to know certain things like what is on the other side of the galaxy......maybe one day in the future man will need to know such things for their worldly education but until then we should not stress....
I doubt any brothers with great minds would spend their skills on space exploration when they could be helping the ummar down here on earth (where they are sposed to be) may i quote a verse from the Al-Quran that i was looking at today which may bring you back down to earth for just a tick.....
1426 years ago they did not have much knowlage of conception let alone the minute formation that happens within the womb........
Translation of part of 22:5
O'Mankind! if ye have doubt about the resurection,(consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leach-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that we may manifest (our power) to you; we cause whom we will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do we bring you out as babes, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much)........
Alhamduilah irabil alamien... :brother:
anyway knowlage is a very powerfull gift and it was once said by a great muslim leader that knowlage gained is the greatest prize.......but we must not mix knowlage with dumfoundness for we all reach a certain point in our quest for knowlage that is beyond us.......It takes a greater man to walk away at that point than one who is consumed by it.........For Allah is all knowing and all wise he has showen that in his infinate mercy and wisdom to us many a time (like in 22:5) we can never expect to match him only shaytan would like us to think we can.......So may we all learn from life my brothers and sisters......Exactly what we are ment to learn so as we can live strong mindedly without being consumed by the evils of glutanty................Staffy

 

[root]

Their are many things that we will not know simply because we do not need to know.......It is of no benifet for us to know certain things like what is on the other side of the galaxy

Empty space and more Galaxies is the answer to your question. My question would be if Islam encourages it's followers to gain knowledge. Who decides wether one should seek it or not if you are implying that Islam should not seek knowledge in certain areas?

Hi Steve,

OK, I will say "Prove" your above "Bolded Position" and I will accept a truth in the face of a scientific herecy......... I know I can show proof of the exact opposite of what you are expecting me to beleive. Your trying to pass "Guff" as scientifically credible when it is not. I can prove that an impact of a little bigger than pea size can result in peptides, "This is impossible under your scientific "Guess-work"

Regards

Root

Steve - Well, if you can prove that, by all means, be my guest...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/comet_life_010405.html

 

[Staffy]

Root please structure your posts better

I had trouble understanding your post could you restructure please? and by the way i didnt ask what was on the other side of the galaxy so why did you say the ansser to my question was stars etc??...... to all my Brothers and sisters

 

[root]

I had trouble understanding your post could you restructure please?

Nah, don't be offended it's just going off-topic. This thread is titled Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments? I would be happy to debate with you in respect to the subject matter.

What gets me about a cretionist view is that the main supporting evidence for creation is the fact that we exist. Scripture does not create a supporting arguement either, some creationists even state that they accept micro-evolution but dismiss macro which I fail to understand.

Another issue is scientific evidence with a supporting view of creationism, can someone please post any scientific evidence supporting creationism..............

I know the comet discussion was long, and the result even amongst creationists was that it is improbable however accepting it is possible. Which is the best way of saying "I agree, but I can't". - For their own reasons.

"Any truth is better than indefinite doubt."

Regards

Root

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Some creationists even state that they accept micro-evolution but dismiss macro which I fail to understand.

Basicly it's just the common desent we question. It's not because some evolved from the same that all evolved from the same.

Another issue is scientific evidence with a supporting view of creationism, can someone please post any scientific evidence supporting creationism...

What kind of evidence are you looking for? How exactly would you expect us to prove this? Can you "proove" the first life form spontaniously arose from lifeless matter? Do you have solid evidence for it? No all you have is a theory that sounds unlikely, even if the meteor part was wright, then we have the base material, but that doesn't mean life will just spontainiously arise. That's like claiming that if you shake a lego-box around long enough, eventualy the blocks will form the house that is pictured on the outside of the box.

I know the comet discussion was long, and the result even amongst creationists was that it is improbable however accepting it is possible. Which is the best way of saying "I agree, but I can't". - For their own reasons.

It's possible that a mteor deliverde it yes, but that doesn't make abiogenesis possible, that's just one part of the problem. The main thing here is that it's unprobable just like other parts of the theory. So it's not a question of "I agree, but I can't" It' s more like "sure it's possible, but it sounds more like a fairy-tale to me, in fact the alternative, creationism, just sounds so much more down to earth and probable!"

About the link you provided, "proving that an impact of a little bigger than pea size can result in peptides" as you stated it. Just because a soda-can sized bullet was fired into a metal target; doesn't mean a soda-sized meteor has the same effect. You have to consider: different materials, different enviroment, different speed, etc..
They chose the impact of a soda-sized-bullet, and the pressure and heat that came with it, to represent a certain effect caused by certain meteors it's however wrong to assume the expirement represents meteor of the same size as the bullet. Secondly that articels shows yet another thing that narrows down the list of comets that fit the bill, namely the angle at wich the meteors collide. So as I said before, the more you look into it, the more fishy it smells.

 

[root]

Low angle impact simulated

The ballistic test was designed to simulate the type of impact that would have been frequent in Earth's early history, some 4 billion years ago, when rocky, icy debris in our solar system accreted to form the planets in what must have been spectacular collisions. Much of the debris would have resembled comets -- dirty snowballs thought to be mostly slushy water surrounding a rocky core -- slamming into Earth at velocities greater than 16 miles per second (25 kilometers per second).

When the improbable becomes probable...........

 

[Abdul Fattah]

When the improbebal is proven possible, it remains still, improbabel.
Be it as it may, that doesn't change the fact that bringing the angle into the equasion make's the probability even lower since it brings another set of requirements. And that's what it's all about, I never claimed impossible, I just said unproven and unlikely. The possibility has nothing to do with it.