Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65
Thanks Tree41Thanks

Thread: Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,217
    Thanks
    490

    Quote Originally Posted by sky writer View Post
    Texas....don't get me started. Anytime they want to secede, they have my support.
    They really should....

  2. #42
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,661
    Thanks
    3726

    Quote Originally Posted by RosieS View Post
    Chemicals, including carbon, plus electricity (lightning) = amino acids. 4 different amino acids: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine attached to sugars alternating with phosphate groups = DNA and RNA = all lifeforms known.

    That is my favorite explanation but it is not the only one. Here, frustrate yourself muchly:

    Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Regards from Rosie
    No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.[43][44] The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process,[45] and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

  3. #43
    Partisan Courtesan RosieS's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    9,260
    Thanks
    7797

    From
    Mother Mayo
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.[43][44] The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process,[45] and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

    Researcher Martin Hanczyc supports the idea of a gradient between life and non-life (i.e. there is no simple line between the two). He thinks that building simple protocells, in the lab, is one of the first steps towards understanding more complex cells, including those that may have later evolved into complex life. Hanczyc says that living cells often consist of somewhere around 1,000,000 types of molecules, whereas his labs are first aiming at creating lifelike systems using around 10 molecules. His protocells display behaviors even simpler than those displayed by things like viruses (e.g. only basic motion, dividing and combining cell walls, and so on). These lifelike behaviors are visible in the short film Protocell Circus by Rachel Armstrong and Michael Simon Toon.

    Regards from Rosie
    Thanks from sokpupet

  4. #44
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,661
    Thanks
    3726

    Quote Originally Posted by ElGringo View Post
    The question of where matter came from isn't relevant here. Regardless of how or why we're here evolution happens.
    If you are making the claim that complex lifeforms evolved from the simplist building blocks. Then the obvious question is..
    what preceeded it? Then the hurdle of.... life from non life. Then if the Big Bang is the formation of the universe, where did the matter come from. I don't believe there is a scientific answer for that, certainly one that can be proved. I'm all for science but there may be a point where science runs out of answers. It takes a lot of faith to believe the universe came from nothing.

  5. #45
    Partisan Courtesan RosieS's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    9,260
    Thanks
    7797

    From
    Mother Mayo
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    If you are making the claim that complex lifeforms evolved from the simplist building blocks. Then the obvious question is..
    what preceeded it? Then the hurdle of.... life from non life. Then if the Big Bang is the formation of the universe, where did the matter come from. I don't believe there is a scientific answer for that, certainly one that can be proved. I'm all for science but there may be a point where science runs out of answers. It takes a lot of faith to believe the universe came from nothing.
    The simplest building blocks of life ARE non-life. Put together the right way and given millions of evolutionary years, BINGO! Slimy algae which is alive. And stuff that acts alive but is not, like viruses. Viruses are evolutionary engines by efficiently transferring genetic material from one organism to a different kind of organism.

    As to the Big Bang - my link tells you it happened due to disruption of the Big Vacuum. The weight of dark energy shifting made it all go BOOM.

    Energy can be converted into matter, which happened everywhere all at once in every direction at the exact instant of the Big Bang.

    Where did the energy come from? The weight and mass of itself being contained.

    You really cannot comprehend the origins of the Universe without a concrete grounding in philosophy; but religion is not necessary. Stephen Hawking says God was not needed. Google that phrase to understand why.

    Don't ask about multi-verses. That is a whole other philosophical area and I am not a paid tutor. Start with string theory.

    Regards from Rosie
    Thanks from Friday13 and sokpupet

  6. #46
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,661
    Thanks
    3726

    Quote Originally Posted by RosieS View Post
    The simplest building blocks of life ARE non-life. Put together the right way and given millions of evolutionary years, BINGO! Slimy algae which is alive. And stuff that acts alive but is not, like viruses. Viruses are evolutionary engines by efficiently transferring genetic material from one organism to a different kind of organism.

    As to the Big Bang - my link tells you it happened due to disruption of the Big Vacuum. The weight of dark energy shifting made it all go BOOM.

    Energy can be converted into matter, which happened everywhere all at once in every direction at the exact instant of the Big Bang.

    Where did the energy come from? The weight and mass of itself being contained.

    You really cannot comprehend the origins of the Universe without a concrete grounding in philosophy; but religion is not necessary. Stephen Hawking says God was not needed. Google that phrase to understand why.

    Don't ask about multi-verses. That is a whole other philosophical area and I am not a paid tutor. Start with string theory.

    Regards from Rosie
    It took a lot of faith to swallow that one. It certainly can't and won't be proved.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,815
    Thanks
    3615

    From
    East coast USA
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    It took a lot of faith to swallow that one. It certainly can't and won't be proved.
    No, probably not. But we can expostulate the ideas.
    The sky god is too bizarre.

  8. #48
    Senior Member sokpupet's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    1070

    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?

    Texas Public Schools: Still Teaching Creationism | Mother Jones
    As long as evolution is taught as well. And, as long as both are taught as beliefs people have as opposed to a belief you should have.

  9. #49
    Partisan Courtesan RosieS's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    9,260
    Thanks
    7797

    From
    Mother Mayo
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    It took a lot of faith to swallow that one. It certainly can't and won't be proved.
    Not faith. Mathematics. The language of science and the language of the movement of the galaxies.

    Those who are scientifically illiterate call it faith or magic.

    Regards from Rosie
    Thanks from sokpupet and Leo2

  10. #50
    Partisan Courtesan RosieS's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    9,260
    Thanks
    7797

    From
    Mother Mayo
    Quote Originally Posted by RosieS View Post
    Not faith. Mathematics. The language of science and the language of the movement of the galaxies.

    Those who are scientifically illiterate call it faith or magic.

    Regards from Rosie
    PS: It will be proved beyond any doubt when it happens again. When the far flung Milky Way winks out and all its matter is expended fuel and goes dark, you will have dark energy crushing itself, and.....BOOM! The biggest boom of all, again.

    Regards from Rosie
    Thanks from sokpupet

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed