- ... Appleton ... best ... and create ... was ... or ... You are certainly right about one thing, Steve, making life in a test tube wouldn t end or alter theMessage 1 of 193 , Mar 1 6:05 AMView Source--- In email@example.com, "stevehudson001"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Laurie
> <lappleto@> wrote:best
> > LA> So what is your view on the origin of life? What if our
> and smartest scientists DO eventually solve the problemand "create"
> life in a "test tube"? Would that prove that "NO INTELLIGENCE"was
> needed in the first place?or
> > Laurie.
> I am quite inclined to believe that life did originate through
> chemical processes.
> And as you are quite well aware, if life can be made in a "test
> tube", it would have no bearing at all on the question of whether
> not there was a God, or gods, or goddesses, or the tooth fairy, orYou are certainly right about one thing, Steve, making life in a
> the great pumpkin, or the flying spaghetti monster.
> This discussion would continue.
test tube wouldn't end or alter the discussion about the existence
of God. In my opinion, it wouldn't do anything except highlight the
extreme difficulty of getting anything accomplished by "chance".
The origin-of-life experiments have been going on for more than half
a century, and even if they eventually do prove successful it wont
prove that it ever happened in nature.
BTW, have scientists yet been able to produce even one funcitonal
protein molecule in its tertriary form? I haven't yet seen a single
high school or college biology text that says much about such
research other than to trot out Stanley Millers experiment
from '53. In my opinion, that experiment was a failure. Not
because he didn't get amino acids to form, but because the text
books never seem to mention the fact that 98% of the product of his
apparatus was tar and carboxylic acid - both of which would have
prevented those amino acids from forming peptide bonds. Also, I
have never seen a text that even mentioned the fact that the amino
acids produced were chiral and therefore useless to protein
synthesis. At best what Miller accomplished was to demonstrate that
under the most favorable imaginable (if not highly unrealistic)
circumstances life could never have arisen by chance. That brings
the discussion back to God.
- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of hugenex2000 Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:23Message 193 of 193 , Mar 17 9:59 AMView Source
> > > >7:19)
> > > > .
> > > > Eugene: The Earth's magnetic field changed strength
> > > > and polarity repeatedly during the Flood.
> > > >
> > > > Joe> Of course, you realize the impossibility of a
> > > > Global Flood of the magnitude you claim Noah's Flood
> > > > to be. There isn't enough water on the planet to
> > > > produce the results required to cover ".all the high
> > > > mountains that were under the whole heaven" (Gen.
> > > > .that the "fountains of the Great Deep" is anphysical
> > > > impossibility, and that the amount of rainfall
> > > > required for 40 days and nights of rain to cover
> > > > the highest mountains, even if those mountains
> > > > were even HALF the height of Everest, would require
> > > > it to rain 75 inches of rain over the entire globe
> > > > every hour continuously for 40 days and nights!
> > > > So please feel free to augment the dynamics of EITHER
> > > > of these processes supported by scientific evidence.
> > > > Once (and IF) you can support either of THESE notions,
> > > > then we can begin to discuss were all that
> > > > water went AFTER the alleged Flood.
> > > >
> > > > Good Luck.
> > > >
> > > > Joe
> > Eugene:
> > As far as I'm concerned, Noah's Flood is a matter
> > of historical fact.
Joe> Oh, I realize that YOU consider it a fact. You MUST treat it as fact or your whole YEC science house of cards tumbles into a heap. What I’m saying is you have no hard scientific evidence to support this notion. BTW, you still haven’t got back to me about which strata are pre-flood, flood deposited and post flood.
(retrieved from that post):
Eugene: Yes. It was a bit crowded because those animals were
> herded and corralled by the rising flood waters from theEugene: Correction. It should read, "..near and most likely
> surrounding terrain to their final resting places. A survey
> of the topography of the KT boundary in that area should
> reveal the rough contour of the original pre-flood terrain
> and show this point of high density fossils to be near and
> most likely eastward of the highest elevation of that original
> terrain. This could be verified by surveying and excavating
> the surrounding terrain for fossils, particularly westward
> of the point of high density fossil deposition to find a severe
> lack of such fossil deposition if any at all.
Why should the escaping water velocity have been constant
rather than decrease as it was released and as the opening grew
wider? I find it reasonable to assume that some of the water
would have gone out into space at some point but as the pressure
was released it should have decreased.
Joe> And how much pressure was this water under to be ejected into space and where did that pressure come from? Numbers please…
Also, as the water
rushed out of the crevice it would have eroded the walls
of the crevice, opening it up wider and ejected the eroded
material thus slowing the rate of flow from the crevice.
Joe> you have data to support this erosion? Pictures perhaps… SONAR… anything concrete in the way of evidence?
Also, due to the water pressure and initial narrow width
of the opening the water at some point would have escaped
as a particle spray (atomized) much the same as fluid escapes
from the nozzle of a pressurized aerosol can thus increasing
the surface area of the water for friction which would slow
the rate of flow allowing an accumulation of water in the
atmosphere and on the Earth's surface. As water fell back down
it would have puddled up causing any further water escaping
from the crevice to have done so underwater thus further slowing
the flow rate velocity causing more water to accumulate on the
surface, subsequently flooding the entire surface of the Earth.
Joe> This is all very nice speculation if you need to have a global flood 4500 years ago Eugene, but you are not providing any data in support of it. Show us the dynamics of this. Where can we look at the models. Where’s the MATH? Or are you just going to fall back on “We don’t know because God didn’t tell us how he did it”
I would like to finish addressing your lengthy post but I have
to go for now and prepare for a chess tournament
I hope your chess is better than your science…