This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I'm calling you out, Marioguy5. Let's debate evolution and creationism

#121ThuggernautzPosted 12/3/2012 3:23:43 PM(edited)
ave1 posted...

In conclusion, your 8 and 12 year old studies have been eclipsed by newer research.


What? These studies are complementary, and do not clash with each other at all... in fact, they support each other. This one is talking about oceanic oxygen levels, and the others about atmospheric. And if you had actually read the abstract of the second study I posted, it explains exactly why there's a VERY BIG difference between those two. Oxygen in the ocean was tied up for a very long time, binding to all kinds of other elements (mainly iron sulfides and sulfates). It wasn't until the ocean got so saturated with oxygen thanks to photosynthesis that oxygenation of the atmosphere began to take place on a grand scale. What the study you just posted shows is only that photosynthesis likely began earlier than we had previously thought. It does nothing to counter the other evidence and studies showing that the saturation point for the Earth's oceans was around 2.5 bya, resulting in much oxygen escaping from the oceans into the atmosphere.

Regardless, I'm glad you're searching for these articles, because it shows what is so great about the practicality of science; advancing knowledge and constant refinement. I do however wish you'd stop quote mining from the abstracts of these papers. Because then you might have included the very last line of the abstract:

As our findings imply the existence of noticeable quantities of molecular oxygen, we propose that organisms capable of oxygenic photosynthesis evolved more than 700 million years earlier than previously recognized, resulting in the oxygenation of at least some intermediate and deep ocean regions.


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/abs/ngeo465.html

Moreover, amino acids can form in so many different conditions, it's not exactly a 'difficult' process.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html

http://www.space.com/15089-life-building-blocks-young-sun-dust.html

So, even if further evidence of photosynthetic organisms beginning 3.46 bya is found (rather than the commonly agreed 2.7 bya), this does not help your position in any way nor does it refute any of the other studies. We have evidence of older organisms, it was unclear whether or not they were capable of photosynthesis. This study shows only that this part of the ocean (intermediate and deep seas) was more oxygenated than previously thought, but still hugely (read: several orders of magnitude) below current levels. You have yet to show that A) the level of oxygen was anywhere near enough to prevent amino acids from forming like you originally stated, B) how oxygen levels several orders of magnitude below current levels billions of years ago does anything to prove creationism, C) how oxygen being bound up in the oceans until a certain saturation before atmospheric oxygenation is even a problem, D) account for the knowledge that amino acids are formed elsewhere in the solar system and have already been proven to be deposited via meteorites, E) prove that abiogenesis needs to take vast amounts of time like you said or F) how any of these findings support creationism at all.

What I see is that you are trying to twist some of the biggest benefits and advancements of knowledge as some kind of flaw, mistakenly trying to present two studies as conflicting when in reality the studies complement each other, whilst simultaneously offering absolutely no valid alternatives for the evidence and observations. It's very disingenuous, and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who actually chooses to look up these studies and abstracts for themselves. Which I suggest everyone do, don't just take our words for it. If you are unsure, look it up yourself. Read the abstracts in their entirety, instead of quote mining.
#122ThuggernautzPosted 12/3/2012 4:20:03 PM(edited)
Just to recap, for those playing along at home.

Ave1, your original position constituted these two things which is where I jumped in:


There's evidence that the Earth has always had free oxygen- and amino acids come about when there's no oxygen.


The first part of that sentence was never contested, we have known there was trace amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere since accretion was complete, and I provided multiple studies just for the first half. The second part is true, because you don't write only when there's no oxygen. Except, unfortunately, then you went and claimed this, without providing any backing for it:


So if amino acids couldn't form due to oxygen being around, there would be no life forming on the ocean floor.


At which I provided multiple studies showing that the level of oxygen in the atmosphere was much, much lower (but critically, not absent) during the early earth until a pretty specific point, for pretty specific reasons (the oceanic oxygen was being bound up by other elements, until a certain point of saturation). You then countered (?) by linking to a study that showed that oceanic oxygenation may have began earlier than we previously thought. Earlier does not abolish any of the other studies, it simply makes it earlier. It refines our knowledge. Further, the level of oxygen even at that level was still orders of magnitude lower than present day, and still nowhere near enough to prevent formation of amino acids (for which you have yet to provide a study showing exactly how much free atmospheric oxygen is required to completely invalidate the formation). In other words, you have yet to provide evidence for the first assertion from which you have been trying to build your whole argument off of.

You also then ended up with a claim that:


The amount of time for abiogenesis to occur needs to be a vast amount of time, but the margin of time is narrowing (making it even a less viable idea than it ever was before).


Which you can't even begin to know or back up. However, contrary to your view, Lazcano and Miller estimate that the development of a 100 kilobase genome of a DNA/protein primitive heterotroph into a 7000 gene filamentous cyanobacterium would have required only 7 million years (a blink of an eye in geological timescales, but certainly not "one day").

Lazcano, A.; Miller, S. L. (1994). "How long did it take for life to begin and evolve to cyanobacteria?". Journal of Molecular Evolution 39

So, in conclusion, in order for us to take any of your other claims seriously, please provide studies for exactly how much (or little) atmospheric oxygen is required to prevent all formation of amino acids and how a dating method which works in the billions of years range supports your view for creationism.

EDIT: Oh and Mars Curiosity has got one-carbon organics in their latest tests from Mars. It may be contamination from Earth, it may not. Another exciting day in the life of science! :D

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20121203.html
#123YouAreCrumbsPosted 12/6/2012 1:47:10 PM
Wow, ave, you had to learn an awful lot to remain so ignorant.
---
joey444
We elect Obama and all the capitalists will be executed. This is a legitimate concern of mine. - OMGWTFPIE, 2011
#124ProudcladPosted 12/7/2012 12:00:08 PM
Lol at people trying to weaponize evolution against Genesis
---
And how could Jesus be related to Moses? Moses never even existed. - EmbraceChaos
#125ThuggernautzPosted 12/7/2012 12:22:55 PM
Proudclad posted...
Lol at people trying to weaponize evolution against Genesis


lol at having to defend one of the most solid and thoroughly scrutinized theories humanity has ever come up with from a sect of crazy people who consistently ignore all of modern science in favour of a completely unsupported hypothesis.
#126ProudcladPosted 12/7/2012 12:36:45 PM
Are you calling me crazy? Or are you talking about only the people who reject the empirically demonstrable aspects of evolution?

And IIRC aren't you a Christian?
---
And how could Jesus be related to Moses? Moses never even existed. - EmbraceChaos
#127ThuggernautzPosted 12/7/2012 12:53:04 PM
Proudclad posted...
Are you calling me crazy? Or are you talking about only the people who reject the empirically demonstrable aspects of evolution?

And IIRC aren't you a Christian?


Are you a creationist? And no, I'm not Christian.
#128ProudcladPosted 12/7/2012 1:07:35 PM
Depends what you mean by creationist. I see no error in believing that God is a Creator-God with influence over every aspect of our physical world.

Does this make me crazy?
---
And how could Jesus be related to Moses? Moses never even existed. - EmbraceChaos
#129ThuggernautzPosted 12/7/2012 1:10:53 PM
Proudclad posted...
Depends what you mean by creationist. I see no error in believing that God is a Creator-God with influence over every aspect of our physical world.

Does this make me crazy?


By creationist, I mean the typical traits associated with young earth creationism (I use creationists as short hand because normally when someone says they are a creationist, they mean they are a young earth creationist).

If you believe that the world was created in 6 days, about 6,000 years ago then I shouldn't call you crazy because that implies in involuntary loss of sanity. But I would definitely call you wilfully ignorant to reality and observation.
#130ProudcladPosted 12/7/2012 1:31:44 PM
The Bible doesn't promote or even hint at the earth being 6,000 years old. If anything, the opposite. "Day" is "yom" which means a span of time. So six spans of time. Not necessarily a 24-hour period.

So now they aren't crazy but merely willfully ignorant? What about atheists who argue against the Bible for things the Bible doesn't even teach or promote? Perhaps you shouldn't evaluate anyone's sanity or ignorance level. I hope you aren't so invested in your worldview that you'd resort to blanket statements and insults.
---
And how could Jesus be related to Moses? Moses never even existed. - EmbraceChaos