The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Just posting this...
| 55 | 8387 |
Here. This is in a Church in the USA. Post you comments below.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3bdtlNUlx4&laynext_from=TL&videos=_74NPuNkyio]
- 55 Replies
Actually, the conditions of early earth are still not agreed upon in the scientific community, there is even evidence of the early Earth being rich in Oxygen, which is the opposite of what evolution needed. Also, when they recreated the "early earth environment", they left out all the effects that would have stopped the experiment from working.
1. Best way to start is looking at ancient earth 4.7 billion years ago. Many different compounds were around back then, such as hydrogen cyanide and methane gas. DNA is made from only 4 different types of Nucleotides, so where did that come from? How in the world did they come to be in this universe?
Here's this: In 1964 a brilliant researcher called Wan Oro put methane and the cyanide to boil in a solution under the perfect conditions that were in ancient earth back then. Afterwards, the solution produced adenine, one of the four types of nucleotide bases. To make a full nucleotide, it needs to gain a sugar called Ribose and a group of phosphates. How in the world did the ribose and phosphate group get formed and get attached to that nucleotide?
2. From the nucleotide to the polynucleotide
Well, once the nucleotide was formed, they needed to form together in chains called polynucleotides. In the 1980s, researchers found that a clay, called "montmorillonite", a very abundant resource in ancient earth, was a perfect catalyst for this process of "chaining".
3. Now we are going to make RNA!
Some of these copies of the polynucleotides with ribose inside, or RNA (ribonucleic acid) are able to make copies of themselves...huh. Of course the copies aren't as perfect, but again, some copies are more adapted than the other copies to survive in the hot, dense planet earth used to be. So these molecules that did survive would replicate and pass on their traits, while those that aren't so great at surviving would just break apart into regular compounds of methane and cyanide.
4. Making protocells!
As RNA replicated, they shared their surroundings with other chemicals around them. Some chemicals, called "lipids" like to clump together to form circular bodies called micelles. RNA molecules that attracted the micelles found themselves protected inside them. Because they were protected, they better survived than those that weren't. From there, they replicated successfully, but with the entire protocell with them. There, you have the first primitive cellular structure.
5. Then from the span of hundreds of millions of years later, RNA grew more complex from replicating and passing on better traits. The single strand formed to create a double-strand molecule, and the more successful DNA molecule evolved. One thing however: DNA needs proteins to replicate. Proteins are made from amino acids or the building blocks of life, so how/where in the world did the amino acids get into the picture?
6. formation of amino acids
a number of experiments with the montmorillonite not only produced amino acids, but long chains of them that are called "olypeptides". It turns out that this long-difficult name clay stuff is a natural breeding ground for all these complex chemicals. So there you have it. RNA, DNA, what made it, and what made amino acids, non-living chemicals that in turn made living organisms and the process in which these chemicals came to be.
(Yes, I threw this at you again.)
So, going back to what this thread is supposed to be about, really, anyone has the right to learn what they want. At an early age, you have parental influences to just basically provide what they think is best for you. Providing the bible and concepts of Christianity is a good experience for children, believe it or not. It teaches them morals in the form of stories. I'm sure you can do that yourself, though you may forget a couple points. The point of early childhood is to raise them so that later, they will become as great an individual as they way you have taught them to be.
I will accept the rest of the the worlds evolution, but i don't for the human race. I don't think a brain could change so much within this MIiiiiiiiiiilions of year you people talk about. I am not Christian, and I am not saying that Evolution is wrong, I just don't believe that Humans came from Monkeys. There are similarities, yes, but the neurological evolution is a whole different level.
We didn't evolve from monkeys. we have a common ancestor. We just evolved intelligence, because we needed it to survive. Monkeys eventually evolved into having more agility, smaller size, strength, etc.
Neurological evolution is the same as other evolution - it's just the evolution of intelligence. Humans got sentience, and then we went from there. Other primates are intelligent and sentient, but we evolved intelligence more dramatically from generation-to-generation.
I feel we are... drifting... back on topic plz.
Never ever ever post something liek that again here, pwetty pwease. This is how the WEPR works - we talk on a thread, we debate about a related topic when a debate pops up. We're fine.
Well I was typing a reply then I had an epitome; I don't care about this topic anymore. However I think that if you wish to convince someone of the truth of evolution (i.e. 50% of the US) it would be best to represent them with evidence that they can understand and to avoid insult them.
Uhm so you win this argument *grr?*.
By the way Alt you don't quite grasp the idea of postmodernism do you? =P
Lol, postmodernism.
Uhm so you win this argument *grr?*.
[ffiv fanfare]da, da, da da-da, da-da, da-da da da da da da-da[/ffiv fanfare]
epitome
*epiphany
Anyway, I don't care all that much either. It's just good to have an activity that stretches the mind, because 7th grade school standards don't do it for me =.=
epiphany
Meh, so I used the wrong word. At least it was a word =P no sleep does these things to you.
It's just good to have an activity that stretches the mind, because 7th grade school standards don't do it for me =.=
No kidding; I'd shoot myself if I was in seventh grade and that intelligent must be terrible..
Selfish? Might makes right, especially when you are talking non human. Human life is simply worth more then beast life, do mainly to intelligence and partially do to long life. If I had to kill a million beasts to save one human, I would, and that of course ends up being the case.
If the natural environment takes over ours? Remake the environment. If it ends up extremely bad just declare war on the assaulting environment, exterminating it with poison.
Just because you say we are more evolved neroulogicaly we can kill any animal to better ourselves? What did they ever do to us? They are trying to SURVIVE as much as we are. But since we have more ways of doing it, you would kill thousands of them, just so you can save one of us? That IS selfish.
And How would you like it if some other species somehow evolved MORE than us. They were smarter, better, and needed some room to grow. Would you like it if they started kill every human being on the face of the earth just so they could expand? What if they started to kill us with poisons and stuff. You can't tell me you would just stand there and die. Every ANIMAL has instincts to survive. And killing them just so you can have room is wrong. You are an Animal too. In my eyes, You are just an awful, selfish person that doesn't deserve eyes. With your eyes you can see Nature's beauty. And you don't deserve to look upon it everday.
Ahhh my conversation is really off topic. jeez. but it started from the original topic... Erm. yeah i guess I'll just leave now...
Having Children believe in creationism at such a young age is wrong, they deserve to know about both and decide for themselves. But there are people who deeply believe in their religion, and they also have the right to decide what to believe. SO Even though, I can't change the fact that some children are having certain things engraved in their brains, If they really wanted to know, They will look it up for themselves. If they are in public schools, they are gonna HAVE to learn about it. xD But it is up to the individual to believe what they want. Sadly some parents won't give their children the chance to find their own path.
@MoonFairy: Not exposing your children to other beliefs is wrong, and I don't condone it. However, there are also atheist parents that tell their children that all religion is stupid, and therefore making them highly biased just as much as the children of religious extremists.
Having Children believe in creationism at such a young age is wrong, they deserve to know about both and decide for themselves.
I've been thinking about this recently. I don't think it would work. Why? Well, look upon these enlightening posts from the "If god created all things." thread:
From NoName
How is an atheist supposed to read the bible and be converted when he does not have his own God to pray too?
If I was a God and I chose not to expose myself to my creations, then I would not expect them to know why they were created. So from a theist stand point, not knowing why we exist or why God created us is not reason to disprove God in its own right.
From Samy (in response to NoName's first post):
You start small. NEVER read the Old Testament the first time you read the bible. Start with a gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and slowly work your way through the rest of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit can easily intercede and help in understanding of the text; and the New Testament is never contested as being true by the Christian community. Imagine it as our evolution, there's a few factions that violently disagree but they never provide good reason.
Say you have an extremely young child, one who has never been to church. By default, he is an atheist, because he doesn't know what god is (yet).
In order to be fair, the father tries to teach the child Christianity while the mother teaches him Athiesm. Now, I want you to imagine how the conversation regarding the beginning of the universe will go.
What can the father bring to the table? The Bible. The mother, however, can use all the resources of modern science. Additionally, the mother can refute most, if not all, of the Bible's claims. She can also bring up points about the Bible being incomplete, contradicting, and needlessly confusing.
How can the father respond? Most Christians I know respond by saying that they "just have faith," or they have a "feeling." This child has no faith to fall back on. This is the first he is hearing about the existence of religion. If he has a question about the bible, the mother's answer (the bible is wrong) is far easier to grasp than the father's answer (just have faith).
As Samy said, the Holy Spirit is suppposed to intercede and help the child interpret the text. This is going to awfully hard with mother right there.
The point is that we have to allow religion to exist. As an athiest, I would prefer if other people were athiest, but I would never infringe on their right to choose. Religion simply won't work unless they are given a significant head start.
This is why children (babies, even) start attending church when they are very young. They won't learn about alternative explanations until much later, when they already have a nice base layer of faith to fall back on. If we force parents to make a genuine attempt at teaching their children an athiest explanation the same time as introducing them to religion, religion will die out.
TL;DR If we are going to have religion in our society, we are going to have to let parents teach their children what they want, when they want.
You must be logged in to post a reply!