|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:37 am
4shi Why is it you are willing to accept evolution, but not accept that some things can evolve in the unlikeliest of places? Isn't that contradictory to what is believed about evolution? Wouldn't those microorganisms actually exemplify your argument? That's not micro-organisms in lava biggrin I'm aware of extremophiles and I think they are awesome, but the ones you posted live in "volcanic vents and acidic hot springs", not lava. smile
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:43 am
Artto 4shi Why is it you are willing to accept evolution, but not accept that some things can evolve in the unlikeliest of places? Isn't that contradictory to what is believed about evolution? Wouldn't those microorganisms actually exemplify your argument? That's not micro-organisms in lava biggrin I'm aware of extremophiles and I think they are awesome, but the ones you posted live in "volcanic vents and acidic hot springs", not lava. smile Again, proving my point you don't like to research what people say and don't feel inclined to do so. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/micro-organisms-could-survive-inside-volcanic-bubbles_10016775.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:53 am
4shi Artto 4shi Why is it you are willing to accept evolution, but not accept that some things can evolve in the unlikeliest of places? Isn't that contradictory to what is believed about evolution? Wouldn't those microorganisms actually exemplify your argument? That's not micro-organisms in lava biggrin I'm aware of extremophiles and I think they are awesome, but the ones you posted live in "volcanic vents and acidic hot springs", not lava. smile Again, proving my point you don't like to research what people say and don't feel inclined to do so. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/micro-organisms-could-survive-inside-volcanic-bubbles_10016775.html And again you're wrong. That's micro-organisms in volcanic rock, not lava. The current hottest know temperature where life was found is 122°C. The temperature of lava is 700°C - 1200°C. It's highly improbable for anything self-replicating (let alone life as we know it) to exist under those conditions. Believe me, most of the time someone makes a claim that sounds far-fetched but plausible, I go straight to researching it. Did the same with this lava claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:54 am
Artto 4shi Artto 4shi Why is it you are willing to accept evolution, but not accept that some things can evolve in the unlikeliest of places? Isn't that contradictory to what is believed about evolution? Wouldn't those microorganisms actually exemplify your argument? That's not micro-organisms in lava biggrin I'm aware of extremophiles and I think they are awesome, but the ones you posted live in "volcanic vents and acidic hot springs", not lava. smile Again, proving my point you don't like to research what people say and don't feel inclined to do so. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/micro-organisms-could-survive-inside-volcanic-bubbles_10016775.html And again you're wrong. That's micro-organisms in volcanic rock, not lava. The current hottest know temperature where life was found is 122°C. The temperature of lava is 700°C - 1200°C. It's pretty highly improbable for anything self-replicating (let alone life as we know it) to exist in those conditions. Believe me, most of the time someone makes a claim that sounds far-fetched but plausible, I go straight to researching it. Did the same with this lava claim. Actually, if you read the article instead of skimmed you would've seen where they FOUND THE FOSSILS in the volcanic rock, not they formed on volcanic rock. I'd like to see your proof of this. Show me information that contradicts this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:01 am
4shi Actually, if you read the article instead of skimmed you would've seen where they FOUND THE FOSSILS in the volcanic rock, not they formed on volcanic rock. I'd like to see your proof of this. Show me information that contradicts this. My pleasure, it's right in the article: Quote: According to Reitner, the micro-organisms were able to get deep into the rock via tiny fractures, which would in turn have opened up after the lava cooled quickly under water. He speculated that they must have fed on reduced iron in the rock. Although, the article is a bit clumsily written: Quote: After noticing a layer of cement deposited before the filaments the researchers suggested that the microbes occupied the lava after 1000 years of its solidification. After lava solidifies, it's no longer called lava. It's called volcanic rock. Lava is molten rock. I'm sorry, have I offended you in some way? Because you seem so determined to prove I don't do research, or that I did something wrong. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:55 am
I had a bunch of stuff typed but it got lost to the depths of cyberspace. I will try to recap to the best of my ability (and hopefully without interruption).
I'm offended because of your hubris in this whole debate. The way you have treated others is quite offensive. You've assumed people don't desire to do research, then turn around and don't show your own.
You haven't shown me YOUR RESEARCH that supports thermophiles can't live on lava. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my comment, but that's what I meant.
Also, you are aware that not everything immediately turns into igneous rock? Otherwise pillow lava wouldn't form. Regardless, when one bears in mind that volcanic rock cools quickly, finding bubbles full of an organism is quite an indicator of something, no?
Now if you were talking about magma...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:42 am
4shi I had a bunch of stuff typed but it got lost to the depths of cyberspace. I will try to recap to the best of my ability (and hopefully without interruption). I'm offended because of your hubris in this whole debate. The way you have treated others is quite offensive. You've assumed people don't desire to do research, then turn around and don't show your own. You haven't shown me YOUR RESEARCH that supports thermophiles can't live on lava. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my comment, but that's what I meant. Also, you are aware that not everything immediately turns into igneous rock? Otherwise pillow lava wouldn't form. Regardless, when one bears in mind that volcanic rock cools quickly, finding bubbles full of an organism is quite an indicator of something, no? Well, I'm sorry if I offended anyone here, but I never said anything wrong. And my assumptions about what xXEternallyBlueXx reads and how she goes about researching stuff are based on the conversations I have had with her. I don't have a bad opinion of her, I just think her knowledge of the subject is one-sided. And drop the lava thing, because you know you're wrong. That article clearly says those organisms inhabited the rock after it cooled down. It's not my fault you didn't read it well. Just find me one example of organisms living in lava, and I'll admit I'm wrong. You're saying they can, you should prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it. I'm pretty sure Shiori Miko just made the mistake, because he heard about organisms living in volcanic environments and assumed lava. I really don't blame him, it's an easy mistake to make. I don't think he was offended when I pointed it out, the point he was making still stands anyway. I was just using it as an example of forums like this one not being a very reliable source of information. I hate it when people can't admit their mistakes. I have no problem doing that, and am prepared to do it. And I'm in no way arrogant. Quote: you'll get answers like life in lava (which as far as I know, is impossible). Note the "as far as I know". That's because I'm prepared to get lectured on it, if I was wrong. And I try to be nice when debating people, and if convincing someone they're wrong is being an a*****e, I'm sorry. I thought that was the point of debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:27 pm
I'm not offended you pointed it out but I am slightly offended that you called me a "he".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:48 pm
Shiori Miko I'm not offended you pointed it out but I am slightly offended that you called me a "he". Woops, sorry about that biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:40 pm
Artto xxEternallyBluexx The hole there is that life couldn't evolve if all the conditions weren't as precisely correct as they are. There are no other suitable options except the world we live in. That's why the water in the glass metaphor doesn't work. If conditions were different, life would not evolve, or would evolve differently. Quote: Right off the top of my head is how the genders developed, how plant life and animals were able to evolve together to balance each out, how we had enough mutations to get the varieties of creature we have, abnormalities like the platypus, transitions from one-cell to tissue, and tissue to organ, and there was something I read once about how we don't have enough nitrogen (as evidence) in the earth's crust for the early oceans to be able to develop proteins. Now God could arrange for it to work, I suppose, but He said He did it one way, so I believe He did it that way. You know, you can look all these things up, but I have the feeling you don't want to. There are explanations (at least hypotheses) for most of this stuff. And it would be best if you look up explanations from the experts, cause on this forum, you'll get answers like life in lava (which as far as I know, is impossible). And what's with the platypus? How exactly is it an abnormality? Sure, it looks weird, but I don't see how it's an abnormality... Says you. There's scientists who say that if gravity were different in the slightest, either only roaches could survive, or everything would be too light to form. The same goes with something like 23 other variables. I'll look it up when my desktop starts working, and I can quit using my sister's laptop. >.< (stupid virus) But this is more fun, I like layman's terms better, and I don't like reading tons of data off a computer screen. I'll humor you as well as I can, if you'll do the same for me. Platypuses don't fit into an animal kingdom like mammal, and they're just so random. I mean, why would a mammal like duck evolve? Plus they amuse me. whee And my knowledge is one-sided. I try to be fair, but I'll be the first to admit I'm biased. If you don't like that, then we don't have to debate, or we could debate about what's wrong with being biased. Whatever you like. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:53 am
I think we should continue in this topic:
http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?page=1&t=18181545#228715911xxEternallyBluexx Says you. There's scientists who say that if gravity were different in the slightest, either only roaches could survive, or everything would be too light to form. The same goes with something like 23 other variables. I'll look it up when my desktop starts working, and I can quit using my sister's laptop. >.< (stupid virus) I don't find those variable values compelling at all. Because gravity is not different, it's as it is. Sure, in different conditions life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean life wouldn't exist at all. xxEternallyBluexx Platypuses don't fit into an animal kingdom like mammal, and they're just so random. I mean, why would a mammal like duck evolve? Plus they amuse me. whee Platypus is in fact classified as a mammal. The main cause for them being so different (for example, they lay eggs), is because they split off from other mammals relatively early in the mammalian evolution. You could say they are a more "primitive" form of mammals (thought to be strictly correct, they are just a different branch). The evolution of the platypus is not that well documented, but fossils of toothed platypuses have been found. The beak is not the same as the beak of a duck, though it looks similar. Just like the beak of a squid is not the same as the beak of a parrot. Note that the structures of a duck bill and a platypus bill are quite different:  Why did it evolve? I'm not sure, I'd guess it benefits it in feeding, since it digs out worms and crayfish. The trunk of an elephant is weird too, but that doesn't really make a case for a creator. Evolution is bound to produce a lot weird stuff, since it's a semi-random process. xxEternallyBluexx And my knowledge is one-sided. I try to be fair, but I'll be the first to admit I'm biased. If you don't like that, then we don't have to debate, or we could debate about what's wrong with being biased. Whatever you like. biggrin I have no problem with people being biased, everyone is biased to some degree. I just think that you should learn more about the subject before forming such a strong opinion about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:08 am
Artto 4shi I had a bunch of stuff typed but it got lost to the depths of cyberspace. I will try to recap to the best of my ability (and hopefully without interruption). I'm offended because of your hubris in this whole debate. The way you have treated others is quite offensive. You've assumed people don't desire to do research, then turn around and don't show your own. You haven't shown me YOUR RESEARCH that supports thermophiles can't live on lava. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my comment, but that's what I meant. Also, you are aware that not everything immediately turns into igneous rock? Otherwise pillow lava wouldn't form. Regardless, when one bears in mind that volcanic rock cools quickly, finding bubbles full of an organism is quite an indicator of something, no? Well, I'm sorry if I offended anyone here, but I never said anything wrong. And my assumptions about what xXEternallyBlueXx reads and how she goes about researching stuff are based on the conversations I have had with her. I don't have a bad opinion of her, I just think her knowledge of the subject is one-sided. And drop the lava thing, because you know you're wrong. That article clearly says those organisms inhabited the rock after it cooled down. It's not my fault you didn't read it well. Just find me one example of organisms living in lava, and I'll admit I'm wrong. You're saying they can, you should prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it. I'm pretty sure Shiori Miko just made the mistake, because he heard about organisms living in volcanic environments and assumed lava. I really don't blame him, it's an easy mistake to make. I don't think he was offended when I pointed it out, the point he was making still stands anyway. I was just using it as an example of forums like this one not being a very reliable source of information. I hate it when people can't admit their mistakes. I have no problem doing that, and am prepared to do it. And I'm in no way arrogant. Quote: you'll get answers like life in lava (which as far as I know, is impossible). Note the "as far as I know". That's because I'm prepared to get lectured on it, if I was wrong. And I try to be nice when debating people, and if convincing someone they're wrong is being an a*****e, I'm sorry. I thought that was the point of debate. Artto, I would like to continue this particular debate in pm's since I feel it may deter from the thread. I would still like to see the evidence I've asked for, and I may point out where I felt your language and not the act of correction was arrogant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:50 pm
My biggest pet peeves is really assumptions to me and other Atheists.
I mean, it is common that Atheists will believe evolution. However, some Christians believe that is a definite in the belief. stressed
The idea of being grouped because of a couple of things is just entirely fascist in my eyes.
Like if someone saw an ad for Atheism and then went on the internet to ask why this was if Atheists don't proselytize others. Not all Atheists like to preach.
Besides, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of other advertisements in my state. I grow tired of seeing the billboards saying "Trust God".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:53 pm
Artto Shiori Miko I'm not offended you pointed it out but I am slightly offended that you called me a "he". Woops, sorry about that biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:44 pm
Captain_Shinzo Artto Shiori Miko I'm not offended you pointed it out but I am slightly offended that you called me a "he". Woops, sorry about that biggrin It wasn't a typo. I spotted a 'him' too. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
