Polonium Halos and Creation

Polonium is a radioactive element, and decays quickly. As it decays it leaves behind halos, but these halos disappear very quickly, unless there is a means to capture the evidence of them. It turns out that these halos are captured in granite all around the world.

Evolutionists say the universe created itself, and the earth was a hot molten mass for millions or billions of years until the rock cooled and hardened. The thing about that is that if the rock is molten and fluid, the evidence for the decay of polonium will quickly disappear. If the evolutionists are right, there should be zero evidence of polonium decay in earth’s rock.

Dr. Robert Gentry is a creationist who has been working on this topic for decades, and has published this information in prestigious, secular, scientific journals. No one has ever been able to answer how these polonium halos could be there from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Dr. Gentry compares the polonium halos to a tablet of Alka Seltzer being dropped into a glass of water. If you leave it undisturbed for a few minutes, the bubbles from the tablet disappear. But, if you drop the tablet in, and instantaneously freeze the water, the bubbles will be encapsulated in the frozen water. This is what happened with the polonium in the granite. The polonium decays, and within 3 minutes or less, the granite is hardened, and the polonium halo is frozen for future generations to see.

Atheists have faith that science will someday be able to explain these difficult issues. I agree that science will someday find an answer; it just won’t have anything to do with the big bang or evolution.

Here’s a couple of websites to look at for more information:
Dr. Gentry’s site
Answers in Genesis article on halos in coalified wood.

While you’re at it, take a look at this website.

Advertisements

36 Responses to Polonium Halos and Creation

  1. Matt says:

    It has been explained, as casual research over on talkorigins.org reveals quite handily.
    You’ve simply got to love highly regarded collections of research like that.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

  2. billphillips says:

    Matt,

    Thanks for your comment.

    It’s one thing to poke holes in someone’s theory. It’s another thing to explain the halos from an evolutionary standpoint.

    Did you get a chance to look at the website I referenced at the end?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  3. Matt says:

    Which site? Answers in Genesis has long since been horribly discredited due to their dishonest tactics and presentation of scientific findings, as well as apparently possessing (at very best) a rudimentary grasp of science as a concept.
    As can be seen in this very example, AiG have been informed time and again that the page you link to contains false information but they refuse to change it to make it correct.

    And the ten thousand dollar offer is extremely silly as it is very difficult to prove a negative at the best of times.

  4. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    I’m dubious of anything that links to AiG. If you want ‘evolutionists’ to take you seriously, I’d strongly advise against using them to bolster an argument; I’m not aware of a single instance in which they haven’t been shown to be wrong or deceptive.

  5. billphillips says:

    Matt,

    I don’t think you got very far into the ten thousand dollar offer. Maybe you can take the test on there. It should only take a few minutes.

    I was also wondering why you really care to discuss atheism and Christianity. In your wildest dreams, what are you hoping to accomplish through discussing this with me? In my wildest dreams, I would hope that I could contribute to you being born again, and we could spend eternity together. But I really don’t see a big motivation for you, unless you just have fun discussing these things, with no real purpose or hope for accomplishing much. Am I wrong?

    LLFW,

    I don’t take evolutionists seriously, so I really don’t care whether they take me seriously. I’m searching for the truth, and maybe halos are proof of creation and maybe they’re not. I know that evolutionists have no explanation for them. If atheists wish to believe that life can pop into existence, and matter can create itself, it’s obvious that they’re letting their hatred of God cloud their thinking.

    I would also like to hear your thoughts on the ten thousand dollar offer site at the bottom of the post.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  6. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    <I don’t take evolutionists seriously, so I really don’t care whether they take me seriously. I’m searching for the truth, and maybe halos are proof of creation and maybe they’re not. I know that evolutionists have no explanation for them. If atheists wish to believe that life can pop into existence, and matter can create itself, it’s obvious that they’re letting their hatred of God cloud their thinking.

    The belief that ideas like abiogenesis and scientific explanations for the beginning of the Universe (both of which you’ve grossly misrepresented here) stem from a ‘hatred of God’ is a common fallacy. Think about it: how could an atheist ‘hate God’? Do you hate leprechauns (real, actual leprechauns)?

    The first post in reply to this has already linked to an explanation of polonium halos that fits with the traditional geological time scale. On what basis do you reject that explanation?

    I would also like to hear your thoughts on the ten thousand dollar offer site at the bottom of the post.

    It’s pretty silly. The Ten Commandments describe actions that everyone will have done at some point or another, even if it was when they were children. I’m not really sure what the website is trying to prove, either.

  7. billphillips says:

    LLFW,

    I found the exact website Matt posted, and read the articles before posting what I wrote. I found this quote on one of the links (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html), “Clearly, more work is required to resolve all of these questions. The association of ring-type haloes with any specific energy of alpha decay must be considered speculative.”

    I took a few physics classes in college, but on this topic I’m going to have to trust what those who are more expert in the field say. Gentry is an expert, and is willing to say that maybe someone will find an explanation, but is also eager to point out that no one else has an explanation. By their own admission the evolutionists’ explanation is “considered speculative.” Why are you so hasty to accept a speculative answer?

    Atheists prefer to believe in miracles like life popping into existence in spite of amazing odds. You have much more faith in evolution than I do in God. God gives atheists oxygen to breathe every day. He keeps them alive showing them mercy every day, yet they are not only ungrateful, but go so far as to deny His existence. This is their hatred manifesting itself.

    If I was espousing the leprechaun society and religion, would you take the time to correspond with me?

    The Ten Commandments are God’s law, and you and I are guilty of breaking it. If God cares about justice we must be punished. The Ten Commandments provide a reasonable way to show us that we deserve to spend eternity in hell. Whether you choose to believe the Bible is up to you, but you hopefully now have an understanding of why it says you deserve to be punished.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  8. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    I took a few physics classes in college, but on this topic I’m going to have to trust what those who are more expert in the field say. Gentry is an expert, and is willing to say that maybe someone will find an explanation, but is also eager to point out that no one else has an explanation. By their own admission the evolutionists’ explanation is “considered speculative.” Why are you so hasty to accept a speculative answer?

    The AiG article essentially says ‘because scientists cannot explain this with 100% surety, it debunks the geological time scale and therefore evolution’. If you’ve studied science at college level, you’ll know that’s now how it works – at all.

    AiG, and you too, apparently, are putting too much weight to a single issue, and the entire creationist movement is built on this fallacy. I’m perfectly willing to accept that their are things about the world we don’t know yet. What I’m not willing to do is jump to wild conclusions based solely on this.

    Atheists prefer to believe in miracles like life popping into existence in spite of amazing odds. You have much more faith in evolution than I do in God. God gives atheists oxygen to breathe every day. He keeps them alive showing them mercy every day, yet they are not only ungrateful, but go so far as to deny His existence. This is their hatred manifesting itself.

    Really? God does all that?

    Can you prove it?

    If you can’t, then my religion (which came to me in a dream last night) based on the principle that a gigantic space-Shrimp (note the capital S) created the Universe and gave humans life, is equally as valid as yours. If you deny that the space Shrimp exists, you don’t just find it a preposterous idea, you actively hate it. After all, it’s done so much for you – how could you possibly be so callous as to pretend that it doesn’t exist?

    Religious people can’t quite seem to grasp that not everybody shares in their particular delusion. I don’t hate God. It’s been several years since I entertained even the slightest notion that God (as described in any major Western religion) might exist, and not because I’m in denial about some sort of ‘obvious truth’. I’ve argued extensively with religious people, I’ve looked critically at every scrap of evidence they provide, and all of it has been wholly underwhelming. I have never found any reason to believe in God, and it’s certainly not through want of looking.

    Of course, I expect that you’ll go on believing we atheists ‘hate God’ anyway, but hopefully some of this has actually gotten through to you.

  9. billphillips says:

    No one said you should become a creationist because of one piece of evidence. Polonium halos are just one more nail in the atheist’s coffin.

    You have your personal atheism testimony. It’s cute. Just like many Mormons I talk to have a burning bosom about the Book of Mormon. You have faith that order comes from chaos, and design results from chance.

    You know what the Bible says about your eternity, and why it makes sense. Please think more about the Ten Commandments, and how often you break them.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  10. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    Unfortunately, I was right. Regardless of all evidence to the contrary, you’ve decided that your idea of atheists is true and nothing is going to change that. A post like the above amounts to an admission that you’re not worth talking to.

  11. Matt says:

    Gentry’s research was shown to be faulty, as shown in the link provided. You simply can not just select which evidence you’ll use in your research, otherwise it throws the entire thing off completely – making the research itself worthless.

    But I do not think you are interested at all in actual scientific findings at this point, which is a shame.

  12. billphillips says:

    Matt,

    If there is anyone not interested in the truth or science it is atheists. Like I said before, poking holes in someone’s research isn’t the same as explaining polonium halos. Evolutionists have no explanation.

    Here’s a simple question that Darwin and his peers should have been able to answer, but even after 150 years of lives spent researching evolution, remain unanswered. (It is unanswerable by evolution, which shows it to be an incorrect theory.) Which evolved first the digestive system, the food, appetite, ability to find food, ability to eat food, digestive juices or the body’s resistance to its digestive juices?

    That isn’t really a scientific question; it’s a philosophical question. Continued scientific research won’t be able to answer it, because it’s such a basic pholisophical question. There are similar basic questions for every natural system, and there just aren’t answers.

    Did you get a chance to look at the tenthousanddollaroffer.com website?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  13. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    Darwin and his peers ‘should have been able to answer’? This is yet another fallicious argument – ‘because scientsists can’t explain everything, evolution must be wrong’. There will always be things that we don’t know the answer to, but that doesn’t mean you should simply toss out everything else related to it.

    As to your example (which yet again belies a deep misunderstanding of evolution), there has actually been research and speculation done on the evolution of a complex digestive system. Unfortunately it’s not the kind of thing that fossilizes well, so it’s hard to study.

    Of course, if the creationists had their way we wouldn’t even know as much as we do; the question would have been left as a ‘mystery’ (that favoured religious word) forever more.

  14. billphillips says:

    LLFW,

    That is a simple question. You accept by FAITH that someday scientists will answer it. Evolution is your religion and provides your worldview. It attempts to answer all the questions that every other religion attempts to answer. (Who am I? What is my purpose? What is going to happen when I die? etc.)

    You are betting your eternity on evolution. If the Bible is true, what are you going to do about your sin? Justice must be served.

    I thought I was “not worth talking to.” If I’m a moron that believes in fairy tales, why are you so intent on continuing this conversation?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  15. Matt says:

    Scientists pokes hole in faulty research carried out by anyone. Why? Because faulty research leads straight to faulty conclusions, such as the case with Gentry’s work. They found huge flaws in his work, mistakes made that you’d tell a young high school student off for because they should have known better. These mistakes almost certainly threw his conclusions off, therefore his findings are rendered pretty much worthless.

    Now if someone else, who followed correct procedures, repeated that work and came up with the same conclusions then you might have something. Sadly, no one ever has come to the same conclusions … probably because those original conclusions are false. And the link I provided did provide answers, they were caused by other substances as clearly outlined.

    That is a simple question. You accept by FAITH that someday scientists will answer it.

    No, it is rational to believe that science has a good chance of solving it. Why? Because it has a track record of solving nearly every problem put toward it sooner or later, and those it hasn’t yet solved … well, work continues.
    Now, if there had been no such track record of success and you still thought they could do it … then that would be irrational faith.

  16. billphillips says:

    Matt,

    Whether Gentry’s arguments have been refuted or not, no one knows for sure. Men with phDs in the appropriate fields don’t know, and you certainly don’t know. What I do know is that you are willing to trust the high priests of your religion even with your life.

    The digestive system question is a philosophical question that Darwin should have been able to answer if evolution were a valid theory. He attempted to explain how the eye could have evolved and he failed. You should think this through. Your faith in miracles is amazing to me.

    Please answer my questions. Did you get a chance to look at the $10,000 website? What is your motivation for having this conversation with me?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  17. Matt says:

    What? Of course his findings have been made void. Did you even read the link provided? His procedures were flawed, his choice of samples rather odd and so on. With science, that pretty much automatically makes his conclusions completely unreliable.
    And despite for assertions to the contrary, answers have been given by science for those halo effects. As clearly pointed out in the link provided.

    Digestive system a philosophical question? How? And what does biology have to do with philosophy?

    And no, I’m not looking at the $10,000 website is the premise of it is flawed as it assumes the ten commandments are some sort of basis for morality, which they aren’t.

    And my motivation? I like to combat ignorance where ever I find it. Which, going by the misunderstandings of science and evolution apparent here, makes this a good a place as any to leave comments.

  18. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    There’s little chance of convincing you of anything, but others may well read this.

    Evolution does no such thing as what you’re describing. You just keep bringing up one fallacy after another – in this case, the strawman. Find me someone who treats evolution as a philosophy or religion, and I’ll gladly call them a fool. Evoltution explains a lot about us, but it’s only a scientific theory; it’s not a guide on how to live your life or a philosophy. (Even if certain philosophies take evolution into account).

    The ‘eye’ example is an old and discredited one. Several models for how the eye could have evolved have been put forward. Darwsin may not have known how the eye evolved, but Darwin lived a long time ago and didn’t even know about genetics. What does he have to do with this? If you want to refute evolution, you’re going to have to tackle the current knowledge, not the outdated stuff.

    You are betting your eternity on evolution. If the Bible is true, what are you going to do about your sin? Justice must be served.

    And if the Qu’ran is correct, we’re both going to hell. If the Egyptians gods are displeased with your life, you’re not going to a good afterlife. If the Greek pantheon exists, I doubt they’ll be happy with you worshipping a false god or with my atheism.

    Why should I or anyone else believe in your god over the many other gods that might exist? If anyone else does read this, please ask yourself that same question: why God rather than Zeus? Because ‘everyone knows’ that Zeus is just a story? Why the Bible over the Qu’ran? Why not Shikhism or Hinduism? There was a time (in fact, for the vast majority of the time humanity has existed) when God and Jesus were completely unknown. Why not the gods or spirits that humans worshipped then?

    What makes you think that a thousand years from now your god won’t be a myth as well, replaced by yet another God or gods?

  19. baddogmooney says:

    Bill,

    Thanks for stopping by and posting. Quite the discussion going on here. I don’t have much, but here is my two cents, for whatever they are worth.

    I don’t think science will ever prove God exists. That is why we have faith. Though knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, and science is exactly that, the pursuit of knowledge, there will always be another question to answer. that is the beauty of it. Maybe on the way to finding the how, some scientists will think about the why, but that is is not their focus.

    I don’t hold scientists to proving God. I am for creation/intelligent design, or whatever else someone wants to call it because that is what I choose to believe. My Jesus never took anyone aside to explain how God exists, or provided any proof that there is more to what we see every day. He said, “Believe.”

    As for the atheist that may read this, we are equally convinced of what we believe (or don’t) in. For me, a life without God doesn’t resolve, and it scares the crap out of me.

    Peace,

    – mooney

  20. billphillips says:

    Matt,

    As I pointed out to LLFW, the author of the article considered his theory to be speculative. I’ll ask you the same question as I asked him. Why are you so hasty to accept a speculative answer?

    When I say I’m looking for a philosophical explanation, I mean just a general theoretical answer. For instance, which came first, the food or the ability to digest the food? There are so many of these systems in existence, and evolution can’t explain them even theoretically, much less scientifically. There is no valid answer for how these things evolved that stand up to even minimal scrutiny, much less the level of scrutiny you hold Gentry to.

    You are free to reject the Bible and the Ten Commandments. My only hope is to warn you about what it says. Further, while I can see an atheist rejecting the first 4 of the Ten Commandments, the last 6 seem pretty foundational to society. I know you wouldn’t want to be the victim of someone breaking those 6. Though you’ve failed miserably, I hope you make some effort to keep them.

    Why do you like to combat ignorance? If I became an atheist, how would you benefit? Is the benefit you receive worth the time you’ve spent?

    LLFW,

    You’re the one who treats evolution as a religion, as evidenced by your comments, including sharing your personal testimony. The Bible agrees with your characterization of such people (Psalm 14:1).

    I agree that creation doesn’t provide enough information to identify the Creator. However, there is only one religion that provides a valid way for your sins to be forgiven.

    What makes me think Christianity isn’t a myth? The best proof is the resurrection of Jesus. I would ask you the same question. What makes you think your religion won’t be a myth in a thousand years?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  21. billphillips says:

    Mooney,

    Thanks for your comment.

    Bill

  22. Matt says:

    Why are you so willing to accept the conclusions of someone whose research methods have been shown to be faulty? That way leads to nothing but mistakes.

    As for the formation of different systems. As PZ Myers said quite succinctly to Simmons or the Discovery Institute “Your ignorance in not evidence”. So far you have displayed a considering ignorance and/or misunderstandings about science and evolution. The chances of you having actually done any research into the questions you pose seem slim. I have provided you with links to an excellent science based site ( talkorigins.org ), try using their search system to find the articles you wish. Of course, the whole digestive system thing is a silly line of inquiry anyhow – as all living things need nutrition to grow, even single celled little critters. It just got more advanced from there as more and different sources of nutrition presented themselves.

    the last 6 seem pretty foundational to society.

    How is that? Criminal law isn’t based on the ten commandments. Society existed fine before they were chipped into stone and even those communities that have never heard of them seem to go on just fine.

    Why do you like to combat ignorance?

    Obviously ignorance hurts society as a whole, humanity would be a lot better off if people stopped living in ignorance and superstition.

    However, there is only one religion that provides a valid way for your sins to be forgiven.

    Actually, a lot of religions throughout human history have presented ways of gaining paradise through actions and contrition. Christianity is far from unique in that particular way.

    What makes me think Christianity isn’t a myth?The best proof is the resurrection of Jesus.

    That is your proof? An supposed act which has never been independently verified and the only reference to such comes from a book which has the sole basis of supporting that jesus was great? By that same rationale, I could write a book saying that Optimus Prime is god and have just as much evidence as your example.
    Though having a Church of Optimus Prime would be rather cool…

    I would ask you the same question. What makes you think your religion won’t be a myth in a thousand years?

    Science isn’t a religion, it is a neutral and evidence based way of looking at the Universe around us. Anyone who claims that it is a religion, simply does not understand what science is. And why would it disappear? It has a lot of evidence to support it and a huge track record of being correct … unlike the hundreds of deities that have been and gone throughout human history.

  23. billphillips says:

    Matt,

    Why are you so willing to accept speculation as an explanation? Speculation from one side is dismissed, and speculation from another side is solid gold. Gentry is the first to admit that he might be wrong. However there is still nothing more than speculation from evolutionists, which you swallow whole.

    While ignorance isn’t evidence, neither is pomposity. Reduce any system down as far as you want. The first single celled organism needed food. How did it know it needed food? Where did it get food? And that isn’t an explanation of how complex systems came about.

    I agree that a lot of religions, if not all of them, provide a way of getting into heaven through actions and contrition. For example, in Islam they believe that if they keep the 5 pillars of Islam, and do enough good deeds, Allah will overlook or forgive their sins. If I’m guilty of a crime, and I tell the judge I washed his car and mowed his lawn in hopes of getting off, I’d have bribery added to my list of crimes, and be sent to jail. Christianity is the only religion where God Himself pays my fine. I can do nothing to get him to pay my fine. I can offer no good reason for him to pay my fine, and I can do nothing to repay Him. I’m just a guilty criminal who deserves nothing but punishment.

    Jesus was crucified to shut Him up. Fifty days after they killed Him, His followers go around preaching that He has risen from the dead, in the very city where He was killed. If the tomb weren’t empty, why didn’t His enemies drag out his rotting corpse and nip Christianity in the bud? Why would those who said they saw Him risen be willing to die rather than stop preaching? There have been plenty of people who have died for a lie that they believed, but no one has ever died for something they knew to be a lie.

    True science isn’t a religion. I love science. Evolution is a religion. You have very little proof of anything. You can’t refute polonium halos. There’s no explanation of how matter created itself. You believe in the miracle of life popping into existence. You have no explanations of how entire biological systems came into being. You have faith that these things will be explained. You can go on pretending to be rational and logical, but it’s all based on faith.

    Thanks,
    Bil

  24. Matt says:

    Why are you so willing to accept speculation as an explanation?

    Who says I am?
    Gentry’s research methods were found to be weak, which led to mistaken conclusions. That means that he research can not be taken as reliable, there are no ifs or buts about that.

    Meanwhile, other explanations for the same effect have been produced – once which fit known models and evidence, unlike Gentry’s.

    So it is very much a case of;
    Gentry: “Here is my research. I came to my conclusions through doing this…”
    Science: “Um, your method is faulty, your selection of sample to study highly questionable and your conclusions are therefore worthless. One of the other hand, this theory here explains the halo effect and fits what we already know.”

    So, despite your repetitions, science has long answered this particular scenario.

    How did it know it needed food? Where did it get food? And that isn’t an explanation of how complex systems came about.

    Complex systems came from basic ones, slowly improved after massive amounts of time to better suit circumstances. It’s that simple. We know how single celled organisms take in nutrients, it’s been observed – it is their very nature. You’re falling for the old fallacy which also wonders how the human eye formed as it did, which Darwin himself answered (but still seems to be a silly brain bug amongst creationists).

    Christianity is the only religion where God Himself pays my fine. I can do nothing to get him to pay my fine.

    Which assumes that a god exists in the first place or that it is the particular god laid out in the bible. There is no evidence for such claims and while people can fall back on the old ‘faith’ excuse, it is ultimately a worthless reason. You can have faith in god and you can also have faith that you are Napoleon and you’d both have equal justification for your belief. Equally worthless, that is.

    Jesus was crucified to shut Him up. Fifty days after they killed Him, His followers go around preaching that He has risen from the dead, in the very city where He was killed. If the tomb weren’t empty, why didn’t His enemies drag out his rotting corpse and nip Christianity in the bud?

    Because, at the time, no one but his followers really gave a damn about Jesus’ followers. He was crucified not to shut Jesus up but to shut the Jewish priests up, who wouldn’t give the Roman governors any peace until they did. He was, well and truly, a victim of politics.
    It seems you know little about the story of jesus as you do about science.

    True science isn’t a religion. I love science. Evolution is a religion.

    How is it a religion? There is so much proof for it, that it is simply not funny.
    Just for giggle, try this nice list of 29+ evidences for macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    Talkorigins.org is so full of research papers, peer reviewed research and observations that it is simply not funny. Have you actually gone and had a look at all the verified evidence there?
    I doubt it.

    There’s no explanation of how matter created itself.

    Big Bang theory, supported by various observations and verified by mathematical models ranging from how light behaves, universal background radiation, movement of universal bodies, etc. Try reading ‘A Brief History of Time’ by Stephen Hawking (possibly the smartest man currently alive) for a reasonably simple look at it.

    You believe in the miracle of life popping into existence. You have no explanations of how entire biological systems came into being.

    Scientific theory of Abiogenesis. Try looking into it.
    I’d link you to various studies, research and stuff but time and again I have provided such links and you’ve ignored them.

    Now would you like to continue putting your fingers in your ears and going “I can’t hear you!” or would you actually like to accept the facts and take the provided evidence on board for once?

  25. billphillips says:

    Matt,

    I did some searching on talkorigins.org.

    This digestive system thing shouldn’t be that hard to figure out. Aren’t you amazed that within the last 150 years, not one of the thousands of truly brilliant scientists have been able to sit down with a pencil and paper and map out some theory as to how the digestive system evolved? I’m not saying he needs to find fossil evidence, or show an exact process with all of the evidence to prove it. I’m just saying some realistic theory as to how it would even be possible (without miracles). I really don’t think I’m asking for that much. Have you thought about how many years you’re going to give the theory to answer such basic questions before throwing it out?

    Maybe you can find something I was unable to, but I did find the following. I’m not that familiar with the site, and I don’t know who Bob Patterson is, but he’s at least willing to admit to what I’ve been trying to tell you guys. Unfortunately the link he mentions is no longer valid. I found this at: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may03.html

    Timothy
    Comment: I have been looking through the search engine for a while, and can’t find an answer, or suggestion to a question I have been wondering about for a while- namely, how did the human reproductive system evolve? I found one place on the feedback section addressing it, however, the author unfortunately mentioned it amongst lots of useless babble, and consequentially, the post back didn’t address the question. When looking on the net, the only places I can find it are on creationist websites, as “evidence against evolution”. As I’ve yet to come across a useful creationist website, I usually skipped over them. any information would be helpful, perhaps there is a FAQ that I have missed on your site, but it would be great if I could get something a bit better than “it evolved from previous reproductive systems used in other animals” or something alogng those lines- I’m sure it probably did, however, it doesn’t really help in answering the question.

    Response
    From: Bob Patterson
    Response: Sometimes we ask the wrong question or pose it in a manner that makes answering it difficult. Perhaps a better question is “How did sexual reproduction evolve?” Or, at least, how much can we infer from all the available evidence? This webpage on Evolution of Sexual Reproduction and the links at the bottom of it, offer some insights.

    In order to infer how “human” reproduction might have evolved it is necessary that we look at the reproductive systems of our closest evolutionary relatives among the primates and determine by how much we differ from them (not very much). Looking backward in time to our common ancestry with more distinct mammals we can chart a few more differences (say, litter size, gestation periods). Further back in evolutionary time we find differences in egg type and production and methods of fertilization.

    Unfortunately, reproductive systems and behaviors do not fossilize. We have no other choice but to look at living organisms and branching points and patterns that refer us back to common ancestries. This is also true for other complex systems or organs such as eyes, digestive systems, etc.

    Because of the amount of inference required in piecing together plausible answers to such questions, biology textbooks often concentrate on how current biological systems work and not on how they may have evolved. There are available highly technical books with hypotheses about the evolution of sex and the fascinating diversity of reproductive strategies.

    We simply do not have all the answers to some questions. The origin of sex and reproductive systems remain high on the list of incompletely answered questions in biology.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  26. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    Yes, scienstists don’t know everything. That’s not some shocking revelation. Science thrives on what we don’t yet know; the only people who demand answers to everything, immediately, are the ones with an axe to grind who don’t actually know all that much about science to begin with.

    But how about we turn things around a bit and you give an explanation as to how all of the millions of species on Earth got here? Since you demand a complete, omni-applicable explanation with no holes whatsoever, I take it you have one with all of those properties that you subscribe to? In other words, one with foolproof evidence (physical evidence, drawing on several branches of science) that explains every aspect of life as we know it?

  27. billphillips says:

    LLFW and Matt,

    The law of biogenesis says that life only develops from living matter. Abiogenesis is a religious theory that goes against the scientific law of biogenesis. If you want to believe in abiogenesis, that’s fine, but don’t pretend to be interested in science.

    In the past, people believed that when dead animals were left out, maggots would pop into existence from the meat, or rats would come about from hay. Some even believe that single-celled organisms chanced into existence from a muddy puddle. If you want to go on believing old wives tales, you should do that, but don’t pretend it’s not a religion. Despite your fervent faith in this religious theory, no scientist is any closer to creating living matter.

    If you want to know how I believe life got here, you should read the Bible. I believe in a Creator. I believe in miracles. You can mock the miracles I believe in, but that doesn’t make the miracles you believe in any less miraculous. You’re betting your eternity on evolution. Please think as critically of it as you think about everything else.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  28. Matt says:

    There is no such thing as a ‘Law of Biogenesis’ as you’re using it in science as shown here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

    If you go to the following link and actually read the research laid out for you, you’ll find there is quite substantial evidence to support Abiogenesis.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0

    You can mock the miracles I believe in, but that doesn’t make the miracles you believe in any less miraculous.

    I mock any belief that has no evidence to support it, so far you have produced none. All you have presented is disproven and otherwise bad pseudo-science.

    You’re betting your eternity on evolution.

    That looks like an appeal to what’s known as Pascal’s Wager, an argument that has been disproven for centuries now.

  29. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    So, to sum up:

    billphillips knows nothing about abiogenesis, evolution, or science. As proof, I need only quote the following:

    The law of biogenesis says that life only develops from living matter. Abiogenesis is a religious theory that goes against the scientific law of biogenesis.

    Some even believe that single-celled organisms chanced into existence from a muddy puddle.

    Whoops. Looks like someone hasn’t actually read about abiogenesis.

    In place of a theory about which he knows nothing, bill offers the Bible. I don’t know if ‘underwhelmed’ is a strong enough word for my reaction to that.

    If you’re going to argue against evolution then please, please actually learn about it first. Otherwise you’ll just make yourself look like an idiot.

  30. billphillips says:

    Sounds like we’ve reached an impass. You say there’s much evidence for spontaneous generation, and I say there’s zero. Fracis Crick who co-discovered DNA seems to agree with me. He says that the possibility of life popping into existence on earth is so ridiculous that he’s going to believe aliens brought the first life forms here from another planet.

    Keep the faith, guys, in spite of the severe lack of evidence.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  31. Matt says:

    Sadly, there is evidence for Abiogenesis. Many of the steps of it have been carried out in labs. The mathematics works out and so on. talkorigins.org has records of the necessary experiments for your perusal and your leisure.

    Sadly, it is your side that has failed to provide any evidence for your case.

  32. lifelessonsfromwriting says:

    Urgh. Does an overwhelming ability to be mind-numbingly obtuse come with creationism? I literally cannot fathom why someone would want to stay as ignorant as this, but if that’s what your religion demands, be my guest. I’m out.

  33. […] by Job on June 16, 2008 Polonium Halos and Creation « Fisher of Men Polonium Halos and […]

  34. […] by Job on June 16, 2008 Polonium Halos and Creation « Fisher of Men Polonium Halos and […]

  35. Andrew Finnegan says:

    “You believe in the miracle of life popping into existence. You have no explanations of how entire biological systems came into being.”

    This is also known as Hoyle’s Fallacy. Science doesn’t have to explain how an entire biosystem came about. All it has to do is demonstrate one replicating molecule, after that darwinian processes take over. Job done.

  36. Bill says:

    Andrew,

    You said, “All [science] has to do is demonstrate one replicating molecule, after that darwinian processes take over.

    A replicating molecule such as DNA has tons of information. Where did the information come from? What is your theory on where a replicating molecule comes from?

    Thanks,
    Bill

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s