Red Hypergiant

For my previous science fair, I performed an experiment testing the plausibility of the iron-sulfur world theory. I added ammonia, acetic acid, water, and salt to one container, and heated CaCO3 and zinc in another to create carbon monoxide, which flowed into the first container. The result was lipids and a drop in pH, but I can't seem to get down the cause of this pH drop. Can someone help me? Full details of the experiment here:https://sites.google.com/site/lifefromthedeep/home

I'm going to be making a weather balloon over the summer. Remember, you must have some heating device inside the payload, or the batteries will drop below minimum operating temperature. Lithium (not lithium-ion) batteries are strongly advised. Check out this website: 1337arts.com

Yes, this is an excellent discovery, and I think that it was mentioned on Through the Wormhole once. It's almost certain that we will find other life in the solar system.

"Brainless bacteria" didn't figure out how to do that. Evolution isn't about organisms choosing what new traits they want. It happens by variation, caused by things such as mutations, and then natural selection acting upon them. The bacteria that predated cyanobacteria used a much simpler code than DNA, and slowly evolved the machinery to fix nitrogen and then develop a more complex code.

Just look at the fossil record, phylogenetic tree, and numerous documented cases!

Yes, because that is an extremely abrupt change. Obviously, the sun isn't going to go out, and if the plant can't survive in a new environment, then that's natural selection. That's why when mega-disasters happen, we observe mass extinctions in the fossil record. Go learn more about evolution before you just dismiss it out of hand. Then why should we believe that video is real and this is fake? Because of your opinion?

Great, he has a negative opinion on pre-evolution by natural selection ideas. What does this prove?

How could they express how Darwin's ideas were impossible if they were dead before he published his works? And we don't just accept evolution at face value. We see all the evidence, the fossil record, phylogenetic tree, and numerous observed cases, and then accept it.

Cabin, you link to websites that support your claims, but when other people do it, to an actual scientific site, it proves nothing to you. Evolution is a long process, you can't just walk outside and see it. It can happen quicker with bacteria, but you can't see them with the naked eye. You can observe evolution in the fossil record, and in numerous experiments that people here have shown you, but you blatantly disregarded.

ID has been disproven numerous times, and it never will be considered science. Why? Because the conclusions don't match the evidence.

Nice one. But really cabin, you have clearly ignored all the evidence laid before you and then assert that evolution is faith and you are correct.

Oh really? That would explain why you always cite creationist websites... It's OK to question, just expect to get an answer. Well, it might not be 'normal', but homosexuals still are human beings and deserve the same rights as the rest of us. No, it doesn't. It's a scientific theory. It says nothing about any race being superior, it cannot cause disease (really? you think that a theory can cause disease?), and doesn't say anything about immoral acts. Just how species change over time. Because it is. We have observed speciation (see my post with the links) and we see it in the fossil reord and genetics. I'm not sure how a political/economic system with no castes relates to this... You're the one who came here challenging us, and we're answering your challenge. There's no such thing as evolutionism, just like there's no such thing as gravityism. We have given you plenty. See the links I provided and the Lenski experiment. Oh, and the fossil record and genetics. That's nice, but it's still not science. No, you referenced several creationist sites. Oh, well if a country largely ignorant of science believes it, it must be true! No, it isn't. It's as strong as Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of Relativity. No, it is science, as we have shown you.

Quote for truth. So far, he has ignored all the evidence against him, but expects us to buy his every word.

How is this relevant? No, I don't believe in the above. They have not been observed, period. Evolution has been observed in the fossil record and genetics. Also, we have recorded instances of speciation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/observd3.htm

How many times do we have to tell you? Direct observation is not necessary. Just look at the fossil record and phylogenetic tree we can create by examining the genetic code of living organisms, it's evidence. It's a fact of life.

Nice. You gave me a whole list of biased, unscientific sources. The first one immediately comes out and attacks uniformitarianism, the foundation of modern geology, so that's already sending up a signal that it is not reliable. Plus, the people who wrote the article are stupid enough to cite a source that completely disagrees with them, but they still say that the equations they pulled off of it are correct. Creationist cherry-picking. The second article doesn't cite any sources at all... And if the other ones are going to say that a shell of a snail was dated x million years old, it's because of the reservoir effect, and that's why scientists don't use carbon dating on marine life. And if they say that there was a rock that was dated at two different ages, it was because it was a composite rock.

First, there is no such thing as evolutionism, just like there is no such things as gravityism. Second, we don't need a time machine. We can radiometrically date rocks and examine the genetic code. Third, scientists do not resort to hoaxes. The hoaxes such as Piltdown man were exposed by scientists as hoaxes. No scientist today supports it as evidence. No, it isn't. Radiometric dating works by comparing the ratio of a parent element to its daughter element(s). It's scientific.

Nothing going for evolution? Nothing like, say, the fossil record? The genetic code? The ring species of salamanders in California? The nylonase producing bacteria? Bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics? Evolution can and has been tested. Simply apply a pressure to a species, and genetic diversity and natural selection will do the rest. Learn more about science before embarrassing yourself.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight. And who are you to define what evidence is needed to prove it? No, it's called citing sources. Wrong. You do not need direct observation. For instance, we do not see atoms moving, but we can infer that that's the cause of heat. Why is that the only thing that will change your mind? Does a crime scene investigator refuse to believe that a suspect with evidence piled up against him is guilty just because there is no photo of him committing the crime? No one has pasted in words from websites. The websites we linked you to were not biased, just scientific. Yes, but for casual things, Wikipedia is generally reliable, and cites sources. If you question the validity of these sources, you can check them out yourself. Now, I don't have the time right now to look over those websites, so I'll leave someone else to do that, or maybe I'll do it later. Again, you don't need to directly observe something to infer beyond reasonable doubt that it's true. Again, direct observation is not necessary, and science is about learning about our world. By dating rocks, discovering fossils, and examining the genetic code, we can infer that evolution can and does happen all the time. Also, you can look up observed cases of speciation on Google. Not that hard. No, it's not a belief, because we have evidence. Again, go see the sources for yourself if you don't believe it. You just told me that you didn't pay attention to the video at all. It clearly stated, mathematically, that the universe is not 6,000 years old. Yes, because we make decisions based on evidence and reason, not a Bronze Age book. We gave you evidence, and you ignored it, and said that only photos and videos were evidence. That is closed mindedness.

I believe you can get plasma if you do a similar setup with a grape.

Just wait for him/her to pull something off of AnswersinGenesis or something else to try and refute the arguments laid forth. Or, if we're lucky, (s)he'll be creative and give us something new.

We have what's called radiometric dating (and yes, it works) My link Therefore, millions of years is not a faith statement.

I came up with a thought the other day: There is a sort of hierarchy in the natural world, pertaining to both living and nonliving things, but focuses around living things. You know: -atom -molecule -organelle -cell (this is where life begins) -tissue -organ organ system -organism (although organism can come at the cell level, with unicellular organisms) -population -community -ecosystem -biome -biosphere But could there be something beyond biosphere? Such as two biospheres interacting? There are some problems with this idea, such as being able to get two biospheres close enough together to exchange materials without having them collide. If this idea is at all probable, what would it be called? And extrashpere? It will be interesting to hear your thoughts.