Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You need to read an actual science book - not some woo-woo book by non-scientists.

Do you actually believe bacteria break down heavy metals? Do you even science?

This article claims that bacteria do in fact break down heavy metals.

Attack of the Rock-Eating Microbes!
Some bacteria break down minerals, while others make them
[url=http://www.phschool.com/science/science_...ating.html

[Anomalocaris]

You need to read an actual science book - not some woo-woo book by non-scientists.

Do you actually believe bacteria break down heavy metals? Do you even science?

This article claims that bacteria do in fact break down heavy metals.

Attack of the Rock-Eating Microbes!
Some bacteria break down minerals, while others make them
[url=http://www.phschool.com/science/science_...ating.html

Of course. Many minerals are biotic in origin. Where do you think limestone and coal comes from?

Many, many other minerals that is not directly made by biological action can nonetheless only form as a result of chemistry made possible because biological activity altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere, soil, or water.

For example, all of the world's mineable iron ore deposits are made possible by Cyanobacteria that changed the composition of the atmosphere, which in turn changes sea water chemistry and caused dissolved irons in the water to precipitate out as banded iron formations.

It is estimated that while earth has around 6000 different types of minerals, the moon, Venus, and mars, which have similar elemental composition as earth, probably has only a hundred different types of minerals. Most of the difference is caused by absence of biological activities

[Brakeman]

You need to read an actual science book - not some woo-woo book by non-scientists.

Do you actually believe bacteria break down heavy metals? Do you even science?

This article claims that bacteria do in fact break down heavy metals.

Attack of the Rock-Eating Microbes!
Some bacteria break down minerals, while others make them
[url=http://www.phschool.com/science/science_...ating.html

Heavy Metals are elemental not mineral. Breaking down an element requires nuclear forces. You can biochemically combine elements but you are not "breaking them down."

[Tonus]

like we didn't know hawking is atheist and his latest book would have a naturalism conclusion. admirable of you to watch over some unsuspecting posters that might read a few sentences on a mssg board and change their worldview. if they really are that weak-minded seems it would be best to just let them go.
the contemporary scientific enterprise is locked in to interpreting data to fit into a naturalism framework which means all theories, discoveries, and phenomenon must explained materialistically or make an appeal to the future. so what else could he say even if he thought otherwise?

It seems as if you are projecting. It is theists who have to make all knowledge and understanding fit into a presupposed framework with god at the center of it all. There have been times when scientists who promoted knowledge that contradicted prevailing religious beliefs were under pressure to reject or even oppose those beliefs, in some cases on pain of imprisonment or death. The weak-minded were those who refused to accept new knowledge and understanding because it might shake the foundations of their faith.

Scientists can and do change and update our knowledge and understanding all of the time. That's how we make progress. That's how we went from chiseling glyphs into stone tablets to playing video games on electronic tablets. The people who sat around waiting for god to create a laptop computer died disappointed.

[Anomalocaris]

This article claims that bacteria do in fact break down heavy metals.

Attack of the Rock-Eating Microbes!
Some bacteria break down minerals, while others make them
[url=http://www.phschool.com/science/science_...ating.html

Heavy Metals are elemental not mineral. Breaking down an element requires nuclear forces. You can biochemically combine elements but you are not "breaking them down."

When speaking of heavy metal, geochemists don't usually mean the atoms. Very few heavy metals are ever found in nature as pure elements. They are almost always found combined with other elements in characteristic molecules and minerals. When geochemist say heavy metal, they often mean the characteristic molecule or mineral in which the said metal is usually found. So when chemist say breaking down heavy metal, they don't mean nuclear fission. They mean chemically taking apart the characteristic molecules in which the heavy metals are found.

Organic action changes the chemical environment around heavy metal atoms, and cause them to undertake chemical reaction inside the organism, or outside the organism, that would otherwise never occur or highly unlikely to occur. The change occurs at a chemical level, not nuclear level. Atomic nuclei do not change. Electrons and molecules do, as a result of biological activity.

Snow tracks probably quoted correctly. Whether he understood it correctly is another question.

[RobbyPants]

Your previous attempt at the Fine Tuning argument was refuted tens of pages ago. All that was learned is you don't understand iterative probability and have much disdain for that puddle/hole image macro.

Were you hoping we'd forgotten?

poor guy is doing the best with what he has to work with.

It would seem so. There are better tools to work with, if that bothers you.

[Anomalocaris]

Incidentally, the statement that atomic nuclei do not change in organisms needs a caveat.

Of course they do change, radioactive isotopes break down naturally in your body, so some very low level of nuclear fission happens in all organisms, just as it happens in virtually every rock and in the air you breath. The key is the organism do not cause them to happen, and their occurrence do not form part of biological operation in biological organisms.

[Angrboda]

the contemporary scientific enterprise is locked in to interpreting data to fit into a naturalism framework which means all theories, discoveries, and phenomenon must explained materialistically or make an appeal to the future. so what else could he say even if he thought otherwise? naturalistic researchers, scientists, authors will never interpret data, observation that won't have a materialistic conclusion.

Oh gnoes! It's a conspiracy!

[Anomalocaris]

Yeah, how dare facts conspire to make bullshit appear false, and what a disgrace that science should aid and abet this conspiracy rather than taking bullshit at their face value and so as to strike a blow for wish thinking?

[pocaracas]

Heavy Metals are elemental not mineral. Breaking down an element requires nuclear forces. You can biochemically combine elements but you are not "breaking them down."

When speaking of heavy metal, geochemists don't usually mean the atoms. Very few heavy metals are ever found in nature as pure elements. They are almost always found combined with other elements in characteristic molecules and minerals. When geochemist say heavy metal, they often mean the characteristic molecule or mineral in which the said metal is usually found. So when chemist say breaking down heavy metal, they don't mean nuclear fission. They mean chemically taking apart the characteristic molecules in which the heavy metals are found.

huh?!

A heavy metal is any metal or metalloid of environmental concern. The term originated with reference to the harmful effects of cadmium, mercury and lead, all of which are denser than iron. It has since been applied to any other similarly toxic metal, or metalloid such as arsenic,[4] regardless of density.[5] Commonly encountered heavy metals are chromium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium, silver, cadmium, antimony, mercury, thallium and lead. More specific definitions of a heavy metal have been proposed; none have obtained widespread acceptance.[6]

I see elements, not compounds...


Also, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...6108002668

This paper presents the results of modeling the distribution of eight critical heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc) in topsoils using 1588 georeferenced samples from the Forum of European Geological Surveys Geochemical database (26 European countries)....

That's from a geochemist's paper.... all I see is elements.


For a moment, there, I thought my nuclear fusion bias was working up... but... nope!