Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought Learnme's questions were pretty reasonable, and I'm interested in seeing your responses.
I'd be happy to do that. He just threw so much at me it's only going to make me repeat everything he finds so objectionable about my original response. Maybe you could pick an issue out of that list of points, phet and I'll be happy to get the conversation started.
I'd be happy to do that. He just threw so much at me it's only going to make me repeat everything he finds so objectionable about my original response. Maybe you could pick an issue out of that list of points, phet and I'll be happy to get the conversation started.
Well, as a person who focused on invertebrate paleontology (and geomorphology) while earning my two degrees in geology, this one was of particular interest for me:
"2) Okay. You meant "Evolution is impossible" as in not an explanation for how life began. I better understand you now, but do you understand and appreciate all that we do know about Evolution and how it explains so much about how life evolved on the planet to what it is today?"
Intelligent people can be incompetent in many areas. The primary source of your confusion is thinking intellect is the most important or even the most essential product of consciousness. It is not. The widely varying distribution of intelligence within the human population is a clue. The major products of consciousness are those that form our character and of those, the ones espoused by the Christian religion, faith, hope, and agape love (loving-kindness, compassion, mercy, gentleness, etc.) are far more important than intellect.
That sounds perfectly ridiculous. Like a millionaire preacher going about the streets full of starving homeless wittering on about faith, hope, and agape love (loving-kindness, compassion, mercy, gentleness, etc. while not doing a damn' thing to help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
It's just not that simple, Arach. A couple having sex and producing a child is no comparison to how complex organisms came to life and then organized. We know how babies are made we just don't know how life (metabolic function) came out of non-life.
You surely know, Thrillo, that there are plausible mechanisms that go a long way to explaining how Life from non life (since Arach once asked, I pointed to Self -Replication as the point when that started) could have started. Therefore 'Don't know' (in the sense of no plausible explanation) is no longer the case (though Not Proven, is) and that means that there is no valid reason to believe that a god dunnit other than personal preference really.
You won't, I'm sure, confuse biological diversity, complexity or awesomeness with statistical improbability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Before addressing all this, let's do this to start: ask me a simple question that I can explain in a few sentences.
How about this one? "Why is complex organic matter becoming self -replicating statistically improbable?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-13-2020 at 03:31 PM..
That sounds perfectly ridiculous. Like a millionaire preacher going about the streets full of starving homeless wittering on about faith, hope, and agape love (loving-kindness, compassion, mercy, gentleness, etc. while not doing a damn' thing to help.
That sounds perfectly irrelevant and distracting from the actual issues. You are losing it, Arq.
Before addressing all this, let's do this to start: ask me a simple question that I can explain in a few sentences.
Most people see that its definitely "something more". the real discussion is what is that something.
deity really doesn't match what we see. (evil or holy just isn't valid)
"designed" like we design a car doesn't seem to match either.
is the universe "intelligent"? well, parts of it most definitely are. The question is how much of it is.
pantheist, pantheist, deist, and things like match what we see so well that that really the most rational answer to them is "It matches what we know about the universe."
I will toss in any other classification or descriptors we have.
Well, as a person who focused on invertebrate paleontology (and geomorphology) while earning my two degrees in geology, this one was of particular interest for me:
"2) Okay. You meant "Evolution is impossible" as in not an explanation for how life began. I better understand you now, but do you understand and appreciate all that we do know about Evolution and how it explains so much about how life evolved on the planet to what it is today?"
I don't say evolution is impossible. I believe in evolution. But evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis which is what I am talking about. It is a scientific fact best as I know--tell me I am wrong on this if I am--that life cannot originate from non-living matter. Life cannot come from a rock. Life only comes from other life (biogenesis). In the earth's formation there couldn't have been life. The earth was molten. Like a sterilized scalpel is was devoid of any life. Then life appeared. Only 2 ways it could have come: from space i.e. a collision by a meteor carrying a life form. Or a higher intelligence governing it. Which would you choose?
I don't say evolution is impossible. I believe in evolution. But evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis which is what I am talking about. It is a scientific fact best as I know--tell me I am wrong on this if I am--that life cannot originate from non-living matter. Life cannot come from a rock. Life only comes from other life (biogenesis). In the earth's formation there couldn't have been life. The earth was molten. Like a sterilized scalpel is was devoid of any life. Then life appeared. Only 2 ways it could have come: from space i.e. a collision by a meteor carrying a life form. Or a higher intelligence governing it. Which would you choose?
Actually I don't agree. Pioneering work was done in this field by Stanley Miller back in the 1950s. Essentially, in his experiments he was able to synthesize the development of amino acids (often referred to as the building blocks of life) from materials that would have been present in the primordial earth. One of the problems in understanding such work is that people mistake abiogenesis for spontaneous generation...two different concepts. You may wish to look into (or perhaps you already have) Pre-Cambrian stromatolite (essentially blue green algae) fossils from, as I recall the Canadian Shield (although it's been a very long time since I reviewed this). A link between processes similar to what Miller conducted and these stromatolites seems possible, although, as I recall, it was cyanobacteria in the stromatolites that was of key interest. As I recall, in the 1970s and beyond work was done which indicated that molecules can evolve in ways similar to the way that plants and animals evolve.
Again, I am trying to draw on memory here from my time in college geology, and that was a long time ago. But, while both of your suggestions (life form from outer space versus "god"...and btw, you come back to the same issues with the former) are possible, I see abiogenesis as equally valid, if not more. There's actual evidence for that, rather than the non-evidence of faith.
Actually I don't agree. Pioneering work was done in this field by Stanley Miller back in the 1950s. Essentially, in his experiments he was able to synthesize the development of amino acids (often referred to as the building blocks of life) from materials that would have been present in the primordial earth. One of the problems in understanding such work is that people mistake abiogenesis for spontaneous generation...two different concepts. You may wish to look into (or perhaps you already have) Pre-Cambrian stromatolite (essentially blue green algae) fossils from, as I recall the Canadian Shield (although it's been a very long time since I reviewed this). A link between processes similar to what Miller conducted and these stromatolites seems possible, although, as I recall, it was cyanobacteria in the stromatolites that was of key interest. As I recall, in the 1970s and beyond work was done which indicated that molecules can evolve in ways similar to the way that plants and animals evolve.
Again, I am trying to draw on memory here from my time in college geology, and that was a long time ago. But, while both of your suggestions (life form from outer space versus "god"...and btw, you come back to the same issues with the former) are possible, I see abiogenesis as equally valid, if not more. There's actual evidence for that, rather than the non-evidence of faith.
But that's just me.
Yes, yes, yes...the infamous Miller-Urey experiments of the 50's. Atheists (and I have nothing against atheists) seized on these as "proof" life could arise on its own without any supernatural being. But there were all sorts of problems with the experiments as anyone who wishes to do the research would find out simply by googling "What was wrong with the Stanley-Urey experiments". Here's what I found in the Scientific American in no time:
But the Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen—a change that made a world of difference.
There are enough problems to write a book but this alone would suffice to invalidate what Miller and Urey were trying to do: disprove God. In the bold above we see Miller-Urey "fudging" the conditions, I would assume, to make the results they were looking for more probable. That alone should invalidate the experiments. But there were many more problems with the experiments beside that detail.
And notice, despite their claims of having created the building blocks of life from which life could arise, no further experiments on this were ever successfully carried out in the 70-odd years since. Why?
Yes, yes, yes...the infamous Miller-Urey experiments of the 50's. Atheists (and I have nothing against atheists) seized on these as "proof" life could arise on its own without any supernatural being. But there were all sorts of problems with the experiments as anyone who wishes to do the research would find out simply by googling "What was wrong with the Stanley-Urey experiments". Here's what I found in the Scientific American in no time:
But the Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen—a change that made a world of difference.
There are enough problems to write a book but this alone would suffice to invalidate what Miller and Urey were trying to do: disprove God. In the bold above we see Miller-Urey "fudging" the conditions, I would assume, to make the results they were looking for more probable. That alone should invalidate the experiments. But there were many more problems with the experiments beside that detail.
And notice, despite their claims of having created the building blocks of life from which life could arise, no further experiments on this were ever successfully carried out in the 70-odd years since. Why?
Work in the general field has continued over the years. You don't understand how science works. It doesn't usually find the right answer the first time out. It's trial and error. It one step at a time, and often two steps forward and one step back.
Of course, your other choice is "God done it". Gee, think there are any problems there with your desire for proof?
Work in the general field has continued over the years. You don't understand how science works. It doesn't usually find the right answer the first time out. It's trial and error. It one step at a time, and often two steps forward and one step back.
Of course, your other choice is "God done it". Gee, think there are any problems there with your desire for proof?
But, believe as you wish.
“You don’t understand how science works“?? Ha!
Teacher got schooled!
Time to get yourself a newer textbook.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we just don't know how life (metabolic function) came out of non-life.
