Why do theists reject evolution?

Here they do, yes.

Oh, I'd say it was due to a lot more than the carbon atom. That's just one of the critical elements.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree.
But if I understand Hazen, whereas Panspermia addresses the distribution of life throughout the universe, the origin and emergence of life must still have been via Abiogenetic processes, somewhere! Maybe in many places?

If the Table of elements is a universal inventory, the emergence of Life only needs a chemical rich spatial environment and time. Probability does the rest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, that's why I said universal abiogenesis....meaning when life first arose in the universe, not particularly Earth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Deleted for duplication.

 

Highlighted

Agreed , Earth .

 

Understand Write4U , the Galactic , Quasar Universe is Energy and Matter , Life Energy is separate from both .

 

Understand river, that life arose from non life via chemical reactions and that is what we call Abiogenesis. Once there was no life: then there was life.

 

I don't think so.
IMO, Life is just an emergent form of dynamical physical systems, i.e. "complex dynamical pattern arrangements".

Dynamical system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

Think of it; What's the physical difference between a living organism and a dead organism?
Answer; None! Life is an emergent property of specific physical particle arrangements.
Fact; If you freeze to death, your body has exactly the same number of constituent particles as when you were alive, only arranged in an unfortunate static pattern. The difference between a living and a dead organism is in the pattern arrangement of the organism's constituents particles (Tegmark).

 

The PHYSICAL different is the living organism is performing lots of PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY because LIFE IS A PROCESS

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Greetings from Bali confinement. Behold dogs and whales

https://www.quora.com/If-Darwin-s-t...David-Chan-287?ch=3&share=3b6afa6f&srid=3MMEc

Want more? Try

https://www.quora.com/Did-whales-ev...Alan-Appleby-4?ch=3&share=eb97350a&srid=3MMEc

Cheers

Coffee moment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's the functional difference between dead and alive. A living organism's pattern of physical chemistry maintains homeostasis.
A dead organism is also performing lots of physical chemistry, but of a different kind. Death is a process of decay. It's no longer a living process.
The neural network is still there, but it's no longer functional.

The question is what causes this difference in function? The constituent parts (atoms, molecules, organs) are still there, but do no longer act in concert and are no longer functional.

The reason is that the constituent parts, while the same as before, are no longer arranged in functional patterns.

 

Firstly, there was no knee jerk reaction. I offered a moderate, measured explanation of why the tenor ofyour post was questionable. You ignored this. I expressed myself more clerarly. In both cases I reflected on your posts and upon my responses before posting them.
I am assuredly not rejecting "current" science. You are the one who is doing this, selecting the viewpoints of a single scientist and representing his views to be the consensus views of scientists working in relevant areas, whereas this is not the case. You thereby reject "current" science.

If you don't wish to be treated as a wide eyed novice then stop behaving like one. I repeat: if you wish to state that you have personally found the views of Hazen to be convincing and think that they will come to be accepted in future, then I have no issue with that. I do have an issue with your isnistence that Hazen's views represent the current scientific position on the matter.
Now, perhaps I am behind the times. Perhaps, the majority of relevant scientists are fully on board with Hazen's ideas. But if this is the case it is odd that you have failed to present citations to the many papers that would, in that instance, exist. You just keep citing one scientist. Not convincing, indeed suggestive of your inability to make a "critical assessment" of what you are reading.

I haven't yet watched the presentation. I have not poo-pooed Hazen's views. I have questioned your singular decision to not only accept the views of one scientist, but to present them in such a way that these are views are represented as current, consensus science. That's what I cautioned you about. Since you prefer to take offence, rather than advice, I see little point in discussing this matter with you further.

 

Because they are!

Unnecessarily!

I agree, if you wish to remain ignorant of Prof. Hazen's work, it's your loss. Get back to me when you have some knowledge of Hazen's work. You are the uninformed party here, not I.

You have poo-pooed my views, which rest on my understanding of Hazen's cutting edge work in current and new science. Problem is that you are not familiar with Hazen's work,
i.e. your critique is premature and prejudicial.

 

I am fairly sure Write4U will have misrepresented what Hazen actually says, in order to make it seem to conform to his "mathematical universe" religion. Write4U is just doing what he does in every thread he takes part in: wrenching it round onto one of his handful of obsessions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hazen will not have made any claim that abiogenesis is the result of some innate mathematical tendency.

In fact the closest I have come to any innate tendency idea was Jeremy England's speculation that life is an engine for increasing entropy faster than inorganic processes and as such is thermodynamically favoured. But even that idea, while initially interesting, seems to have gone nowhere, so far, anyway. And it is a physical (thermodynamic) hypothesis anyway, not one about abstract mathematics.

 

Thank you for the insight. It certainly explains the idiosynchracies of Write4U's posts.

The ideas Write4U is promoting are certainly interesting and superficially plausible. The problem only arises when they are represented as being current consensus.

 

Yes, let it be known that Write4U must have misrepresented what Hazen actually says, by offering an in-person lecture at Carnegie Institute.

Nor have I made the claim that Hazen proposes a mathematical universe. But of course you haven't even read what I wrote at all. I am on ignore, no?
If you are not even familiar with what I actually posted, how can you even offer an opinion on its content?.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Abiogenesis and a Mathematical universe are two separate subjects. I am quite capable of compartmentalization. Seems you have a problem keeping things separate....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

p.s. you do have an idiosyncratic way of spelling "idiosyncracies". If you are going to use big words, learn to spell them correctly. Looks kinda silly otherwise.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Idiosyncratic but "interesting" and "superficially plausible", I am making progress! Thank you...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Because, unlike Tegmark, Hazen is engaged in current mainstream science! Watch the lecture!

Before you start believing unfounded rumors, why don't you watch the Hazen lecture to know what he is talking about, so that you can compare his actual authoritative knowledge with my understanding of the science.
Maybe it will shed some light on the idiosyncracies of my posts.

 

Hazen is a mineralogist, by background, so some of his contributions to abiogenesis come at it from unusual directions. He has a theory that the homochirality of biochemistry, which seems to be one of the more tricky puzzles, can be accounted for by adsorption of chemical precursors on crystals that have handedness in the facets of the crystal, for example calcite. Different enantiomers are adsorbed to differing degrees on different crystal facets. Here is a link to the abstract of one of his papers about it: https://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5487. I find this a very interesting idea indeed.

But I do not think he has published anything about any kind of mathematical underpinning of life.

 

Why should he?
I make no claim he has or should....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

IMO, Robert Hazen is beginning to identify and connect the processes of Abiogensis, i.e. Evolution .

Robert Hazen - Mineral Evolution and Ecology and the Co-evolution of Life and Rocks (March 11, 2015)

 

Getting back to the subject of this thread, ie "Why Theists reject evolution" The theory of the evolution of life is so observationally supported by evidence, that it is now an example of a scientific theory becoming fact. The excuse making, and misrepresentation of macro and micro evolution, and the attempted divide separation of Darwinism and modern evolution, are examples of these poor excuses and misrepresentation by theists. It has been shown that micro and macro evolution are inexorably connected with both relying on the same methodologies. The same applies to Darwinism and the modern theory of evolution.

On the aspect of Abiogenesis, whether universal [Panspermia] or entirely Earth based, while we are certainly ignorant of the exact pathway and method involved, when coupled with the evolution of the universe itself, as per the BB, the evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] the consequence expansion and cooling, the arise of our first fundamental particles, the creation of atomic nucleii and our first elements 380,000 years later, the action of gravity and formation of giant stars, the consequence supernova that followed, the creation of the heavier elements of which we are all composed, and Abiogenesis becomes pretty well factual and logically predictable. Once there was no life: Then there was...or as the great Carl Sagan put it, "we are all star stuff"
AMEN: