For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,070
    As do I. As we have seen, complexity is nothing rare in the universe, even if it made up of very simple elements and chemistry and we can see spontaneous chemical reactions everywhere and in many forms. What is to prevent a chemical reaction between compatible systems in the right environment from producing a pseudo living system, which over time evolves into a living biological organism?

    It is obvious from the incrediible variety of organisms to which the earth is current host and all the extinct species that came before, from simple bacteria to dinosaurs, that life (in one form or another) is a common occurrence, at least on earth and most probably on other suitable planets.
    It seems a little naive to think earth is the only habitable planet in the entire universe.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I have just agreed with dmoe about the certainty of life from non life, but if what you say above, is what he was inferring, well that is just plain crazy, and I certainly do not adhere to that .....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That has been his mode of operation since this started.


    Well said.
    I think we have reached the stage now where we only have one that seems to have some argument with the processes of Abiogenesis and Evolution.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    One form of trolling is when you argue both sides of a point at the same time, just for the sake of arguing, like you've done here.
     
  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Aqueous Id, your Post is really disappointing.
    Nowhere in my Post did I state(say??!!) that "life descended from the matter and energy that condensed out of the Big Bang"!
    Nor did I state(say??!!) that "the reverse" can "be true"!

    Aqueous Id, do you fully understand the word "inextricably"? Do you fully understand the phrase : I remain open to the possibility - and I repeat - the possibility!!

    Here is a word for you : biopoiesis, maybe do a little research into that word.

    And just for the "giggle factor" : I honestly remember being taught in Junior High School that in the 19th Century a fellow by the name of Louis Pasteur proved conclusively that life does not arise from non-life.
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
  10. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    To see the future I foretell prophecies, but that's not what we want to know right now. The question is: - if your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make it do anything different than what it was already going to do by itself anyway? I say it can not. What is your answer?


    I'm saying, that in the case our physical bodies are completely governed by the laws of physics, we (our free will) are not compelled, but absolutely helpless to do anything about anything - passive observer with an illusion of being compelled and delusion of having free will.


    Regardless of that the relation between free will and physical body stay the same. Free will can either control the laws of nature, whatever they are, or it must obey them. And if it must obey, then it cannot be free.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Indeed, my posts never fail to disappoint you. I think that means I hit the mark.

    Correct, but you need to say that. That's the reality we live in. Hence my remark.

    You said you cannot have one without the other which is mutual. Maybe you meant something different. Fine, we can discuss English rather than Science if you prefer.

    I wasn't commenting on that.

    Yes, I'm familiar with the term, and the mindset that arrived at it.

    And of course he was right, for the absurd way abiogenesis was then conceived, with no relevance to the vast knowledge base that has developed since then. It picked up where, say, Aristotle left off. So of course it severely lacked needed upgrades. But at least it was a little better than the religious explanation. If only he could have met Gregor Mendel, James Hutton, Darwin and his pals, Watson & Crick . . . if only he had a complete set of modern textbooks, the modern journals on relevant topics like the RNA-world hypothesis, access to the Smithsonian. But of course we have all of that, so we can be proxy for him and carry it forward, etc. Which is why folks are usually pretty eager to shut down all the crank attacks on abiogenesis when they pop up.

    Pasteur was certainly brilliant. And, best of all, he had the intestinal fortitude to stick with best evidence rather than the intestinal byproducts the alchemists were sticking to.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    The extraordinary situation I find, is that a minority here are quick to pounce on the limitations of science, but rarely sing its praises when incredible success and certainty is obvious.
    Then they get all indignant when others infer an agenda of some sort. Sad really.


    I'll stick with the science cheerleading proudly.
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Leopold, Humble Telescope.

    The pair of you came to mind when I first started watching this (it discusses some of the stuff we've discussed), but equally anybody who is curiouse and has a spare 45 minutes should watch it: Birth of the Earth HD 1080p FullHD Discovery&Documentary
     
  14. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Thanks, although I don't hope it will tell me anything new we haven't already mentioned here.
     
  15. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Water and amino acids arrived on Earth riding on meteorites! That's as bad as "god did it". It doesn't explain anything, it just moves the question further away - who created water and amino acids on meteorites then?

    Both Earth and meteorites are made of the same stuff, they all condensed out of the same bunch of particles rotating the Sun. Water and amino acids were obviously already a part of the Earth as it was forming, or it were produced later on in the same way it happened on other meteorites.

    By the way, is there any reason water molecules and amino acids couldn't assemble in free space at the very beginnings while everything was still pretty much dispersed, just like those early crystals, boulders and all the other stuff from which the Earth was eventually condensed?
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you can't be serious.
    where does that leave a person in regards to evidence and objectivity russ?
    i want the truth, and you're not going to find it relying on one side of the argument.
    case closed.

    edit:
    where am i "arguing" anything about abiogenesis?
    i'm not arguing both sides, i PRESENTED both sides with that post.
    but it actually wasn't about any side, it had the added purpose to show "creationists" aren't the (insert phrases here) a lot would have you to believe.
    i also agree that the site had a certain amount of "propaganda", but my questions were about the methods used in connection with chirality.
    are they legit, are their assumptions valid, was the method correct.
    the biggest problem i see with the site is it's creationist, that's it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what agenda do you think i'm hiding?
    what questions am i avoiding?
    the evidence you think i'm hiding is posted on the board and it doesn't concern abiogenesis.
     
  18. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Link?
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it's in this thread somewhere.
    no, i'm not searching for it.
     
  20. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    What is it about, what's the point of it?
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i'm not rehashing it in this thread.
     
  22. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    What is it about, describe in a word or two.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i've had problems with you tube videos ever since i updated my browser.
     

Share This Page