Yes. Some may find it easy to dismiss it all with a cock and bull 'explanation'. But it's the totality of evidence, and credibility of witnesses (sans the weirdness of Janet Hodgson) that impresses me. And the fact similar cases occur all over the world and have done for centuries. However I don't want to derail this thread so feel free to just PM me on this or maybe start a new thread dealing with it in one of the OTF subforums. And remember I also included a link to an article dealing strictly with abiogenesis issues. Which someone else here chooses to ignore.
Chemical evolution:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I tell you what I will look simply to show you I am capable of keeping an open mind.
Alex
Roger that Alex.
PS: The justification for including that link to Enfield incidents goes like this: Unguided abiogenesis is imo an unworkable mess of mostly hand-wavy hypotheses, yet guided abiogenesis implies a god or if you like Higher Power inherently supernatural in character and essence. Yet there is no evidence for the supernatural - except actually there is, so....
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I am looking over the site, I have been to it many times I now realise.
I think about things this way...
You read a science book it is clear that it is written by scientists, you read a book on engineering it is clear that it was written by engineers, read a book and it is apparent the background of the author.
Now I have read the bible, cover to cover, all of it, all of proverbs for example that few folk bother with, all the stuff that the minister never reads to the flock, the old testament and the new testament and imo ( like that) I find it impossible to think that the bible books were devinely inspired and they seem more the work of make believe merchants trying to control human behaviour, and certainly when I consider the plot I do wonder why anyone finds it in anyway plausible...
As to the site I need not comment.
It is what it is.
I would like to think of the site authors that their comments on chemistry and life will be positive in perhaps cooling enthusiasm for a favoured process offered by a particular chemist that runs ahead of the research...now from all I read about the subject there is little chance of scientists running ahead of themselves but if the god mob feel putting up barriers will slow the search let them...proving chemistry won't do it just means we have no answer..yet..it does not prove a god..just as throwing out evolution does not prove a god...
My view is that the universe is eternal and therefore there is no creator which obviously means life comes from just chemistry... I prefer to think the universe is eternal and infinite as opposed to thinking that some eternal and infinite entity popped out of eternity to create a finite universe.
How long was the entity in eternity would need an answer before the rest of the plot was developed.
My eternal universe so far reflects observation as even using big bang science we can not find a point of creation ( evolution from a hot dense state) and so until we find a point of creation I will believe the universe is eternal with no creator...it annoys me that folk say that the universe came from nothing..why say that when we know all we can extrapolate to is a hot dense state...The change from nothing to a hot dense state needs to be established if indeed that is the claim.
But as James has said ..there is no theory on abiogenesis..but all the research suggests to me they are however barking up the right tree.
And given we have been working on the matter such a short time one should not be impatient and if the universe is indeed eternal chemistry is all that can be behind life.
Will the answer appear before the return of Jesus will depend on who you ask but my money is the chemists will beat JC.
Alex
I think about things this way...
You read a science book it is clear that it is written by scientists, you read a book on engineering it is clear that it was written by engineers, read a book and it is apparent the background of the author.
Now I have read the bible, cover to cover, all of it, all of proverbs for example that few folk bother with, all the stuff that the minister never reads to the flock, the old testament and the new testament and imo ( like that) I find it impossible to think that the bible books were devinely inspired and they seem more the work of make believe merchants trying to control human behaviour, and certainly when I consider the plot I do wonder why anyone finds it in anyway plausible...
As to the site I need not comment.
It is what it is.
I would like to think of the site authors that their comments on chemistry and life will be positive in perhaps cooling enthusiasm for a favoured process offered by a particular chemist that runs ahead of the research...now from all I read about the subject there is little chance of scientists running ahead of themselves but if the god mob feel putting up barriers will slow the search let them...proving chemistry won't do it just means we have no answer..yet..it does not prove a god..just as throwing out evolution does not prove a god...
My view is that the universe is eternal and therefore there is no creator which obviously means life comes from just chemistry... I prefer to think the universe is eternal and infinite as opposed to thinking that some eternal and infinite entity popped out of eternity to create a finite universe.
How long was the entity in eternity would need an answer before the rest of the plot was developed.
My eternal universe so far reflects observation as even using big bang science we can not find a point of creation ( evolution from a hot dense state) and so until we find a point of creation I will believe the universe is eternal with no creator...it annoys me that folk say that the universe came from nothing..why say that when we know all we can extrapolate to is a hot dense state...The change from nothing to a hot dense state needs to be established if indeed that is the claim.
But as James has said ..there is no theory on abiogenesis..but all the research suggests to me they are however barking up the right tree.
And given we have been working on the matter such a short time one should not be impatient and if the universe is indeed eternal chemistry is all that can be behind life.
Will the answer appear before the return of Jesus will depend on who you ask but my money is the chemists will beat JC.
Alex
And I agree with all of that, and you should be well aware by now that has been basically my stated position here. But then....
The god mob just putting up temporary barriers? Well it's all in the eye of the beholder and that will be determined at least in part by the requisite education and experience, and any fixed and immovable prejudice of said beholder. Observations that are clear show-stoppers for one beholder may be nothing more than trivialities for another who could never countenance a supernatural cause. That's how it is.
I have given links to recent articles claiming the most recent Planck data supports a closed therefore finite in time and space universe. But suppose you are right and the universe is spatially infinite and temporally eternal. How would that preclude an eternal God who basically by definition exists outside of our physical universe? It just gets horribly confusing to attempt playing at being God. My own logic suggests God would eternally create universes in endless succession, if not also in parallel. Who knows. Not useful to speculate.
Cosmogenesis theories abound. It's specialist theorist playground stuff. Not entirely arbitrary as better and better observations do whittle down the number of viable theories.
OK that's your fixed and immovable position. No sweat. To each their own.
My bet is both events are infinitely in the future. In other words....
In the real world, that would depend on the substrate and environment in which the strands form.
Since the planet's surface was almost certainly abundantly supplied with chiral substrates and niche environments, the major difficulty is establishing what actually happened - since it happened four billion years ago or thereabouts, most of the rock from that era has long since been destroyed, and it may have been a single unique event (we have only one known lineage left, which means there may have been only one ever) no one with any sense expects a quick or easy explication.
We may never know exactly what happened. So?
These days, under enlightenedly-aware social work protocols, both of those pubescent girls would have been taken from that home & into protective custody, given the strong likelihood that they were probably in predatory danger from (& possibly in league with) the burly builder next door, & probably his buddies. An enormous amount of such predatorily abusive situations dating from decades ago have been instanced & exposed in recent years. Q-reeus' credulity is as unenlighteningly dissappointing intellectually as that of the willingly-gullible ESP folk interviewed on that show.
And as for ignoring Q-reeus' gullibly-parroted shopping-list of alleged evidence against unguided abiogenesis, there's quite clearly no point in providing him with a corresponding list of refuting explanations as he ignores any such with an impertinent & impatient 'provide links/references' response, which would have gotten him kicked out of class where I went to school.
I also have faith that your 'gut-feeling' will eventually be proven correct in time, given that the abiogenesis problem is still relatively young, in Science's purview, just as you say.
Yes, purely physical explanations have been sensibly/reputably posited as potential explanations for possible biases for D-carbohydrates and for L-amino acids (i.e., to lead to the formation of chirally-biased prebiotic molecular populations & assemblages on the early Earth, that could then have favoured the abiogenic origin-of-life on this planet); but these things, such as parity-violating energy differences (PVEDs) [presumably 'a universal'], and enantiomerically-differential photolytic degradations by circularly-polarized radiations in space, these things have had only minuscule impact in Astrobiology, primarily because they're seen to be in the 'seemingly-trying-too-hard-to-get-what-one-wants' category. Their effects are certainly real & calculable, but are of such tiny magnitude as for any such effect/s to have likely been 'washed out' to insignificance at the kinetic molecular energies pertaining under ordinary conditions. The same goes for 'niche' weakly-chirally-selecting mineralogical surfaces, such as those of calcite.
Last edited:
Back to spew your bile. Sigh. So, your 'analysis' is basically charging everyone involved as either criminals or delusional morons. Anyone who objectively watched that vid will know what a load of crap that ridiculous and potentially libelous take on it is.
Ignored what? You have countered with nothing but innuendo. That article is from 2011 so as I stated earlier, one or two items may now be dated but not the great majority.
I'm calling your bluff. Please DO provide your supposed corresponding list of refuting explanations. Point for point with no blanks.
Last edited:
And yet more ignorant nonsense from this thread's (forum's) gadfly (godfly?), haha.
I've already kindly given you several scientifically-correcting explanations, clown, every one of which you've blown off with a pathetic bleat for someone else to go do your corroborating literature-searching for you. I'm not your lackey, sunshine. Get thee hence to the Science aisle of your library, and if you don't know where that is, just ask the librarian to help you. Off you toddle.
No all you gave was assertions.
That disrespectful cop-out won't do. Here again from your previous load of bile in #810:
Ignoring the acrimonious put downs, that is quite clearly a claim to be able to provide 'a corresponding list of refuting explanations'. Then do it. Put up or shut up. I say you cannot put up.
The provided "assertions," as you erroneously call them, were rational scientifically-minded responses/answers to the stumbling-blocks in your understanding of the Chemistry aspects involved; and your unkind petulant responses were of no value or respect or kindness. You'd said somewhere up above that I, as a newbie, was unfamiliar with how rough & crude this website can be, but as you can see I'm 'evolving' rapidly to adapt to the environment on here, haha.
No some impressive looking strings of words were put together but nothing that came close to really answering the challenges posed by that article.
Once again - you have made claim to be able to provide a complete point-by-point refutation of what's presented here:
https://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
And not just within the grid btw but everything down to Conclusion. You made the claim. Make good with it!
After 15yrs of having entertained the Pasteurian idea of some kind of a prebiotic chiral bias in a molecular population/assemblage (esp. of monomers) as having led to the origin of life, I switched in 2001 to pin my flag to the 'RNA World' as likely the best explanation. The stunning XRD discovery of there being no protein at the ribosomal active-site clinched it for me, in the light of the previous discoveries of ribozymes from 1981 onwards. So, for RNA_Worlders like me, the origin-of-life problem really devolves in Chemistry to be the origin of the RNA World itself.
(And I will be ignoring the Q-reeus godfly from now on. Fare thee well as thy telomeres shorten, lad.)
(And I will be ignoring the Q-reeus godfly from now on. Fare thee well as thy telomeres shorten, lad.)
Last edited:
An indirect admission you can't deliver on your claim back in #807 (mistakenly typed #810 in my earlier post). No suprise there.
Since we are unable to even list descriptions of the possible niches and sequences involved, and since whether the conditions were "ordinary" or not is irrelevant (it had to happen only once, on the entire planet, in a billion year stretch of time), any guesswork regarding "significance" is just that - guesswork.
- - - -
I haven't been able to find any serious "challenges" to a Darwinian explanation of abiogenesis in that link.
What "challenges" are you talking about? The chiral stuff is of course handled, above, and you have offered no argument about that - anything else?
???? Funnily enough I agree with the part in #809 that shot down your trust in niche chiral surfaces as 'solving' the homochirality dilemma.
And if you can't see any challenges to unguided abiogenesis in that article, what more is there to be said?
Guesswork yes, but not uneducatedly so, Monsieur. For a rational chemical origin-of-life explanation to be able to stand in Philosophy (preferably as 'a universal' scientific truth throughout the Cosmos), it'll have to be geoscientifically robust in a planetary science sense, & demonstrably reproducible in vitro in the laboratory in order to be viable. This intriguing problem of a scientifically logical nexus between nonliving matter and Life has withstood the attention of many of the brightest minds in STEM for decades, whose collective creative imaginations have ranged freely through the open & backwaters of Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Crystallography, Meteoritics, and so forth. And yet the problem remains 'uncracked' by both whizkids & Nobel laureates. This lack of a plain and obvious solution is telling us something, I think.
Yep. And we don't have near enough information to list even the major possibilities - let alone try them out in a lab.
Of course. It happened somewhere on the planet earth, sometime in a span of several hundred million years, so long ago even the rocks have largely vanished. It may have happened only once.
The surprise is not that we don't know what happened, but that we have made any progress at all in investigating the matter. That's an amazing accomplishment, in such a short time and with so little hard research (compared with the need) devoted to the matter.
That we don't have enough information yet, would be lesson one. That there are a lot of possibilities we haven't even thought of yet, would be another likely implication. That a lot of solid and exhaustive research remains to be done, is pretty obvious.
When you're guessing you're guessing. No reason to be coy about it.
My point is simply that what we do know matches the predictions of some kind of assumed general or abstract Darwinian evolutionary process perfectly, and other theoretical approaches not very well at all.