I will add though, that what we model scientifically, do grow closer to reality, just as scientific theories become more certain over time.
Like theories, models can change over time.....
Afterall, that's what science is all about.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
I will add though, that what we model scientifically, do grow closer to reality, just as scientific theories become more certain over time.
Like theories, models can change over time.....
Afterall, that's what science is all about.
"you suck"
- subjective opinion.
good enough?
uh, sorry. but seriously, define it?
no, i haven't clicked the link yet.
edit:
ok, first of all miller-urey demonstrated amino acids were formed as a result of primordial earth, not RNA.
second, small colonies of RNA are quickly rendered nonviable due to mutations.
third, the site is leaving out a lot of steps.
other than that it seems to be a genetic exercise.
Of course. You either define it or your sentence is meaningless. You could just as well say "%#$%$" is impossible. It's gibberish.
So you want to talk about "subjective opinion" without knowing what it actually is you are talking about?
Is leaving out what steps?
the steps that relate what is on the site to the history of earth, that's what.
you can't take this stuff and piece it together.
some of these reactions might not even be possible under primordial conditions.
It still proves it's theoretically, or in principle, possible. Doesn't it?
What are you on about? really?
Has these Creationists got you in that far, that you fail to see the myriads of evidence supporting Evolution?
The reactions you speak of would in all likelyhood, be even more possible and energetic under primordial conditions.
You cast doubts on the logical Universal Abiogenesis, and then come up with some alternative that life just came about with the Universe.
In the early moments of this Universe, matter could not even exist, let alone life.
The Universe is a weird and wonderful place, and as of today, the overwhelming position of science/Astrophysics/biology, is that Abiogenesis and Evolution are near certain....We don't have details just yet, but we are getting there...sheesh!!!
We should avoid the use of the word proof'proves.
Abiogenesis and Evolution based on the myriad of evidence supporting both, are near certain, and sometimes taken in scientific circles as fact.
It's like a jury having to make a decision on a murder trial, when the accused is found with blood on his person, a knife in his hands, and a signed confession that he did it!
- Highlights by dmoe -
..."in actual fact", paddoboy...??
paddoboy, in reference to the ^^above highlighted^^, I refer you to my Post #1446, on Page #73 of this Thread :
..."in actual fact", paddoboy...??
yes, it proves what is on the site possible.
there is NOTHING on the site that correlates what is shown with actual reality.
I was being specific and "prove" is the word I intended to use. Before assuming your own interpretation yous should first consider the most obvious or most literal interpretation. I did not say it proves abiogenesis is how life originated on this planet, I said it proves abiogenesis is possible in principle. Do you disagree?
no, it's a bit like saying some reactions require acidic conditions, others don't.
it's like saying where are the intermediate steps between a chiral mixture of amino acids and RNA.
it's like saying where, when, and how was this lipid layer "created".
remember, we are talking a continuous timeline with the same bath.
THAT'S what i'm like saying.
any comments?
Again, the word proof/proves is undesirable in scientific circles, with regards to scientific theories.
Often used by the trolls/alternative pushers/conspiracy adherents though.
I see both Abiogenesis and Evolution as near fact and being rock solid. Details...that's coming along gradually.
We agree then. So what is the importance of your second sentence? Do you expect we can know with some certainty conditions on Earth throughout billions of years to rule out that at some place, at some point in time, the conditions were not good enough?
You are imagining. The word "proof" simply implies a high degree of certainty, and that is exactly what I meant to say.
i think everyone with a HS understanding of chemistry will quickly come to the conclusion that it's possible.
but it's just a mind experiment.
we have a continuous timeline and different chemicals and the "work" must be shown.
i think you can understand that.
In actual fact dmoe, all I see is your usual mentioning of the limitation and lack of 100% certainty with science theories.
In actual fact dmoe, any belief in any deity and creation is simply NON SCIENTIFIC...TWO WORDS...no preamble necessary about what science theories are about and their lack of 100% certainty.
We all know that.
Yet you fail to mention the absolute NO certainty in most alternative hypothesis that do not adhere to the scientific method and fail to undergo proper peer review.
And also in all that ramble dmoe, you again failed to recognise the fact that scientific theories do grow in certainty and may become rock solid over time, as is Abiogenesis and Evolution, with regards to the present ongoing debate.
No, I imagine proof as 100% certainty.
The reason why it is not used in general in science theories, is that science theories may need tinkering, modification, or plain old scrubbing as further observations are available over time.
By the same token, that period of time and further observations, may see that theory/s grow in stature and obtain some degree of certainty.
I also see Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR the BB, as near certain as one could hope to be.
I don't understand what point you are making. Is there something two of us still disagree about?
the explanation must be plausible, yes.
miller-urey had a good start.
what came next?
then you start thinking about all these biomolecules, all shapes and sizes of them.
not only do we have the molecules themselves, we also have the way they are "oriented" (left-right) and their shapes to deal with.
and if that ain't enough we can throw catalysts and enzymes into the mix.
so yeah, i can see where there might be a problem with sorting it all out.
the fact remains though, we must follow a continuous timeline and we must show the "work".