For the alternative theorists:

paddoboy said:
Great! Life from non life, or Abiogenesis.
Again I agree with dmoe..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aqueous Id said:
It's fine to say life descended from the matter and energy that condensed out of the Big Bang, but the reverse can't be true.
Click to expand...

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 .....
 
humbleteleskop said:
It's purposeless to post links you don't want to stand by or make some point about. You and me both know you're smarter than that, so stop pretending please. Just say it already, what is it you know that we don't about abiogenesis or evolution?
Click to expand...

That has been his mode of operation since this started.


Write4U said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
leopold said:
i didn't say all evidence...
[separate post]
on the other hand, any honest debate or argument must consider all of the evidence.
[back to the first post]
...and no one has explained why it was trolling.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Aqueous Id said:
dumbest man on earth said:
I remain open to the possibility that the reality of the Universe, may also inextricably be the reality of Life.
In other words, you cannot have one without the other, so to speak.
Again, I remain open to the possibility - and I repeat - the possibility!!
Click to expand...
It's fine to say life descended from the matter and energy that condensed out of the Big Bang, but the reverse can't be true.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Write4U said:
How do you know what something will do, before the event?
Click to expand...

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?


Are we compelled to do what our physical body "was already going to do" before presented with a specific situation?
Click to expand...

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.


Then we may ask if ALL the laws of nature (some of which we are not even aware of yet) apply exactly the same throughout the universe at all times?
What happened to elementary particles during Expansion Epoch, in Novae, in Black Holes, at Planck Scale? Do all these events obey the same laws of nature in the same way and always yield the same results?
Click to expand...

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.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Aqueous Id, your Post is really disappointing.
Click to expand...
Indeed, my posts never fail to disappoint you. I think that means I hit the mark.

Nowhere in my Post did I state(say??!!) that "life descended from the matter and energy that condensed out of the Big Bang"!
Click to expand...

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

Nor did I state(say??!!) that "the reverse" can "be true"!
Click to expand...

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.

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!!
Click to expand...
I wasn't commenting on that.

Here is a word for you : biopoiesis, maybe do a little research into that word.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm familiar with the term, and the mindset that arrived at it.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aqueous Id said:
Correct, but you need to say that. That's the reality we live in. Hence my remark.
Click to expand...



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.

Aqueous Id said:
Yes, science is very dogmatic about the ills of ignorance, and is doing its best to replace it with knowledge (orthodoxy). Big deal.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

brucep said:
The bane of humanity. Humans. Choosing the ignorance coordinate over the knowledge coordinate. En masse.
Click to expand...


I'll stick with the science cheerleading proudly.
 
Trippy said:
Birth of the Earth HD 1080p FullHD Discovery&Documentary
Click to expand...

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?
 
Russ_Watters said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
humbleteleskop said:
It would have been enough if you only said this, the rest was unnecessary. It was obvious he was hiding some agenda all along, because he was not making any actual point and he avoided questions using generalizations and ambiguity. In any case, I would love to hear about whatever evidence leopold has about invalidating evolution or abiogenesis, publicly of course. I see no any reason why to hide such evidence, it's exactly what we are talking about here. Please, bring it on.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top