Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2020.
You don't know any scientists, do you.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Richard Dawkins comes to mind.
When did you meet him?
I know him from his public lectures.
Here is only one of many...
Have you ever seen it?
Oh, and don’t forget to buy a BMW!
Watch this video all the way to the end...
They come from waterfalls,
and can walk (drive) on water!
Perhaps they can create themselves only from water running over rocks and erosion, and don’t even need the lightening in their particular case. It still would take millions of years, of course, because it would be extremely slow and incremental, and rust would never destroy it or stop the upward process?
Or maybe the laws of physics can automatically build a BMW. And it just has to happen eventually on every planet where conditions are right. Nice thing that a camera was there to film it in this particular instance.
Maybe we will find one on Mars.
Hey, wait a second, is that what Elon Musk is up to?
What kind of car did he launch into space?
Jaw Dropping Evidence! It warms the heart!
(Note to self: Buy More Shares)
Ah so you don't know him. You have only seen what the media shows you. Got it.
Personally I know:
Naomi Oreskes - Science historian
Steven Briggs - Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology at UCSD
Jamie Lukos - Research neuroscientist
Arto Nurmikko - Professor of Physics, Brown University
Hiroki Morizono - Researcher for Genetic Medicine, Children's National Medical Center
I think if you got to know people like those, you wouldn't make such foolish statements. I would highly recommend meeting people like this. Here in San Diego we have a program called "two scientists walk into a bar" that has scientists go to local bars to talk to people who want to stop by; perhaps there's a similar program in your area.
No. Simply listing those things doesn't mean they apply.
You've listed 8 red herrings - while they may be said to be true in some circumstances, none of them have any application without connecting them to your thesis.
I could add more:
9. Wars are often fought by the poorest, least educated citizens of a nation.
10. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
11. Most firetrucks are red.
These are statements that can be arguably be true somewhere, sometime in the world, but they have no relevance until - and unless - I can connect the dots with fact-based evidence to the thesis being discussed. You have not done so.
You are simply making baseless assertions. You have not based any of them in fact - nor have you shown their connection to your thesis. This thread is just a glorified opinion, nothing more. And, as established, it is based on an alarming ignorance of the subject matter, so it's not even a valid opinion.
This is not how discussion is done.
Actually it is the exact methodology of debate used by charlatans, frauds, and dishonest fanatical religious ratbags.
We saw that with Jan, and the vociferous one, and it continues here.
What is the equivalent to Rust in Abiogenesis?
Or something happening over Time?
?? Rust is iron oxide. Abiogenesis is the name of the process whereby self-replicating life arises.
That's like asking "what is the equivalent to the Inquisition in classic airplanes?" Question makes no sense.
Yes, exactly! I already said that!
Human Anthropology?! Do you even know what anthropology is?
I am simply saying that the general tendency of unaided, unmanipulated chemistry, on this planet is from order towards disorder.
In a slow process that takes millions of years, primitive proto life would have to be able to survive for great time spans before it ever developed the ability to reproduce.
The first cell would have to be even more sophisticated than it’s first offspring.
And more sophisticated than any know form of life today.
WTF are you on about?
So why do you practice such deception?
The usual nutty anti science ignorant dogma preached by religious fanatics.......
Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Effectively Communicating to Non-technicians:
Given the degree of disbelief in the theory of evolution by the wider public, scientists need to develop a collection of clear explanations and metaphors that demonstrate the working of the theory and the flaws in antievolutionist arguments. This paper presents tools of this sort for countering the anti-evolutionist claim that evolutionary mechanisms are inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Images are provided to replace the traditional misunderstanding of the law, i.e., “everything always gets more disordered over time,” with a more clear sense of the way in which entropy tends to increase allowing a thermally isolated system access to a greater number of microstates. Accessible explanations are also provided for the ways in which individual organisms are able to minimize entropy and the advantages this conveys.
The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most misunderstood aspects of physics, but it need not be. If we think of thermodynamic systems as poker hands, entropy is a measure of how well the cards are shuffled. This dispels the wrongheaded idea that the second law mandates increasing disorder because poker players playing with fair decks will sometimes get dealt very good—that is, very well-ordered—hands. What the law does say is that energy exchanges, like currency exchanges, come with a service fee, and we pay this fee in terms of increased entropy. But the increase in entropy is only to be expected in thermally isolated systems; those in which energy is neither added nor removed. We do not live in such a system because the Sun is constantly adding energy. We can use the Sun’s energy to overcome this increase in entropy just as an eight-year-old uses energy to increase the order in a formerly untidy room. Living organisms and the cells that make them up are like machines that maintain much lower amounts of entropy than their surroundings and like a country; they come with borders, in this case cell membranes, to distinguish the region of decreased entropy. To survive, all living things must eat and after eating, must poop. Just as we ingest and expel chemicals, so too we ingest free energy and flush out entropy. When we die, we stop eating (and pooping), and the increase in entropy is evident in the rotting of our corpse. But entropy plays a role, not only in the continuance of individuals and their parts but also in the evolutionary development of species and thereby in speciation. Advantageous mutations are ones that increase the efficiency of energy transfers within an ecosystem. When we calculate the amount of energy needed to push evolution thermodynamically “uphill,” it is clear that, like a powerful river, the Sun provides more than sufficient “flow” to not only turn the “hydroelectric turbines” of life’s foundation (the primary producers) but to distribute “electricity” with incrementally increasing efficiency over time. This story in all of its gory details involves complex aspects of physics, chemistry, and biology, but with these metaphors can be employed to make the situation clear to non-technicians. It is not enough to know that the antievolutionists’ claim that speciation is incompatible with our best understanding of thermodynamics is flawed; we must be able to explain the errors clearly to those with no scientific background. These images ought to become part of an increasing cache that scientists and philosophers develop to communicate scientific results in order to be more effective members of the wider popular conversation
Early life would have had zero protection from the Sun. That ability would have had to evolve much later.
UV Radiation destroys life.
So the Sun, cannot be the energy engine for Abiogenesis, or for early life, before the ability to protect from it even existed.
Ever had a Sunburn?
Even if it wasn’t fried in a week or two, how would a cell even be able to use the energy from the Sun before such an ability ever evolved?
I think that the UV Radiation output from the Sun would have likely been even higher the further back in time we go. But I will have to check on that.
There are the problems with Environmental Temperature fluctuations.
Seems like we are asking a lot from Rocks, Water, Lightning, and the Sun to me, but suit yourself.
Yes, a brilliant scientist, that has made it his goal, to show the factual nature of evolution and before that Abiogenesis.
For that unforgivable sin in the opinion of the gullible believers in myth and magic spaghetti monsters, he is often used as a whipping boy by those same pretentious self gratuitous ID nuts and religious ratbags.
Thank Christ he does have science on his side, rather then myth and the stupidity of those that deny the finality of death.
Personally I prefer the more dulcet tones of Carl Sagan in his convincing way of trying to dispel such ignorant myths. But that's just a matter of choice.
In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),[a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.
The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology, chemistry, and geophysics, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three: more specifically, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (cell membranes), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules. Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.
And then we have this crap......
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Of course the above crap as described in WIKI starts off as follows.......
Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity
More dishonest unsupported Christianity nonsense?
Any early life arising via Abiogenesis obviously, would have had a multitude of nooks and crannies and spots to develop and evolve.
You are again simply practicing the methodology of debate used by charlatans, frauds, and dishonest fanatical religious ratbags as you previously admitted.
Some more observable facts supporting Abiogenesis and evolution......
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 Gya (billion years ago), relatively soon after the oceansformed 4.41 Gya, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 GyaT
and the following....
Scientists have proposed various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Except it's not unaided. It's powered by the Sun, as well as by geothermal heat.
The Sun's energy suffuses atoms with energy and gives them a kick to form molecules that store chemical energy. Other molecules get involved and crack those high-energy molecules, taking their energy to form yet more molecules.
That's pretty much the precursor to life in a hundred words or less.
An example: We know of inorganic processes - operating today in the oceans, independent of life - that start with basic atoms, adding energy (often in the form of geothermal heat) and creating molecules - and they do this cyclically, the byproducts going to to produce yet more of the same. This is a form of non-life reproduction.
Look up The Citric Acid Cycle if you dare.
Fijnally, based simply on empirical evidence, your statement is blatantly false. The general tendency on Earth - as is easily observable - is toward order and complexity.
If your opinions are going to directly contradict what we actually see, well there's not much we can help you with.
Separate names with a comma.