For the alternative theorists:

[Aqueous Id]

That's not the question. The accretion disk that formed the Earth contained most of the water and amino acid we have today on Earth, or it didn't.

It didn't, and we can't make such a claim.

You are saying it didn't and that majority of water and amino acids came only later on with meteorites,

No you said that and I refuted it. I told you no one said "the amino acids that formed life" came from meteorites. Let me repeat, for clarification: if ever a meteorite was found that contained amino acids, then we would have evidence that "the amino acids that formed life" could have come from such meteorites. That's all. No one has ever claimed to know the precise steps leading to abiogenesis. I was just correcting some of your bloopers.

which arrived from somewhere else presumably. By the way, why do you need some "prior supernova" to get molecules of water or amino acids?

Again that's not what I said. I said (in so many words) supernovae produced all the raw materials for mineral, plant and animal life evolved from the remnants of the prior supernova. You begin with that, because it's an observed fact. You don't arrive at it as a final conclusion. Again, you have to incorporate all the data or you're operating a biased system which is invalid. Start from the birth of stars in the nebulae. It's seen all over the sky every night. You have to begin there. And of course these are snapshots back throughout time. It's a continuous history of stellar accretion.

We have lost the thread to the stellar source of amino acids. I recall that there was a link (provided by Trippy) and I haven't had time to follow it yet, so I've been talking around this point as if it's a done deal. billvon has me thinking I mistook some prior post. I'll play catch up sometime tomorrow.

 

[humbleteleskop]

This is among the things I will address after work. The short answanswer is temperature.
The sun was hot, deep space was cold. Things close to the sun were hot and water existed as a gas rather than a solid (as did all the other volatiles). Things further from the sun were cooler and ice was able to form solid crystals which were sticky and clumped together.

Why would you call water or amino acids "volatile"? If individual molecules are so excited they can not make close bonds they only need to move a little bit more further apart. All the individual molecules could float around in clouds still pretty close to one another, water molucles would condensate into liquid and/or ice later on when they become a part of some larger assembly of mass.

We have isotopic evidence that earths warer originated from a cooler part of the nebula.
We have measured and seen in a microscope the amount of water carried by carbonaceous chondrites arriving at earth today.
We have measured the amino acids carried by those same meteorites.
All of the available evidence suggests that these materials were delivered to earth by meteorites.

These meteorites that supposedly brought most of water and amino acid on Earth, formed from the same accretion disk that formed the Earth or not?

 

[humbleteleskop]

Well, no. This is becoming so vaguely stated we don't really know what "water" really means any more. Is it liquid? That sounds impossible. Frozen? Not anywhere near the hot center of the stellar disk. Vapor? what does that really mean at zero pressure (space itself) yet in some ill defined crush of accretion. No, the properties of matter here are not at all cut and dry.(Or even wet.)

It's not vague at all. The smallest amount of water that is still water is one molecule of water, H2O.

What do meteorites tell us about the conditions for abiogenesis on prebiotic Earth. Well, for one thing they tell us that it rained an unknown amount of water and amino acids, from remnants of the solar accretion disk, falling to Earth as meteorites. I don't understand your point at all. You have to accept the evidence into the court record or you're going to end up with a mistrial. Since that's all Creation Pseudoscience is good for, we avoid it like the plague.

From the very beginnings of the solar system formation water molecules and amino acids were floating around among all the other material the Earth was forming from and were assimilated along the same time as everything else.

 

[leopold]

In the first place I was speaking about your posts in general. But you have to have chirality to get a double helix. This question is like asking why a circle has to be round. It's the other way around. The particular macromolecule (the template) has to be helical (to fit in a confined space) and it has to have end markers (the 3' and 5' ends) and it has to be able to zip and unzip and it has to be able to split and express the gene. All of that happens when these nucleotides are assembled during mitosis/meiosis. Since they form a helical structure (zipped) you get chirality. The round trace forms the circle. See what I mean. It's the other way around.

chirality is a function of the individual molecules that make up DNA.

It's just molecules going into reaction, leopold.

i know.
no one has demonstrated that this sort of thing can become alive.
it's one thing to say it, another to prove it, and yet another to prove it along a certain timeline.

So what in the world are you talking about?

simple, i find an intelligence without substance ridiculous.
if you want to disagree, fine go ahead.

They lied when they took myth and declared it was literally true. They lied when they impersonated scientists simply by inverting their church robes into lab frocks, and putting covers over their Bibles labeled "Science".

what a load of crap.
the site never did any such thing.
the rest of your post . . . meh.

hey, can we call some of your post propaganda?

 

[humbleteleskop]

No, there is no such thing as free will. That's a misnomer from Calvinism. There is only will, and it is seated in conscious and subconscious regions of the mind, as well as impulsive and uncontrollable urges (the gag reflex exploited during waterboarding) other subliminal urges like thirst, hunger, the sex drive etc., and simple choices like which color of socks go with the kilt. But nix the Calvinism altogether and you get basic Biology. Birds feed their chicks because they have an instinctual urge to do so. But they do other things "at will" for reasons that relate to how their brains were wired through evolution. We're in the same boat. We are not special. Some of us are just patently narcissistic. And chronically naive. And flunked Biology. All of that is part of the issue at hand.

Please answer the question directly with YES or NO: - If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your will or consciousness make your body do anything different than what it was already going to do by itself anyway?

 

[Russ_Watters]

you can't be serious.

Of course I'm serious. When you said "i didn't say all evidence", that was a dodge: you didn't want to defend your fallacious reasoning so you lied about what your intent was. The lie was confirmed just hours later when you said "must consider all of the evidence."

It's pretty bold, really -- to blatantly contradict yourself so soon after almost makes it look like taunting as well. At the very least, you aren't making an effort to be subtle about the trolling.

where does that leave a person in regards to evidence and objectivity russ?

What do you mean? I've explained where you've gone wrong here: You didn't respond to my post #1828 when I explained why no one is reading your link -- did you not read it? I also linked, in post #1829, a site that explains/teaches critical thinking skills. The post was addressed to humbleteleskop, who repeatedly showed he doesn't understand critical thinking either, but the issue arose because I was addressing your lack thereof. So you should read the link as well.

i want the truth....

I see no evidence of that. Indeed, you've said you don't believe in creationism and are just playing devil's advocate here. So you already know that what you are saying is crackpottery.

...and you're not going to find it relying on one side of the argument.

If there were two valid sides to the argument, that might be true. But the issue here -- again -- is that you need critical thinking skill to even identify whether there are two sides to the argument or not. But again, since you say you are only playing devil's advocate and don't believe the crackpottery you are promoting, you already know that what you are presenting is not a valid side of the argument. And again, again: that's why what you are doing is trolling.

where am i "arguing" anything about abiogenesis?
i'm not arguing both sides, i PRESENTED both sides with that post.

You are trying to split a hair that doesn't exist: you are responsible for what you say and what information you provide, regardless of where you got it. Presenting someone else's argument for consideration makes it yours and makes you responsible for it.

...it had the added purpose to show "creationists" aren't the (insert phrases here) a lot would have you to believe.

Right: posting a link to the site is you making the argument that the site contains valid information and the writers aren't "(insert phrases here)". That's in addition to you taking-on their argument itself.

the biggest problem i see with the site is it's creationist, that's it.

That's plenty.

 

[Trippy]

Moderator note:

75 off-topic posts moved here (and responses to them).

 

[humbleteleskop]

simple, i find an intelligence without substance ridiculous.
if you want to disagree, fine go ahead.

Can you please point out some practical examples of "intelligence without substance", and explain what does that have to do with the topic, or anything?

 

[leopold]

It's pretty bold, really -- to blatantly contradict yourself so soon after almost makes it look like taunting as well. At the very least, you aren't making an effort to be subtle about the trolling.

therte are 2 reasons for that.
1. i don't realize i'm trolling.
2. i'm not trolling.
question: why would i blatantly troll given the current atmosphere?

The post was addressed to humbleteleskop, who repeatedly showed he doesn't understand critical thinking either, but the issue arose because I was addressing your lack thereof. So you should read the link as well.

my critical thinking skills tell me you cannot rule out something just because you find it ridiculous.

I see no evidence of that. Indeed, you've said you don't believe in creationism and are just playing devil's advocate here. So you already know that what you are saying is crackpottery.

correct.
i find the concept ludicrous.

If there were two valid sides to the argument, that might be true. But the issue here -- again -- is that you need critical thinking skill to even identify whether there are two sides to the argument or not.

there are more than 2 sides but it always seems to boil down to god and "life from the elements".
why that is, is anyones guess.

You are trying to split a hair that doesn't exist: you are responsible for what you say and what information you provide, regardless of where you got it. Presenting someone else's argument for consideration makes it yours and makes you responsible for it.

i understand that.

 

[leopold]

Can you please point out some practical examples of "intelligence without substance", and explain what does that have to do with the topic, or anything?

i can't think of any examples of an intelligence without substance.
it's why i find it ludicrous.

 

[humbleteleskop]

i can't think of any examples of an intelligence without substance.
it's why i find it ludicrous.

So what were you referring to then?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Please answer the question directly with YES or NO:

Some questions can be answered yes or no, but what you are posting is another species of conversation. You are embedding all kinds of technical errors in your posts. If I contradict you, then it's because something you posted does not jibe with the facts as I know them.

- If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics,

What is your basis for claiming that? What does it mean to you? The human body is a biological organism. It does what it does for reasons that far exceed physics. If you ignore the biology of human beings, you will be out in the weeds with no direction home. Besides, physics operates at various levels within the body. The fulcrum of the arm where it bends at the elbow can be modeled using simple kinematics. The muscles that place the bones in tension are much harder to model, although we can simplify the model with a gross approximation. But when we get down to the biophysics of the cell . . . ??? What does that mean to you? What are you looking for? We can model the transfer of fluids and gases across a cell membrane using basic physics (a pressure differential exists, the mebrane presents a resistance to flow, therefore a network can be modeled which approximates the flow rate . . . but to what end??) This is why I'm asking you what you mean. What does physics mean to you in the context of the human body?

can your will or consciousness make your body do anything different than what it was already going to do by itself anyway?

Yes. If you get a diagram of the nervous system and trace the efferent parth (the nerves which do motor control) to the intercostal muscles (which move the ribs to enable you to breathe) you will discover there are two pathways. One is to your involuntary nervous system, which keeps you breathing while you are unconscious (asleep). There is a second pathway to those same muscles which emanates from the motor control area of the cerebral cortex. However, you can choose to inhale or exhale--or not to (to hold your breath) -- and thereby override the subconscious pace of breathing. If you are going to yell like Tarzan, then you need a chest full of pressurized air to get your message across the forest to Jane. But you get to decide how loud to yell, therefore you get to decide to override the pace of breathing.

Again, there is no such thing as free will. This is a misnomer taken from Victorian era attempts at pseudoscience in regard to Orthodox religious explanations of human nature. To avoid confusion, people should simply refer to "human will". The word "free" was used to distinguish human will from instinctual behavior seen in common animals. One of the purposes of such religions is to remove humans from their place in the family tree of Primates and place them in their own echelon, which is utterly bogus. The egregious error in this is the assumption that animals can't make choices, which is utterly bogus. If you watch a cat stalking prey, hyperalert and ready to pounce on a moment's provocation, you will notice that the cat establishes a wide window of time during which any of various conditions will trip its hair-spring trigger. Thus, the cat chooses when to pounce (or not to pounce after all). Since the cat chooses just as the the human chooses, we see that there is no difference between the nature of choice in a human or any other animal with similar faculties. Therefore there is no such thing as free will. There is only will. And animals other than human animals are endowed with it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

i can't think of any examples of an intelligence without substance.
it's why i find it ludicrous.

You keep saying this and I keep asking you what you mean. But I don't think you have ever responded.

It makes no sense to pair intelligence with substance. Intelligence pairs with brains, specifically those of a particular class (having a cerebrum of a particular ratio to the size of the overall brain) and in a specific state (healthy; alert/awake).

Why do you keep pairing intelligence with substance? What does that mean to you?

 

[leopold]

You keep saying this and I keep asking you what you mean. But I don't think you have ever responded.
It makes no sense to pair intelligence with substance. Intelligence pairs with brains, specifically those of a particular class (having a cerebrum of a particular ratio to the size of the overall brain) and in a specific state (healthy; alert/awake).

Why do you keep pairing intelligence with substance? What does that mean to you?

yes, intelligence pairs with brains, a substance.
give me some examples of an intelligence capable of creating life that has no such substance.

 

[Trippy]

Why would you call water or amino acids "volatile"?

I didn't call amino acids volatile, I called water volatile. I called water volatile because it is classed as being volatile.

If individual molecules are so excited they can not make close bonds they only need to move a little bit more further apart. All the individual molecules could float around in clouds still pretty close to one another, water molucles would condensate into liquid and/or ice later on when they become a part of some larger assembly of mass.

That's not how it works, you see, the sun, that big glowing yellow/white thing in the sky, about the same size as the moon, produces these things that scientists like to call 'light' and 'heat'. These heretical concepts mean that gasses in the solar system get driven out of the solar system unless they're gravitationally bound to something. That's why the earth has next to no hydrogen in its atmosphere but jupiter has lots and lots. Jupiter was able to grow to a sufficiently large size to retain a sizeable portion of hydrogen in its atmosphere. This happened for two reasons.
1. Jupiter is far enough away from the sun that the top of its atmosphere doesn't get hot enough to drive off the hydrogen.
2. Jupiter formed beyond the frost line - the point at which ice crystals are stable in space, and so Jupiter had access to more raw material than earth did.

These two heretical concepts, heat and light, are also why Venus has no water left.

These meteorites that supposedly brought most of water and amino acid on Earth, formed from the same accretion disk that formed the Earth or not?

They formed in the same accretion disk, but they formed in a different part of the accretion disk which was at a different temperature. That's why they have a different bulk composition from the earth.

Some reading material for you on the solar nebula:
http://www.kcvs.ca/martin/astro/au/unit7/163/chp16_3.html
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/SESSIONS/11.Formation.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17737128
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989LPI....20...99B

 

[Russ_Watters]

question: why would i blatantly troll given the current atmosphere.

I notice that you edited the "what" out of my post and answered only the "why". Shall I assume that by not arguing against my account of your trolling that you are acknowledging the trolling you did? Anyway:

Why ask me that question when you are the one with the answer? I suppose I can speculate: most trolls troll for fun. If by the "current atmosphere" you mean the apparent minor recent crackdown, I suppose you don't see any real downside for you: if all you are here to do is troll, then the crackdown takes away your reason for being here whether you are banned or stop on your own. So there is no upside to stopping on your own.

my critical thinking skills tell me you cannot rule out something just because you find it ridiculous.

Again, you edited the "what" out of my post and responded only to the "why". Shall I take it that you didn't respond to the "what" because you recognize that I adequately explained to you and you now understand and accept the reason for your infraction and why people are not reading your link?

Anyway:

correct.
i find the concept ludicrous.

"you cannot rule out something just because you find it ridiculous."
"i find the concept ludicrous."

Another blatant/bold self-contradiction. Putting those two together implies that you do believe in creationism even though you recognize that at face value the concept is ludicrious/ridiculous/crackpottery. Indeed, when asked the question, you don't actually answer it:

(sample paraphrase)
Question: Do you believe in creationism?
Answer: I find the concept ludicrous.

Notice that the question was yes or no and the answer doesn't answer it. So what is the actual answer: yes or no? Do you believe in creationism or not?

i understand that.

So why do it? Oh, right, we covered that at the top of this post.

 

[paddoboy]

yes, intelligence pairs with brains, a substance.
give me some examples of an intelligence capable of creating life that has no such substance.

You keep saying this or similar over and over again. Yet you have yet to offer a viable alternative to support your concept. At the same time, you deny being a Creationist, yet you rather have sympathetic feelings for such a myth then science backed logic and reasoning.
And yet you get all indignant when others claim you are a closet Creationist.

In the eyes of most reasonable people, Evolution is wholly supported and backed by mountains of evidence.
But you cast doubt on it.
In the eyes of most reasonable logical people, Abiogenesis at its most fundamental, is/was the only way that life has evolved. Life from non life.....planets and stars from hydrogen and heavy Elements.....heavy elements from stars....Hydrogen from a cooling Universe/spacetime and fundamental particles....Fundamental particles from cooling energy....Energy from phase transitions and false vacuums via the Superforce.....All from space and time...Space and time from the BB.

That's very roughly how it was and happened over 13.83 billion years, and is supported even today by observational evidence.
So again, I am taking the time to ask you to present a different scenario, with at least some evidence to support it.
But of course you wont read this, since you have me on ignore for past revelations.

 

[humbleteleskop]

Some questions can be answered yes or no, but what you are posting is another species of conversation.

That topic has its own thread now:
www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?142083-Free-Will-and-Determinism

 

[leopold]

Anyway:
"you cannot rule out something just because you find it ridiculous."
"i find the concept ludicrous."
Another blatant/bold self-contradiction.

and?
the first is a fact.
the second, my opinion.

i'm quite sure you will agree that the "impossible" happens.

Do you believe in creationism or not?

mankind has been grappling with this question for centuries.
i find it next to impossible that there is a benevolent god out there full of love for humanity.
on the other hand, it's just as ludicrous to think atoms can self assemble themselves into a living, thinking, human being.

there must be a third option, there HAS to be.

 

[humbleteleskop]

on the other hand, it's just as ludicrous to think atoms can self assemble themselves into a living, thinking, human being.

And how ludicrous then do you find an embryo can self-assemble itself into a living, thinking, human being? That you understand, but abiogenesis that is much simpler you can not believe. How come?