Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Does that mean I have somehow bettered the rest of the dumb answers?
I kinda feel proud to be the best.
By keeping quiet in class and not asking questions.
Alex
Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
I kinda feel proud to be the best.
Alex
It's not riddles... Thers an element called carbon.
You're not very smart, are you?
On that subject of Abiogenisis........
https://reflectionsofayoungcontrari...13/05/addressing-creationist-fallacies-21.pdf
"Can life arise from non-life? In January 2001, scientists from NASA’s Ames Research Centre and the University of California, Santa Cruz, surprised many of their colleagues and created headline news by announcing the results of experiments which produced complex organic molecules under conditions resembling those which exist in interstellar clouds of gas and dust. In these experiments, a mixture of the kind of icy material known to exist in those clouds (composed of water, methanol, ammonia and carbon monoxide frozen together) was kept in a cold vacuum and dosed with ultraviolet radiation. Chemical reactions stimulated by the radiation (typical of the kind of radiation from young stars which zaps real interstellar clouds) produced a variety of organic compounds which, when immersed in water, spontaneously created membranous structures resembling soap bubbles. All life on earth is based on cells, bags of biological material encased in just this kind of membrane. The implication of this work is that space is filled with chemical compounds which can easily give a kick-start to life if they land in a suitable environment, such as on the surface of the earth. The comets which proliferate in the outer part of our Solar System and occasionally pass through the inner regions near the earth are known to be made of almost pristine interstellar material left over from the formation of the Sun and planets out of one of these interstellar clouds. It seems very likely, therefore, that any planet like the earth will be seeded with the raw materials necessary for life almost as soon as it forms. The discovery seems to have taken the researchers themselves by surprise. In the issue of The Independent dated January 30th 2001, Lou Allamondola, the leader of the team, was quoted as saying: We expected ultraviolet radiation would make a few molecules that might have some biological interest, but nothing major. Instead, we found that this process transforms some of the simple chemicals that are very common in space into larger molecules which behave in far more complex ways, which many people think are critical to the origin of life. There now seems very little room to doubt that life must be a common occurrence across the Universe, i.e. that chemical evolution is the reason for our existence".
https://reflectionsofayoungcontrari...13/05/addressing-creationist-fallacies-21.pdf
"Can life arise from non-life? In January 2001, scientists from NASA’s Ames Research Centre and the University of California, Santa Cruz, surprised many of their colleagues and created headline news by announcing the results of experiments which produced complex organic molecules under conditions resembling those which exist in interstellar clouds of gas and dust. In these experiments, a mixture of the kind of icy material known to exist in those clouds (composed of water, methanol, ammonia and carbon monoxide frozen together) was kept in a cold vacuum and dosed with ultraviolet radiation. Chemical reactions stimulated by the radiation (typical of the kind of radiation from young stars which zaps real interstellar clouds) produced a variety of organic compounds which, when immersed in water, spontaneously created membranous structures resembling soap bubbles. All life on earth is based on cells, bags of biological material encased in just this kind of membrane. The implication of this work is that space is filled with chemical compounds which can easily give a kick-start to life if they land in a suitable environment, such as on the surface of the earth. The comets which proliferate in the outer part of our Solar System and occasionally pass through the inner regions near the earth are known to be made of almost pristine interstellar material left over from the formation of the Sun and planets out of one of these interstellar clouds. It seems very likely, therefore, that any planet like the earth will be seeded with the raw materials necessary for life almost as soon as it forms. The discovery seems to have taken the researchers themselves by surprise. In the issue of The Independent dated January 30th 2001, Lou Allamondola, the leader of the team, was quoted as saying: We expected ultraviolet radiation would make a few molecules that might have some biological interest, but nothing major. Instead, we found that this process transforms some of the simple chemicals that are very common in space into larger molecules which behave in far more complex ways, which many people think are critical to the origin of life. There now seems very little room to doubt that life must be a common occurrence across the Universe, i.e. that chemical evolution is the reason for our existence".
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Now you have got the idea... Never ask a question unless you know the answer.
Alex
The answer, you're stupid.
"There now seems very little room to doubt that life must be a common occurrence across the Universe, i.e. that chemical evolution is the reason for our existence".
The implication there is I am among the religious. You consider me to be religious? By what criteria?
Alex, if you have at all looked at the ID literature, it soon becomes apparent there are varied positions on all of above. Most serious, educated ID folks have no time for YEC, but beyond that, the exact role of any IDer in life's history is of course unknown. It could vary from say sudden materialization of certain new species at one extreme, to entirely subtle yet real and essential meddling with DNA and such at various key stages. Or some nifty combos. Certainly the fossil record shows many examples of lineages and branching from common ancestors occuring over large time frames. But putting it all together in a way that is entirely natural process is a very big ask. This is btw branching off from the focus on abiogenesis.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Just as a thiesist can claim to know the truth so can I and I am sure, as I have mentioned in the past, that life is nothing more than chemical evolution.
Alex
And yet no one remarks on the carbon element?
And? For so-called carbon-based life, at barest minimum one also needs H, N, S, O, P, and very likely the presence of mineral elements like Na, Ca, K, Mg, Fe, Cl, and maybe others.
But that's just the lowest order alphabet. How they all got together and worked together in the intricate detail to arrive at life is the crucial issue.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I can see why you could think that but other than you offering support for ID I would not have formed a solid view... which I have not.
If I had to guess I would probably guess you may be but I tend not to guess. If I wanted to know I would ask you and if you said you were I would not be surprised and if you said you were not that probably would not be surprising either.
Yes I know but its probably a long way back to the OP but I thank you for your reply.
I try to learn about things to understand people rather than to find out the truth.
All are witnesses who see the same events in different ways I do not need to judge so I try not to judge.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thank you most people don't even notice.
Alex
But this is an admittance to something you don't know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientificview[1][2][3] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[4]Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationismwhich lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[5][6][7]Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[8][9]while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[10]The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.
ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts,[11] a version of the theologicalargument from designfor the existence of God.[n 3] Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents then conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design.[11][n 4] Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientificview[1][2][3] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[4]Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationismwhich lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[5][6][7]Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[8][9]while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[10]The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.
ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts,[11] a version of the theologicalargument from designfor the existence of God.[n 3] Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents then conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design.[11][n 4] Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy
*Every single ID argument you have posted, or linked to, is from the standard and familiar body of Abrahamic Monotheist Fundamentalist creationism familiar to us all in the US for decades. So is your entire vocabulary, your approach to scientific research and theory, and - decisively - your characteristic errors of reasoning, both posted and linked.
You have posted nothing from any other source of ID thought or analysis - such as the Gaia crowd, or the Computer Simulation crowd, or the Cycles of Rebirth Hindu/Vague Eastern body of handwavers.
What is anybody supposed to think?
#You have time for YEC - you posted links to adherents and sympathizers among the A-fundies.
If as our ID proponent is now insinuating that his view of ID does not necessarily mean a god/deity, what then?
Perhaps an advanced civilisation, planted the seeds for Earthly life, but obviously the question still remains, who or what designed these advanced beings/civilisation. We obviously still arrive back at a more universal abiogensis, as distinct from one purely attached to Earth....Panspermia?
Or abiogenisis occurred many times in many places throughout this big wide wonderful universe.
Again though essentially no evidence for any unscientific conclusion of supernatural, rather still the fall back on an essential abiogenisis aspect.
I abandoned Christianity a long time back, as stated in #75. And as stated elsewhere, consider the circumstantial evidence that some invisible intelligence(s) are and have for a long time been operative in Earth's and in particular human history is compelling. Nothing there provides a focus for religious worship and veneration.
See my response to Alex in #559