|
4 registered members (VoroneTZ, kiamonster, 2 invisible),
4,363
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79569
07/18/06 17:50
07/18/06 17:50
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Left or right handedness refers not to the refraction, but to the polarization of light. Light passing the substance is circular polarized. But I fail to understand the argument about the 'optically active' molecules.
The point was that the clay had been contaminated by pre-existing life. Details aside.
Quote:
While I'm not qualified to discuss complex issues of organic chemistry, my simple refutation of this would be something like this: since homochirality is observed in nature, it seems obvious that it can occur naturally. QED.
That's circular reasoning. All things are natural, therefore whatever exists, exists because of natural causes.
In order to make that non-circular, you would have to prove, at least, that its possible. (QED....pssh)
Quote:
Regardless of how hard it is to imagine such structural organization forming naturally, many things in nature have a complex organization, such as crystals, lattices, and even fullerene structures.
None of which violate thermodynamics.
You're mistaking order, with organized complexity anyway. We're not talking about one simple repeating structure being formed when molecules settle into a lower energy state. We're talking about molecules organizing themselves (on their own) into a higher energy state (more unstable), and then combining into a system that depends on all the parts to exist and function in the right way. (abiogenesis, not homochirality)
Quote:
It seems short-sighted to assume that homochirality can't also occur naturally, given that we have billions of years of organic soup bubbling away.
Only someone with a contempt for the scientific method, when it fails to back up their philosophy, would think like this. 
But seriously, having a few amino acids broiling in some kind of pre-biotic broth doesn't explain how life arose. Otherwise we could just throw a few amino acids into a broth and let it swirl around until a cell pops out.
Quote:
These lines of reasoning, regardless of what technical jargon may used, all boil down to one basic argument: things we cant imagine forming naturally--becasue we havent observed it happening--must have been caused by a god.
That's because you know absolutely nothing about abiogenesis or the chemistry, etc, involved in the process. Which is why you call it all jargon. Science isn't jargon just because it implies a creator. You don't pick and choose what science you will and won't accept.
For you, its about ignoring the science, and 'let's all just assume it can happen.' You never fail to prove what I believe, that you actually have no care for science, you just want some justification for your worldview, and if you think science does that for you, all the better, but if it doesn't then you have no need for it.
But nevermind that.
Quote:
This is faulty reasoning because it supposes that we know everything about how natural processes work, and that because we cant directly observe something, it cant have happened naturally.
Its not faulty reasoning. Its a good explanation for what we know about the universe. And you might have some kind of claim if everything we kept discovering, or every answer we came up with, actually brought us closer to abiogenesis. But every corner we turn brings us more obstacles.
Quote:
Therefore, if organic structures arise with a given organizational complexity, we should NOT assume that it is related to a supernatural cause, but instead assume that it is natural
That's called being influenced by a humanist worldview.
Quote:
and try to understand how it occurs
But according to you, when we find out that it can't occur, we're just supposed to say, "Oh well, we know it still happened this way."
Quote:
This is the basis of all science; as I have said before, science can only prceed when the supernatural is ruled out at once.
Only in the realm of imagination.
Quote:
There is really not much more to say here I think; either you agree with the scientific method, or you dont.
The scientific method in this case doesn't agree with you. Sorry.
Quote:
If you dont, please dont bother arguing with a scientist or a theory.
You should take your own advice.
Anyways, all of this is moot. I've now seen two sources (one of which was creationist referring to a non-creationist source) that oxygen was present on earth before life. End of story. No abiogenesis.
(As a final note, I don't really see how life could have arisen with only 6000 years to arise. )
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/18/06 17:57.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79570
07/18/06 21:24
07/18/06 21:24
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Anyways, all of this is moot. I've now seen two sources (one of which was creationist referring to a non-creationist source) that oxygen was present on earth before life. End of story. No abiogenesis.
Ok, why dont you write a paper and present it to a journal? Irish Farmer proves that life was created by God...
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79573
07/23/06 23:52
07/23/06 23:52
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
At least I don't label everyone who agrees with you a moron, or whatever other terms you use. But I guess its ok for you to do that because you're you.
Why am I even posting here right now? I should be doing something productive.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79574
07/24/06 10:47
07/24/06 10:47
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,128
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,128
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
You're mistaking order, with organized complexity anyway. We're not talking about one simple repeating structure being formed when molecules settle into a lower energy state. We're talking about molecules organizing themselves (on their own) into a higher energy state (more unstable), and then combining into a system that depends on all the parts to exist and function in the right way. (abiogenesis, not homochirality)
I think you're the one who misunderstood something. Order has a lot to do with organized complexity, but has little to do with a higher or lower "energy state". Chemical reactions, no matter whether they organzie molecules into a state of higher complexity or not, normally end up with lower energy. For instance, the H2O molecule (water) has higher order than separate H and O atoms, but lower energy.
Quote:
But seriously, having a few amino acids broiling in some kind of pre-biotic broth doesn't explain how life arose. Otherwise we could just throw a few amino acids into a broth and let it swirl around until a cell pops out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Quote:
I've now seen two sources (one of which was creationist referring to a non-creationist source) that oxygen was present on earth before life. End of story. No abiogenesis.
As long as you're the only one who has seen those two miraculous sources, this is maybe an "argument from vision"?
Quote:
As a final note, I don't really see how life could have arisen with only 6000 years to arise.
Me neither.  
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79575
07/24/06 16:44
07/24/06 16:44
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I think you're the one who misunderstood something. Order has a lot to do with organized complexity, but has little to do with a higher or lower "energy state". Chemical reactions, no matter whether they organzie molecules into a state of higher complexity or not, normally end up with lower energy. For instance, the H2O molecule (water) has higher order than separate H and O atoms, but lower energy.
Yes, that's the difference. Crystals are able to crystallize because its a lower energy state. It just 'settles' that way. Abiogenesis requires the exact opposite to happen....somehow. Organic molecules don't just go against their nature and seperate themselves, and then hold themselves together once they've formed the highly unstable chains....somehow, and then they don't just form into the complex structures required to attain even the simplest cell. You're asking us to believe an event that go against the laws of nature.
You missed my point about the rebuttle to Matt's argument. If it was as simple as a broth of amino acids, then the problem would have been solved a long time ago. I think you'll agree, no problem in science is simple.
Quote:
As long as you're the only one who has seen those two miraculous sources, this is maybe an "argument from vision"?
I'll dig 'em up, but I'm going to try and get them from a source you can't question whatsoever.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/24/06 16:45.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
