You have no evidence that abiogenesis fulfills this role, yet you are calling on the pope to endorse this theory. Hypocrite.
Why do you persist in an OUTRIGHT LIE.Originally posted by: CycloWizardDespite the fact that there has never been a scientific observation of it?I doubt he'll say either way, as it really has nothing to do with the Catholic belief system. But persist in your defamation scheme based on your own ignorance.
Creating RNA from inorganic compounts under the right conditions is an experiment that is at least 30 years old... and RNA is the only thing that is necessary for life.
1953 Miller-Urey Experiment
...experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first...
First, this is hardly an 'outright lie'. Your comment in my direction in a previous thread yesterday was an outright lie. Kindly take your holier-than-thou, ignorant, elitist ass elsewhere.
Really? Says who? Says you? You're hardly a credible source on anything from what I can see, spreading OUTRIGHT LIES about another forum member since you can't refute anything he says.
I took organic chemistry a while back and remember well the discussion of the synthesis of urea. So what? How does this imply abiogenesis? You're also neglecting another key point in your own link (which hardly surprises me, since you probably aren't very familiar with it and just use it in a futile attempt to assert your own superior intellect):
If you would get some degrees and/or lab experience (as you suggested to me not so long ago), you would know that there is a difference between a hypothesis and experimental data. I can come up with ten zillion 'hypothetical processes' by which fusion power generation can be realized, but it still hasn't happened. Does this mean it can't happen? No. Does this mean it will happen? No. A hypothesis is a question, not an answer. But I'm sure Mr. (or is it Dr.?) High-and-Mighty Elitist Know-It-All already knew that and only made the above statements in error to make sure I was paying attention... Right?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
First, this is hardly an 'outright lie'. Your comment in my direction in a previous thread yesterday was an outright lie. Kindly take your holier-than-thou, ignorant, elitist ass elsewhere.
Really? Says who? Says you? You're hardly a credible source on anything from what I can see, spreading OUTRIGHT LIES about another forum member since you can't refute anything he says.
I took organic chemistry a while back and remember well the discussion of the synthesis of urea. So what? How does this imply abiogenesis? If you would get some degrees and/or lab experience (as you suggested to me not so long ago), you would know that there is a difference between a hypothesis and experimental data. I can come up with ten zillion 'hypothetical processes' by which fusion power generation can be realized, but it still hasn't happened. Does this mean it can't happen? No. Does this mean it will happen? No. A hypothesis is a question, not an answer. But I'm sure Mr. (or is it Dr.?) High-and-Mighty Elitist Know-It-All already knew that and only made the above statements in error to make sure I was paying attention... Right?
Christians like you are the only one I see with an elitist attitude.
I repeat - OUTRIGHT LIE... [hope that's not too offensive]Originally posted by: CycloWizard
First, this is hardly an 'outright lie'. Your comment in my direction in a previous thread yesterday was an outright lie. Kindly take your holier-than-thou, ignorant, elitist ass elsewhere.
Say the experiments you [foolish man]. Specifically, the Joan Oro experiments, which filled the hole of Miller-Urey data, showing that nucleotides could form spontaneously.
It's the Miller-Urey EXPERIMENT you [vegetable-brain] ... not to mention the myriad of EXPERIMENTS that followed.
And just so that you can stuff this into your ..., here's a paper for you:
"Cello, J; Paul, A; Wimmer, E, Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template, Science 2002 297: 1016-1018
P.S. And I think you could do much better than to question MY scientific experience, given the sh!t that comes out of your mouth.
LOL. So what was all this business from a thread on ID, how it should not be regarded highly because it was not a scientific theory? So what do you do? Not only do you attempt to misinform and create a pedagogically irresponsible statement, you completely contradict everything that was said in that thread about ID. Abiogenesis is infinitely a greater scientific theory than "god created life." One would figure with the amount of prattling you had on the subject, you could at least understand and acknowledge the scientific credence that should be lent to abiogenesis over "god created life," instead of placing the two concepts at the same level, which is simply incomprehensible. Or does that all go out of the window once the logic enters against your predisposed beliefs?
As posted already in this thread, The Miller-Urea experiment displays a source of amino acids from an abiotic source. Couple to that, the experiments by Oro, further supports the yield of adenosine from simple products that would have been available in the early atmosphere. Why is adenosine important? It plays into the perfect situation, the RNA World Hypothesis. RNA is the only molecule known currently that can catalyze reactions, store genetic information, and have the potential for self-replication. For that reason, RNA and adenosine is so important for the beginning of abiogenesis, as RNA could be the first "living organism" to start on the Earth. Along with the non-oxidative atmosphere, there is strong evidence behind this mindset of the early Earth.
Thus, any statement claiming that there is no scientific observations in favor of abiogenesis is disengenous, and intellectually false.
Furthermore, the statement: "Only left handed amino acids are found in living organisms, and the ones created in the Miller-Urey experiment, and all subsequent experiments, succeed in creating right- and left-handed amino acids in roughly a 50/50 ratio."
is inherently shortsighted. Not only would RNA be the first "living" organism, all it would take is one conformation of RNA to choose a form of amino-acids it binds to in its active site, as it turned out with life, it would have choosen the left-handed form. All there needs to be is an early selective event, thereby addressing your simplistic remark.
If you get religious people to beleive that God didn't create life, isn't that pusing atheistic views?
Also you mentioned abiogenesis as having a lot of scientific basis. I thought that was on the contrary? I thought evolution is established as far as we are concerned, but evolution says "once you have life what happens" (ie: once you have d/rna and a mechanism for replication) not, "how does life start". I thought Abiogenesis attempted to answer the question "how did life start", and was still an extremely controversial theory.
So I am wondering if you perhaps mixed the two together (Evolution and Abiogenesis).
If anyone wants to clarify things for me I would appreciate it
Originally posted by: magomago
If you get religious people to beleive that God didn't create life, isn't that pusing atheistic views?
Also you mentioned abiogenesis as having a lot of scientific basis. I thought that was on the contrary? I thought evolution is established as far as we are concerned, but evolution says "once you have life what happens" (ie: once you have d/rna and a mechanism for replication) not, "how does life start". I thought Abiogenesis attempted to answer the question "how did life start", and was still an extremely controversial theory.
So I am wondering if you perhaps mixed the two together (Evolution and Abiogenesis).
If anyone wants to clarify things for me I would appreciate it
No, no mix up. I said both Evolution and Abiogensis are true. Abiogenesis explains the formation of life, and says life originated from non living mater.
I know your a muslim, so you reject the theory of abiogenesis. But remember abiogenesis is science while god beliefe is mythology.
I'll clarify it for you.Originally posted by: magomago
If you get religious people to beleive that God didn't create life, isn't that pusing atheistic views?
Also you mentioned abiogenesis as having a lot of scientific basis. I thought that was on the contrary? I thought evolution is established as far as we are concerned, but evolution says "once you have life what happens" (ie: once you have d/rna and a mechanism for replication) not, "how does life start". I thought Abiogenesis attempted to answer the question "how did life start", and was still an extremely controversial theory.
So I am wondering if you perhaps mixed the two together (Evolution and Abiogenesis).
If anyone wants to clarify things for me I would appreciate it
Evolution -> clearly established theory, with a discrete, scientifically verified mechanism... a theory which is scientifically sound, and all tenets of it unquestionable... with no directly conflicting evidence at all.
Abiogenesis -> a collection of several hypotheses (RNA world, Iron/Sulfur world, etc...) with a wide variety of supporting evidence for each model. However, there is no consensus among the scientific community so far, with regards to which hypothesis is the likely candidate (althout it's pretty clear at this point that the RNA World hypothesis will become the core of the main theory of abiogenesis). That being said, debate about the mechanism cannot be used as an argument against the validity of the said theory... since the only way to invalidate a supported scientific theory is to present evidence to the contrary... and as with all cases where religion challenges science, the latter is conspicuosly absent.
The pope is expressing the standard teaching of the Catholic church. Fundamentalists do not accept the authority of the Pope and are unlikely to be much influenced by what he says.Originally posted by: RichardE
Hopefully this will reverse the fundies stance on science=the devil, and we can relax some of the red tape for research.
Don't assume what I do and do not reject
It can be hazardous to your health By the way, I do not understand how me being a Muslim automatically means I reject abiogenesis. I didn't find anything that stated I rejected it at all, just that the way you wrote Abiogenesis makes me raise my eyebrow because you made it seem like evolution when it comes to the "soundness" of the theory. That and if you want to debate with someone who has a religion, mocking their faith as "mythology" doesn't work well when it comes to the opinions that you are trying to change
I can see where you come from because I would also reject Polytheism (another form of "mythology" as you would say), but at the same time I would not mock them about their beleifs ~Thanks Meuge
I was thinking something similar to that.Originally posted by: magomago
Don't assume what I do and do not reject
That and if you want to debate with someone who has a religion, mocking their faith as "mythology" doesn't work well when it comes to the opinions that you are trying to change
Thanks Meuge
Well the Quran does say allah created life, so if your a muslim which you said you were before then you don't accept abiogensis.
Also Islam is a myth just like Christianity and will one day got he way of Zues worship.
Yup it says God created life. I still don't see where the contradiction to Abiogenesis could exist, assuming Abiogenesis at this stage is true. I think you are the one jumping to conlusions and making assumptions that are not necessarily accurate.
But you weren't citing that experiment in your quote. You were citing the article's reference to hypothetical processes that have, as yet, been unrealized in scientific study. Nice try on the diversion though. Maybe if you call me a few more names, people will forget that you're wrong. I doubt it though.
That paper still doesn't really address the question, as it requires the life form to produce the life form. Sure, one can hypothesize that, given an RNA strand, infinite time, and the proper conditions, it might produce this same thing of its own accord. But it's still a hypothesis, not an answer.
You want to turn this into a pissing contest? I'm in the same kind of program at a better school. You'll lose. I don't think you want to go there.
The idea that God created life is contradictory to Abiogenesis which says live originated from non living mater.
God is living, so god creating life says live came from something live, i.e god.
So you've given up entirely on actually trying to pretend like you're discussing this topic when, instead, you've just demonstrated that you're only interested in bashing Christians in general. This was pretty obvious from the start, hence all the
s I handed you previously, but now you just made it quite clear to everyone else. Thanks for being honest.You don't know what my beliefs are. How can you pretend that I'm defending them in opposition to logic? Please show me where I said 'god created life', or that abiogenesis is an inferior scientific theory to intelligent design. Until then, take your convoluted ad hominem elsewhere. :roll:
/screeching breaks....
Okay now you are getting philosophical. Define "living". I think it is hard (this is coming from an Islamic POV) to discuss God's powers beyond "omnipotent".
Is God "Alive" in the sense that I beleive God exists? Yes.
But is God "Alive" in the sense that he is alive like we are? No, because then that would be a limitation to his power because if he is "living" then he eventually must die like every other "alive" thing in this world.
A lot of this is philosophy that you are getting into, as well as making assumptions to the nature of God.
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Along with, of course, assuming God exists in the first place.
So many assumptions in this world, don't you agree?
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,351
- 47,605
- 136
Cyclo, enough with the hypocritical bullsh!t. You're whining about ad hom attacks and others starting "pissing contests" when it was you who started with the names and the pissy invective. If you're so confident in your position, rely on it instead of throwing a tantrum and blaming others for your immaturity.
You've been soundly thumped debate-wise. Deal with it.
You've been soundly thumped debate-wise. Deal with it.
Oh, but I was... again grasping at straws, aren't you?
(For reference)
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why do you persist in an OUTRIGHT LIE.Originally posted by: Meuge
Despite the fact that there has never been a scientific observation of it?
Creating RNA from inorganic compounts under the right conditions is an experiment that is at least 30 years old... and RNA is the only thing that is necessary for life.
1953 Miller-Urey Experiment
...experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first...
It is clear that you're unfamiliar with the tenets of the scientific method.
Given your utter ignorance of the principles of the scientific method, and your ignorance of the basic processes behind life, and your gross insistence on using clearly fallacious arguments, I sincerely doubt it.
Maybe you don't understand the part where those experiments are used to imply that some hypothetical processes could lead to abiogenesis. I don't think you missed them though, since that's the part you quoted. I think you're trying to say that these hypothetical pathways do, indeed, exist, which is not what the article states.
Maybe you can tell me how that makes any sense in this context, but I doubt it.
1. You obviously don't know a damn thing about logic. Until you do, kindly keep your statements regarding fallacy to yourself. You can start by actually addressing the point where you claim that banning abortion is a slippery slope fallacy. How the hell is that?
2. http://mstp.wustl.edu/
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter