Reply With Quote
He doesn't factor in the interaction of the one conducting the experiments... He stated earlier that it was irrelevant... When clearly we do the same thing in order to manufacture man-made chemicals that don't exist in nature...
He doesn't factor in the interaction of the one conducting the experiments... He stated earlier that it was irrelevant... When clearly we do the same thing in order to manufacture man-made chemicals that don't exist in nature...
By that logic..."belief =/= stating that something does exist"?
Redzero won this thread.
These are two models I think might have something going on:
from Wikipedia:
A 2001 experiment led by Jason Dworkin[96] subjected a frozen mixture of water, methanol, ammonia and carbon monoxide to UV radiation, mimicking conditions found in an extraterrestrial environment. This combination yielded large amounts of organic material that self-organised to form bubbles or micelles when immersed in water. Dworkin considered these bubbles to resemble cell membranes that enclose and concentrate the chemistry of life, separating their interior from the outside world.
The bubbles produced in these experiments were between 10 to 40 micrometres (0.00039 to 0.0016 in), or about the size of red blood cells. Remarkably, the bubbles fluoresced, or glowed, when exposed to UV light. Absorbing UV and converting it into visible light in this way was considered one possible way of providing energy to a primitive cell. If such bubbles played a role in the origin of life, the fluorescence could have been a precursor to primitive photosynthesis. Such fluorescence also provides the benefit of acting as a sunscreen, diffusing any damage that otherwise would be inflicted by UV radiation. Such a protective function would have been vital for life on the early Earth, since the ozone layer, which blocks out the sun's most destructive UV rays, did not form until after photosynthetic life began to produce oxygen.[58]
Another idea is that amino acids which were formed extra-terrestrially arrived on Earth via comets. In 2009 it was announced by NASA that scientists have identified one of the fundamental chemical buildings blocks of life in a comet for the first time: glycine, an amino acid, was detected in the material ejected from Comet Wild-2 in 2004 and grabbed by NASA's S ust probe. Tiny grains, just a few thousandths of a millimetre in size, were collected from the comet and returned to Earth in 2006 in a sealed capsule, and distributed among the world's leading astro-biology labs. NASA said in a statement that it took some time for the investigating team, led by Dr Jamie Elsila, to convince itself that the glycine signature found in S ust's sample bay was genuine and not just Earthly contamination. Glycine has been detected in meteorites before and there are also observations in interstellar gas clouds claimed for telescopes, but the S ust find is described as a first in cometary material. It is known that prior to the emergence of life on Earth, the early solar system's planets were regularly bombarded by comets. Dr. Carl Pilcher, who leads NASA's Astrobiology Ins ute commented that "The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the Universe may be common rather than rare."[97]
Miller didn't use anything that wasn't already available in nature billions of years ago. And to do the experiment, he had to set up the right conditions to match the theory. Sure, glass tubes were not available billions of years ago, but everything else was. Without Miller, the lab experiment would not have happened. But that's a completely different situation.
Is there a God? Yes or no?
Yeah.
Example:
I believe that the Saints will win the Super Bowl again. I do not state that they will, because I do not know.
If you believe something probably exists, do you have to make the concrete statement that it absolutely does?
I don't think so.
LOL...except the glass tubes and flasks, but those aren't relevant or crucial to the experiment at all. AND...if it requires a massive response, or a link to a humongous article please don't answer this...do we REALLY know what was available in nature billions of years ago?
It's funny that Phenomanul will go to great lengths to try and explain why abiogensis is impossible, but can't even explain why he believes in God.
So the atheist does not KNOW that a god with supernatural life-giving ability does not exist, he just BELIEVES that god does not exist...he might, but you don't believe he does.
Which leaves open the possibility such a god exists, except when it comes to determining the creation of life...then we're sure that god isn't there?
Yeah, the glass tubes and flasks contained the materials. The results were not attained because glass tubes and flasks were used.
Yes. Water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen have been around for a while.AND...if it requires a massive response, or a link to a humongous article please don't answer this...do we REALLY know what was available in nature billions of years ago?
How successful would the experiment have been if they didn't use the glass tubes and flasks?
How 'bout thunderstorms and lightning? Were they there? Was there even an atmosphere for such a thing?
The creationist has the burden of proof in that regard. I will state that life occurred purely due to natural causes until I am shown proof to the contrary.
Are you willing to state that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create life?
Glass tubes and flasks were used to contain the materials. If there was something else that could fulfill that purpose, the experiment probably would have had the same results.
Yes.How 'bout thunderstorms and lightning? Were they there? Was there even an atmosphere for such a thing?
I'm not making a positive assertation here, I'm merely trying to understand the atheist thought process.
However, you did just state positively that inanimate objects can come to life as a natural occurrence. Now, with the same standards of proof you hold the Christian to in proving the existence of God....prove to me that inanimate objects naturally come to life.
What served that purpose billions of years ago?
I didn't state that. I gave you a link to an article about an experiment done on the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_modelsNow, with the same standards of proof you hold the Christian to in proving the existence of God....prove to me that inanimate objects naturally come to life.
There are multiple theories on the matter, so don't take my word for it and examine them yourself.
You can watch this as well:
Can I prove to you conclusively that inanimate objects naturally come to life? No, but the research points to that conclusion.
The right environment on earth.
One thing I find amusing and ironic about Christians is how they are always celebrating their faith in God (as they should), but when an atheist, agnostic, etc, explains to them that their belief in God is a matter of faith, they become indignant.
Yes, you did...right here:
Explain to me how I misunderstood the above statement.
You know as well as I do that theories are not proof.
Sorry, I'm no more inclined to watch 10 minutes of those dildos than you're inclined to watch Joel Olsteen.
So, my original statement is true...you believe in something that you cannot prove. Just like a Christian's belief in the existence of God is something he can't prove. He can provide theories, and even some snarky youtube videos...but none of them satisfy your thirst for proof.
I still don't know why that's different. You answered before that it was because you can observe nature...even though nature has never been observed giving life to inanimate objects. So the logic is flawed, and inconsistent.
What is the right environment on earth that existed billions of years ago that served as a surrogate for glass tubes? You know, since we have absolute knowledge of what existed billions of years ago.
Well, I misspoke then.
Theories are explanations for facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact that evolution occurs. The theory of gravity explains the reality that is gravity.You know as well as I do that theories are not proof.
How are they dildos? They give Christians their fair chance to backup their beliefs. And one of them used to be a Christian who was studying a Baptist minister before he converted to atheism.Sorry, I'm no more inclined to watch 10 minutes of those dildos than you're inclined to watch Joel Olsteen.
I believe in something because there is good reason to. There has been extensive, peer-reviewed research done on the matter.So, my original statement is true...you believe in something that you cannot prove.
Given the fact that scientists have given us scientific explanations for countless natural phenomena, I see no reason why they can't find one for the origins of life.
Just because it cannot be demonstrated alone isn't enough to discredit it. I'll use the Pluto example from earlier:
Astronomers have come to the conclusion that Pluto's orbit lasts 248 years. Pluto was discovered in 1930, so how can astronomers make the claim that Pluto's orbit lasts 248 years? They do empirical research.
The belief that there is a God has not been tested. It cannot be tested and it will never be tested.Just like a Christian's belief in the existence of God is something he can't prove.
The belief that life came from inorganic material can be tested. It has been tested. It will continue to be tested.
No, Christians cannot provide scientific theories. Scientific theories aren't just ideas. They are subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the scientific community.He can provide theories, and even some snarky youtube videos...but none of them satisfy your thirst for proof.
One deals with that which can studied while the other does not. The claim that life came from non-life can be falsified. "God did it" cannot be falsified.I still don't know why that's different.
Using materials found in nature, a scientist was able to come up with organic material.You answered before that it was because you can observe nature...even though nature has never been observed giving life to inanimate objects.
No, it is not flawed because the two situations are not the same.So the logic is flawed, and inconsistent.
Why do you keep bringing up glass tubes? The glass tubes only held the material. The material itself was already available in nature.What is the right environment on earth that existed billions of years ago that served as a surrogate for glass tubes?
Why bring up absolute knowledge?You know, since we have absolute knowledge of what existed billions of years ago.
Also, why even bring supernatural into the equation anyway? Life had to come about in some way, did it not? Scientists have given natural explanations for it.
So far, can you give me an example of a supernatural explanation for an event being right and the natural, scientific explanation being wrong?
It happens...
Theories are the best available explanation for events...they are not facts, and they are not proof. That's why there are theories of science, and laws of science (like gravity).
Sorry man...I don't want to make these guys part of this discussion, but for every christian converted to atheist, I can give you an atheist converted to christian. It happens both ways.
Gotcha... my entire involvement so far in this discussion has been hoping that you'd acknowledge your belief system. Looks like you have one, you've acknowledged it, and you have a reason for it.
A reason could be that it didn't occur naturally...but science has already dismissed that as a possibility.
Or, they fire up their super powered telescope and watch Pluto, turn on their stopwatch, and provide a reasonable estimate for how long it'll take. I guess in 2148 we'll know if they're right.
Fine...but evidence can be provided to support the rational subscription to such a faith in God. To dismiss it as irrational is unfair and inaccurate.
Good luck with your scientific testing, and I hope your faith in it is rewarded.
It also can't be falsified that inanimate objects come to life naturally. You'll keep testing, with the belief that it will. So, why can't the Christian keep testing God's existence, with faith that it will be proven accurate?
Ahhh...so they're not the same! So why do you require the same proof standard of each?
In reference to the Miller experiment, it's entire basis is on the knowledge of the existence of materials available, in the state they were available in, billions of years ago. In order for that experiment to hold any relevance, we HAVE to obtain absolute knowledge of what was available, and we have to have the occurrence happen in it's natural setting, to claim that we observed it occurring naturally. Glass tubes and flasks are not a natural setting.
I must have missed that explanation...what is it? Not talking about theories, I'm talking about proof. Remember, hold yourself to the same standard you're holding the other side to.
No...because science isn't done testing yet.
SAScrub, do you think that faith in science and faith in religion are the exact same thing?
On the matter of origins both sides have placed their faith in postulates that are completely untestable, and frankly unprovable.
Believers accept this.
Unbelievers are in denial and will "go to great lengths to try and prove that they haven't placed their faith in anything."
Got it.
If I said that the invisible pink unicorn sneezed life into being, my claim should be taken as serious as abiogenesis and "God did it."
By the way, Phenomanul, I still haven't gotten those reasons why your god is real and why the other gods aren't.
You know he is the only god who exists, right? It shouldn't be so hard to give me a few reasons why.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
