Question for Peter Nyikos
Ray Martinez
Thanks.
Ray
abzorba
> I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>
> Thanks.
Well, as long as it's not directly in my face....
Myles (different strokes...) Paulsen
Ernest Major
<9a6c0e79-3797-4d4d...@v42g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
> In message
> <9a6c0e79-3797-4d4d-907d-50a5da9c4...@v42g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>
> For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>
>
>
> >Thanks.
>
> >Ray
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Didn't know that.
Perhaps he'll be back soon.
Thanks.
In the meantime maybe you could answer this question. What causes
persons to embrace Directed Panspermia?
Ray
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>In message
><9a6c0e79-3797-4d4d...@v42g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>
>For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
Third moon of Charon, right?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Burkhard
A variety of reasons I would guess.
One is as a "quick fix" for perceived problems in the standard model.
Step 1: identify a problem with the standard model (often by
misapplication of statistics), e.g.: Earth is not old enough/lacking
substance XYZ/etc for abiogenesis to have happened here. Hypothesise a
plant X that is earthlike but in addition has what earth seems to be
lacking, e.g is older. Do the "Sherlock inference" (once you
eliminate the impossible, what remains , however improbable, must be
true) and you seems to have an instant solution.
Two and three are similar and more psychological in nature: a) it is
more fun than the standard model (especially for SF readers) and does
not violate any scientific findings, b) sheer contrarianism - you
disagree with the mainstream without actually saying something
provably wrong.
Four is an argument from backward extrapolation: it is very likely
that we will be able in the near future to send some engineered
lifeforms to other planets (and may have accidentally already send
naturally occurring ones) If we can do that, someone else may have
done it in the past to Earth.
Most of the research I know seems t focus on whether panspermia is
possible in the first place, so what seems less common is that someone
is drawn to it by some form of positive evidence for it
Paul J Gans
If I recall the Nycosian argument, and I may well NOT properly
recall it, it ran something like this:
4.8 billion years is not long enough to evolve humans because
they are too complex. [This step is based on a probability
calculation that I believe is wrong.]
Since the earth is 4.8 billion years old or younger, then human
life could not evolve on earth.
On the other hand:
The universe is something like 13 or 14 billion years old so
that it is possible that life did evolve on a much older star
or stars with much older planets.
That form of life may have decided to seed the galaxy with life.
Conclusion: It is far more likely that we humans are the result
of panspermy than of indigeneous generation.
There was more, but I believe that's the essence of it.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
John S. Wilkins
> >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
> >
> >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>
> Third moon of Charon, right?
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Baron Bodissey
"That form of life may have decided to seed the galaxy with life. "
There was a sci-fi TV series a few decades ago that used that exact
argument to explain the resemblance of all the humanoid races
throughout the galaxy (rather than the more honest one of limited
special effects budget). I don't think it was Star Trek, but it could
have been.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon
*Hemidactylus*
Let's start small with plain ole panspermia first:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/08/09/science-dna-meteorites-asteroids.html
Now to get to your question about directed panspermia, perhaps a
hyperactive imagination fueled by science fiction.
Why do some people think computers will soon take over the world. Didn't
you just warn computer nerd about computers taking control over people
on another thread?
--
*Hemidactylus*
-the new messiah has arrived...the Holy Cornholio
http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/675057/beavis-and-butt-head-sdcc-11-sneak-peek.jhtml
*Hemidactylus*
> In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>
>>>> I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>>>
>>> For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>>
>> Third moon of Charon, right?
>
>
a tag.
John S. Wilkins
*Hemidactylus*
> In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>
>>>> I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>>>
>>> For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>>
>> Third moon of Charon, right?
>
John S. Wilkins
> On 08/13/2011 01:43 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
> >
> >>>> I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
> >>>
> >>> For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
> >>
> >> Third moon of Charon, right?
> >
> I think you might have mislabeled.
<insert extended swearing here>
Glenn
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1k5y3au.1e6xlajfxrbulN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>
> > >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
> > >
> > >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
> >
> > Third moon of Charon, right?
>
Ron O
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:24:27 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
> >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>
> >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>
> Third moon of Charon, right?
Trying to commune with his Masters the Spermites at whose feet he
grovels and thanks for his existence.
Ron Okimoto
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>
> > >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
> > >
> > >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
> >
> > Third moon of Charon, right?
I've heard of people being called lunatics, but never hiatustics before.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Ron O
Christianity fits in there somewhere.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
The earth cooled down enough to support life as we know it, and the
first evidence of life is something like 3.8 billion years old. It
may have taken over a billion years for eukaryotes to evolve.
Multicellular life likely didn't start up on the planet for over two
and a half billion years of single celled lifeforms living and dying
on the planet. The Cambrian explosion didn't happen until over three
billion years of life history on the planet. The panspermists were
very patient guys and believed in slow but steady wins the race. Behe
thinks that the designers could be dead. There doesn't seem to be any
panspermist activity today and they haven't done much of anything in
the last couple hundred million years. They designed the flagellum
around 2 billion years ago. The immune system and blood clotting
system around the Cambrian, and Behe is out of insights into what they
might have done since.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Picard's archeology mentor sent him around the quadrant to various
planets that had or once had life and decoded a hologram from all the
various DNA sources that told them that a humanoid race had seeded the
galaxy. It was so that the next generation wouldn't grow up in the
galaxy alone. The Star Trek aliens were all children of the
progenitors and the hope was that they would all grow up to be one big
happy family. If we had that kind of evidence alien progenitor
pamspermia would be a sure bet. Nyikos can put tricorders and alien
DNA on his wish list. It would also be a plug for Behe's front
loading to create humans. A few different random mutations and we
could have been Klingons or Andorians.
Ron Okimoto
Will in New Haven
> On Aug 12, 9:54 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> "That form of life may have decided to seed the galaxy with life. "
>
> There was a sci-fi TV series a few decades ago that used that exact
> argument to explain the resemblance of all the humanoid races
> throughout the galaxy (rather than the more honest one of limited
> special effects budget). I don't think it was Star Trek, but it could
> have been.
It was in the "back-story" of Star Trek. It doesn't get mentioned on-
screen all that often but it is part of the general concept.
--
Will in New Haven
Ray Martinez
In other words, insurmountable problems cause persons to embrace DP?
Ray
Ray Martinez
Thanks Paul.
But ToE says the divergence of man began any where from 4 to 8 million
years ago. How could Peter have a problem with 4.8 billion years?
My guess is that Peter Nyikos embraces DP because he views abiogenesis
to be impossible. Would you agree?
Ray
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>
> > >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
> > >
> > >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
> >
> > Third moon of Charon, right?
You just mooned Prof. Nyikos.
Ernest Major
<e0712ba5-de1f-4c89...@l9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Read what Burkhard wrote again; your precis is seriously inaccurate.
Ray Martinez
Why don't you just tells us why you think persons come to embrace DP?
Burkhard, in a long-winded way, says it is because of problems. Makes
sense.
Ray
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
> In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>
>> >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>> >
>> >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>>
>> Third moon of Charon, right?
Sure you didn't intend this as a CW?
T Pagano
How touching (and amusing) to watch Ernest Major defend his buddy.
>>
>>Ray
>>
Burkhard
Mhh? No, not what I said. The mistaken _belief_ that there are
insurmountable problems is for some DP adherents the reason they
embrace DP. This mistaken belief is normally caused by either faulty
or misapplied statistics, or the confusion between "we don't know yet"
with "there is an insurmountable problem".
Burkhard
Do you understand the difference between: "Person X believes there is
a problem" and "There is a problem"? Or is it another reading
difficulty that let you misrepresent what I said?
Will in New Haven
Well, if it is impossible HERE then it would be impossible wherever
these aliens happen to be. I don't know if he follows that logical
step or disagrees with it, based on an argument I have not seen or
heard.
At least he doesn't say "there are problems with science, so I better
be afraid of a fictional bronze-age being."
T Pagano
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
As usual Ray gets to the bottom of things with few words.
I suspect Ray's initial question was, in part, rhetorical. Panspermia
was a proposed solution to the problem of both a failed and stagnated
Abiogenesis. Yet (as Ray is well aware) Panspermia does not solve
this problem; it merely moves the problem elsewhere other than Earth.
Burkhard's Reason 1 expresses this directly.
_________________________________________________________
So if Panspermia doesn't solve the problem of the origin of life why
embrace it as a scientific theory?
__________________________________________________________
Burkhard's Reasons 2 and 3 are psychological reasons for choosing
Panspermia but not good scientific reasons. As such they are of
interest to the sociologist and not the evolutionary
biologist/biochemist.
___________________________________________________________
So if Panspermia doesn't solve the problem of the origin of life why
embrace it as a scientific theory?
__________________________________________________________
Interestingly Burkhard's Reason 4 is an argument from Intelligent
Design and is not consistent with Panspermia. Panspermia does not
explain the origin of life. It presumes its origin and hypothesizes
that it arrived from elsewhere via a number of pathways.
___________________________________________________________
So if Panspermia doesn't solve the problem of the origin of life why
embrace it as a scientific theory?
____________________________________________________________
>>
Regards,
T Pagano
Burkhard
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:15:10 +0100, Ernest Major
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In message
> ><e0712ba5-de1f-4c89-aa00-7547e3812...@l9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Ray wanted to know why people embrace panspermia. He did not ask: are
there any good scientific reasons to embrace panspermia?
All the reasons I gave are psychological reasons, with the possible
exception of 4.
>
______________________
> So if Panspermia doesn't solve the problem of the origin of life why
> embrace it as a scientific theory?
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Interestingly Burkhard's Reason 4 is an argument from Intelligent
> Design and is not consistent with Panspermia.
Of course it is. Where do you see an inconsistency?
>Panspermia does not
> explain the origin of life.
Nor does it claim to. It tries to explain the origins of life on
earth.
>It presumes its origin and hypothesizes
> that it arrived from elsewhere via a number of pathways.
Yes. So what?
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> So if Panspermia doesn't solve the problem of the origin of life why
> embrace it as a scientific theory?
> ____________________________________________________________
>
Because it would solve, if it were true, the problem of origins of
life on earth, which is an interesting question?
jillery
Because it took most of that time to get from goo to you.
>My guess is that Peter Nyikos embraces DP because he views abiogenesis
>to be impossible. Would you agree?
No, not impossible. Improbable here. More likely elsewhere and
elsewhen. I see at least three problems with his argument:
1. Solar systems that evolved earlier are less likely to have the
elements which complex life finds necessary on Earth. Does this mean
intelligent life elsewhere must use these same elements? No, but it
does make intelligent life less likely much sooner than Earth managed
it.
2. If all you do is move first life away from Earth, then you dismiss
what little knowledge and reasonable speculation there is of the
primordial Earth, and replace it with a place and time about which we
can know even less. So from a methodological POV, directed panspermia
is a bad bet.
3. Fermi showed that if spacefaring extraterrestrial intelligence
evolved even a few million years sooner than humans, we should see
evidence of their existence on Earth or out in space, but we don't. So
where are they?
Paul J Gans
>In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>> >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>> >
>> >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>>
>> Third moon of Charon, right?
Perhaps he eschewed the high class regions and just visited
the Styx?
Paul J Gans
>In article <1k5xqvt.1p3j68kx8kb52N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>>
>> > >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>> > >
>> > >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>> >
>> > Third moon of Charon, right?
>I've heard of people being called lunatics, but never hiatustics before.
I believe that those on hiatus are called "hernias" as in
"hiatus hernia".
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
Concerning 3, you're preaching to the choir.
Ray
Paul J Gans
I don't believe that Prof. Nyikos mentioned that in his original
formulation.
>>
>> --
>> --- Paul J. Gans
>The earth cooled down enough to support life as we know it, and the
>first evidence of life is something like 3.8 billion years old. It
>may have taken over a billion years for eukaryotes to evolve.
>Multicellular life likely didn't start up on the planet for over two
>and a half billion years of single celled lifeforms living and dying
>on the planet. The Cambrian explosion didn't happen until over three
>billion years of life history on the planet. The panspermists were
>very patient guys and believed in slow but steady wins the race. Behe
>thinks that the designers could be dead. There doesn't seem to be any
>panspermist activity today and they haven't done much of anything in
>the last couple hundred million years. They designed the flagellum
>around 2 billion years ago. The immune system and blood clotting
>system around the Cambrian, and Behe is out of insights into what they
>might have done since.
Ron, you can't refute panspermy. Even if we reproduce the spontaneous
formation of life on earth in a lab, panspermy is still possible.
The best one can say is that, in the sense of Occam, it is an
unneeded hypothesis.
In other words, those who think, as I do, that there are natural
explanations to observed phenomenon, require something like Occam
to keep things from becoming unnecessarily complex.
Ray Martinez
There isn't anyone who denies THE problem.
Whatever happened to "the present is the key to the past"?
You guys have been working on abiogenesis since Darwin published. How
many more years and decades must go by until you conclude the
proposition is impossible?
Here comes the downplay....
Ray
Paul J Gans
>In article <1k5xqvt.1p3j68kx8kb52N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> In the Astronomical Costs of Sabbaticals category:
>>
>> > >>I was wondering: what caused you to embrace Directed Panspermia?
>> > >
>> > >For your information, Professor Nyikos is on hiatus.
>> >
>> > Third moon of Charon, right?
>You just mooned Prof. Nyikos.
Mooning someone isn't all it's cracked up to be...
Burkhard
Well, I don't know for one what "the" problem is supposed to be
>
> Whatever happened to "the present is the key to the past"?
>
Nothing as far as I can see, why?
> You guys have been working on abiogenesis since Darwin published.
So what? We have been working on the nature of gravity since Newton
published (at least) and still have much to learn.
We have been working on the mathematics of the infinite ever since
Zeno and still can find new things that amazes us. The time since
Darwin is a mere blip.
But what we did do is find out quite a lot of very useful things,
including getting closer and closer to crate life from scratch
ourselves, and we also disproved several plausible hypothesis - one
of the way scientific knowledge grows.
> How
> many more years and decades must go by until you conclude the
> proposition is impossible?
>
Who can tell? Scientific progress can't be managed like that, and
sometimes you have to wait for a major breakthrough in another
discipline, a new form of equipment/technology or simply a genius
coming along to who can give a discipline a new approach. In the
meantime, scientists solve one small problem at a time.
Nothing we fund so far however points to an in-principle problem, just
lots of things we don;t know yet
Ron O
He claims that he is a Christian, and he doesn't like to post on
Sunday. IDiots tend to leave out those details for obvious reasons.
I don't think that I was trying to refute panspermia. Just point out
how nice it would be to have some real evidence. Some new genetic
material arriving in a super space probe and getting integrated in
existing species would be an event that we could document. The
universe as we know it could have been created after I supposedly
started to write this post. We can't disprove that, but we don't
consider such things unless there is some reason to consider them.
Just think how ridiculous science would become if not being able to
disprove something was the end all and be all of a notions existence.
Ron Okimoto
DanaTweedy
No, Ray. The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about when the
line that evolved into humans diverged from the last common ancestor.
The theory of evolution explains how evolution happened.
It's the evidence that shows that hominids split off approximately 7
million years ago.
> How could Peter have a problem with 4.8 billion years?
Who knows? You'd have to ask him.
>
> My guess is that Peter Nyikos embraces DP because he views abiogenesis
> to be impossible. Would you agree?
If he does, he'd be wrong. Abiogenesis is obviously not impossible,
because it's happened at least once.
DJT
DanaTweedy
snip
>>
>> Do you understand the difference between: "Person X believes there is
>> a problem" and "There is a problem"? Or is it another reading
>> difficulty that let you misrepresent what I said?
>
> There isn't anyone who denies THE problem.
The only "problem" is that the exact chemical process is not yet known.
>
> Whatever happened to "the present is the key to the past"?
It's still there. It's been found to be more useful than "assume that
the religious belief I have is correct".
>
> You guys have been working on abiogenesis since Darwin published.
Longer than that, of course.
> How
> many more years and decades must go by until you conclude the
> proposition is impossible?
Right after one concedes that heavier than air flight is impossible....
or maybe concedes that one can't split the atom.... or one concedes
that eradicating smallpox is impossible....
At one time, people thought those were impossible too.
>
> Here comes the downplay....
And here Ray shows he does not grasp how science works.
DJT
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
What part of "abiogenesis happened at least once" do you not
understand? Life is here on earth so it had to have happend somehow,
whether here or on a distant planet it obviously started. How, not
_if_, it started is the question.
You think goddit, scientists say naturedidit. Unfortunately for you,
science has evidence on its side.
Harry K
Ray Martinez
Newcomers: The person above (DJT) is (like all Atheists) a believer in
abiogenesis despite 150 years of failure, yet he claims to be a
Christian. So please don't mistake him for an Atheist.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Just like I predicted below: the downplay.
>
>
> > Here comes the downplay....
>
> > Ray
Ray
Ray Martinez
Blind faith.
Over 150 years of working full time on the problem and zip to show for
it. For everyone else 150 years means abiogenesis is proven to be
impossible. The ToE is falsified right here.
But let's assume a miracle occurs tomorrow and the problem is solved.
It still took 150 years of Ph.D. intelligence to create life from non-
life. You still lose.
> whether here or on a distant planet it obviously started. How, not
> _if_, it started is the question.
>
> You think goddit, scientists say naturedidit. Unfortunately for you,
> science has evidence on its side.
>
> Harry K
150 years speaks for itself. Sane persons got the picture and message
long ago.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Ray, you know that Dana is not atheist. What bizarre religious cult do
you belong to that you feel the need to lie about other people all the
time?
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
Anyone who believes in abiogenesis, like all Atheists, the same
equates to strong evidence that their claim of Christianity is false.
Ray
Ray Martinez
What makes you think that a person can believe in abiogenesis and be a
real Christian? Do you even know what abiogenesis claims?
Christians believe Genesis 1:1 is true.
Ray
Steven L.
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:9f974a00-163d-49ec...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 12, 11:16 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 9:54 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > "That form of life may have decided to seed the galaxy with life. "
> >
> > There was a sci-fi TV series a few decades ago that used that exact
> > argument to explain the resemblance of all the humanoid races
> > throughout the galaxy (rather than the more honest one of limited
> > special effects budget). I don't think it was Star Trek, but it could
> > have been.
>
> It was in the "back-story" of Star Trek. It doesn't get mentioned on-
> screen all that often but it is part of the general concept.
It was first mentioned in the Trek episode "The Paradise Syndrome,"
aired in 1968.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:j24lh1$n49$8...@reader1.panix.com:
> If I recall the Nycosian argument, and I may well NOT properly
> recall it, it ran something like this:
>
> 4.8 billion years is not long enough to evolve humans because
> they are too complex. [This step is based on a probability
> calculation that I believe is wrong.]
>
> Since the earth is 4.8 billion years old or younger, then human
> life could not evolve on earth.
>
> On the other hand:
>
> The universe is something like 13 or 14 billion years old so
> that it is possible that life did evolve on a much older star
> or stars with much older planets.
>
> That form of life may have decided to seed the galaxy with life.
And that's the odd thing about Nyikos' theory of panspermia: It
postulates *conscious intent* on the part of some alien
civilization--which is assuming far more than panspermia needs. Why not
a natural event: A comet might hit an inhabited planet and blast enough
spores out into space (hitch-hiking on some small meteorites) till they
reach the Earth.
-- Steven L.
RAM
BS - your religious cult is so small, insignificant and a..holish as
to make zero difference in Christian thought.
Your numerous pronouncements about who is a Christian are tiresome.
No one cares, except for the kook, what a religious kook thinks.
Christianity will evolve to a more humane weltanschauung if it is to
survive as a viable religious community in the future. If it has more
devotes like you if is destined for extinction. Religious kooks like
you are extremist who show the weaknesses of their religious vision.
That's why no one is rushing to be like Ray M.
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Not literally. We know as a matter of fact that it is not literally
true. Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
So facts don't matter to you because you have faith in things that are
known to be wrong.
Paul J Gans
I agree with that. And I was not defending him. In fact
I strongly suspect that Peter loveth me not.
Dana Tweedy
Ray, you seem to be claiming that the research into abiogenesis so far has been a "failure", when it's at worst a work in progress. It should also be noted that many religious persons (such as myself) believe that abiogenesis happened at least once on Earth, as life exists. Many atheists (but not all) may accept that abiogenesis happened, but it's hardly a defining characteristic of the group.
>yet he claims to be a
> Christian.
I am a Christian, and like many Christians, I accept scientific concepts such as abiogenesis. Ray can't seem to grasp that accepting science does not make one an atheist.
> So please don't mistake him for an Atheist.
Please don't mistake Ray for a Christian, or a person who has faith in God.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 14, 2:03 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
On Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:33:08 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2:03 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
Ray, as you already know, not all atheists accept abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an obvious conclusion from the evidence that life has appeared on Earth at least once. It has nothing to do with a belief in God. There are many Christians who accept abiogenesis.
It's pretty clear that the one who has a false claim to Christianity is Ray himself.
DJT
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 14, 2:03 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
On Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:39:36 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2:03 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
The same reason I think that someone can like mashed potatoes and be a "Real Christian". There's no particular reason why the two ideas are incompatible.
God created life, and abiogenesis was his method of creating it.
> Do you even know what abiogenesis claims?
I do. I suspect you don't.
>
> Christians believe Genesis 1:1 is true.
Some Christians do, but most who have an education, and can think for themselves accept that Genesis isn't a science text. There's nothing in Genesis that says that God can't create through natural processes
There are also false "Christians" who claim to believe Genesis 1:1 but have no faith in God, and worship their own ego. That kind of person calls Christians who accept science to be "atheists".
DJT
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 13, 1:25 pm, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Aug 13, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez
> >
> > > > > On Aug 13, 11:15 am, Ernest Major <{$t....@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In message
> > > > > > <e0712ba5-de1f-4c89...@l9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > > > > > Martinez
> writes
> >
> > > > > > >On Aug 12, 3:26 pm, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Aug 12, 10:01 pm, Ray Martinez
> >
> > > > > > >> > On Aug 12, 12:24 am, Ernest Major <{$t....@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >> > > In message
> > > > > > >> > > <9a6c0e79-3797-4d4d...@v42g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > > > > > >> > > Martinez
No, Ray. Acceptance of abiogenesis comes from the evidence that anyone can see for him or her self. No faith is required to accept science.
>
> Over 150 years of working full time on the problem and zip to show for
> it.
Actually, there's been quite a lot of productive findings into abiogenesis over the last 150 years, and more. The whole picture is still not entirely known, but a lot of the pieces are filling in. 150 years ago, no one knew about RNA world, about undersea vents, the production of organic molecules from the atmosphere.
How well has your own method, ie assuming your religious belief and ignoring the evidence worked out?
>For everyone else 150 years means abiogenesis is proven to be
> impossible. The ToE is falsified right here.
First of all, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on any particular theory of abiogenesis. Evolution can be observed happening right now, and it's more than well established enough on it's own. Second, as I've pointed out before, just because there isn't a working theory to explain abiogenesis now, doesn't mean there will never be. It took longer than 150 years to solve the riddle of heavier than air flight. Likewise for germ theory, atomic theory, and many others.
What's known about abiogenesis today is much more than was known 150 years ago. The research going on has not been a failure. What has failed is assuming one knows the "truth" and not looking at any contrary evidence.
>
> But let's assume a miracle occurs tomorrow and the problem is solved.
> It still took 150 years of Ph.D. intelligence to create life from non-
> life. You still lose.
Ray, the search for abiogenesis is an attempt to find out how it could happen in nature. The amount of intelligence it requires to figure this out has no bearing on how the process itself came about. It took a great deal of intelligence and research to find out how to create atomic fusion works, but no one claims the sun has to have been made in a lab.
>
> > whether here or on a distant planet it obviously started. How, not
> > _if_, it started is the question.
> >
> > You think goddit, scientists say naturedidit. Unfortunately for you,
> > science has evidence on its side.
> >
> > Harry K
>
> 150 years speaks for itself.
Yes, it says 'more research in needed', not "give up".
>Sane persons got the picture and message
> long ago.
They are the ones still working on the problem. It's the unintelligent, and insane who claim that it must be impossible just because the process isn't known yet.
DJT
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
As suspected. YOu have no clue as to the definistion of "abiogenesis"
Life from non-life. Even geneses includes that. Handful of dust to
life.
Harry K
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
Errmmm...Ray: Genesis _is_ abiogeneses. First there was no life,
then there was. How that came about is the question. You erroniously
insist it was god. scientists know better.
Harry K
Ernest Major
<bb5aa675-c5c2-4d24...@b34g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
You're not God. You don't get to define Christianity. As it is, your
position is heretical (it adds to the creeds), idolatrous (worshipping
the Bible) and blasphemous (falsely speaking for God).
>
>Christians believe Genesis 1:1 is true.
Do you even know what Genesis 1:1 claims?
1) There's nothing against abiogenesis in Genesis 1:1.
2) Christians don't all adopt a hyperliteral reading of Genesis 1:1
Ernest Major
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
That is a feature, not a bug. It allows him to argue (badly) that
Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis.
> Why not a natural event: A comet might hit an inhabited planet and
>blast enough spores out into space (hitch-hiking on some small
>meteorites) till they reach the Earth.
>
Probability estimates can be either theoretical (based on a model) or
emperical (based on observation). In the cases of spontaneous
terrestrial abiogenesis and the various forms are panspermia neither can
be made with any useful degree of precision. (People used to joke that
astronomers had error bars on their exponents; it's probably worse
here.)
Therefore probability based estimates are of limited value here. But
spontaneous non-local panspermia looks like a low probability event -
both the chance of a life-carrying meteorite getting from one
life-compatible planet to another, and the chance of life surviving the
journey are low. (The large number of trials offsets this to some,
unknown, degree. Therefore there is scope for arguing that directed
panspermia is more likely than spontaneous panspermia.
--
alias Ernest Major
Roger Shrubber
He asserts something of the following form. For sufficiently large
N, given N galaxies, with M instances of life arising spontaneously,
and generally supposing M < N or at least not large relative to N,
by our ~14 billion years in 'age of universe', there will be many
more instances of planets with Earth-like life that are the result
of directed panspermy than due to in-situ abiogenesis.
You will not find such clarity from him directly.
There's more. Our particular biochemistry p(Earth) is apparently less
probable than the probability of some alternative biochemistry
p(Xordax)times Z, the probable number of engineered ecosystems
produced by a typical instance of Xordaxians.
According to the above pile of assertions, observing Earth-like
molecular biochemistry is more likely due to directed panspermy
because Z * p(Xordax) > p(Earth). That's simplifying the temporal
aspects of the probability distributions, and ignores some of the
constraints imposed by the Fermi Paradox, but a few more ad hoc
assertions readily address specific complaints.
What isn't adequately done by the model, is defend the steaming
pile of ad-hoc assertions that produce various p(Xordax) and
associated Z (presumably, different civilizations would have
different levels of panspermic fecundy). And the completely
theoretical Xordaxian biochemistry is asserted to be more
accessible through purely naturalistic evolution than the
observable biochemistry of Earth.
But Ray wants to know why?
I say because inventing this brand of chained assertions
supports a self-deluded image of dispassionate objectivity
that simultaneously supports incredulity over Earthbound
abiogenesis. There are no rational and objective probability
estimates in the model, just rationalized assertions. So
it is an ad hoc rationalization that simultaneously
supports a self-image of being rational in evaluating he
world, rather than biased by religious dogma, but is
compatible with a variation of religious dogma that he
perceives to be more virtuous than abject atheism.
Tim Anderson
Yes. So?
Rolf
What makes you the one and only authority on the subject?
> Ray
Rolf
How come you always are one step ahead, with your 'prediction' ready?
Why bother with debate when you know everything already?
Rolf
'Darwinist' claims that abiogenesis is an established fact. All we know is
that life had a beginning, and that we do not know how it began. It could be
God, the FSM, the little green men - or just nature at work.
But we believe int the possibility that it might be a result of nstural
forces at work and have yet to see any reason why that could not be the
case.
As long as something appears potentially possible as a natural phenomenon, i
t is in the nature of science to pursue research in order to determine
whether that road leads anywhere or not.
We haven't reached the end yet, and Ray Martinez may be THE person on this
planet least qualified to issue statements about it.
May I add that some rather significant and encouraging results have been
obtained and I see no reason to rule out natural causes; to me the question
seems more to be about how long it will take us to get there.
We don't need to create life; we only need to show that miracles are not
required. That's the only miracle left to dispose of, all the others are
down the drain already.
Rolf
> Ray
Burkhard
>snip>
>
> > > There isn't anyone who denies THE problem.
>
> > > Whatever happened to "the present is the key to the past"?
>
> > > You guys have been working on abiogenesis since Darwin published. How
> > > many more years and decades must go by until you conclude the
> > > proposition is impossible?
>
> > > Here comes the downplay....
>
> > > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What part of "abiogenesis happened at least once" do you not
> > understand? Life is here on earth so it had to have happend somehow,
>
> Blind faith.
>
> Over 150 years of working full time on the problem and zip to show for
> it.
Quite a lot to show for it, you are just not aware of the relevant
literature. Abiogenesis research is pretty much a minority interest
pursued by only a handfull of scientists worldwide. Despite this,
their research has much enhanced our insight into possible mechanisms
to form life, has identified likely precursors to DNA, has tested many
other hypotheses and falsified them and discovered anddescribed
numeros chemical reactions which but for abiogenesis reseachh, we
would not understand as good as we do now. At the same time, and from
a different motivation, our ability to create cells from scratch
ourselves has vastly improved.
Here you can read up on soem of the results:
Luisi, Pier Luigi (2006). The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins
to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press.
Martin, W. and Russell M.J. (2002). "On the origins of cells: a
hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry
to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated
cells". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological
sciences 358 (1429): 59–83; discussion 83–5.
Hazen, R. M. (2005) Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin.
Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press,
>For everyone else 150 years means abiogenesis is proven to be
> impossible. The ToE is falsified right here.
The ToE has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and even if abiogenesis
were proven false, the facts would still suport the theory of
evolution.
>
> But let's assume a miracle occurs tomorrow and the problem is solved.
> It still took 150 years of Ph.D. intelligence to create life from non-
> life. You still lose.
I think this brings your problem to the point. The thing you can't
cope with is that science is difficult, requires hard work, often goes
wrong and therefore takes lots of time. You just don't want to put in
the hard work to improve our understanding little step bzy little
step, and prefer the easy and cheap option of instant relevations
instead. Instand relevations are to hard-won scientific insight what
instant coffee is to the real thing, or watching football to playing
football.
Rolf
> On Aug 13, 4:42 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> recall it, it ran something like this:
>>
>>>> 4.8 billion years is not long enough to evolve humans because
>>>> they are too complex. [This step is based on a probability
>>>> calculation that I believe is wrong.]
>>
>>>> Since the earth is 4.8 billion years old or younger, then human
>>>> life could not evolve on earth.
>>
>>>> On the other hand:
>>
>>>> The universe is something like 13 or 14 billion years old so
>>>> that it is possible that life did evolve on a much older star
>>>> or stars with much older planets.
>>
>>>> That form of life may have decided to seed the galaxy with life.
>>
>>>> of panspermy than of indigeneous generation.
>>
>>>> There was more, but I believe that's the essence of it.
>>
>>>> --- Paul J. Gans
>>
>>
>>> But ToE says the divergence of man began any where from 4 to 8
>>> million years ago. How could Peter have a problem with 4.8 billion
>>> years?
>>
>> Because it took most of that time to get from goo to you.
>>
>>> My guess is that Peter Nyikos embraces DP because he views
>>> abiogenesis to be impossible. Would you agree?
>>
>> No, not impossible. Improbable here. More likely elsewhere and
>> elsewhen. I see at least three problems with his argument:
>>
>> 1. Solar systems that evolved earlier are less likely to have the
>> elements which complex life finds necessary on Earth. Does this mean
>> intelligent life elsewhere must use these same elements? No, but it
>> does make intelligent life less likely much sooner than Earth managed
>> it.
>>
>> 2. If all you do is move first life away from Earth, then you dismiss
>> what little knowledge and reasonable speculation there is of the
>> primordial Earth, and replace it with a place and time about which we
>> can know even less. So from a methodological POV, directed panspermia
>> is a bad bet.
>>
>> 3. Fermi showed that if spacefaring extraterrestrial intelligence
>> evolved even a few million years sooner than humans, we should see
>> evidence of their existence on Earth or out in space, but we don't.
>> So where are they?
>
> Concerning 3, you're preaching to the choir.
With you evading the issue.
>
> Ray
Rolf
> On Aug 13, 1:25 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 7:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:>>>> <e0712ba5-de1f-4c89-aa00-7547e3812...@l9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>> DP?
>>
>>>> Read what Burkhard wrote again; your precis is seriously
>>>> inaccurate.
>>
>>
>>>> --
>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>
>>> DP?
>>
>>> Burkhard, in a long-winded way, says it is because of problems.
>>> Makes sense.
>>
>> a problem" and "There is a problem"? Or is it another reading
>> difficulty that let you misrepresent what I said?
>
>
> Whatever happened to "the present is the key to the past"?
>
> You guys have been working on abiogenesis since Darwin published. How
> many more years and decades must go by until you conclude the
> proposition is impossible?
>
Wrong, wrong, wrong. We have not been working on abiogenesis since Darwin
published.
The first attempt at an experiment relating to abiogenesis was performed 93
years after 'Origins.'
Advanced research with potential to evolve to a level that may yield heavier
results is a much later development.
We pursue the subject until we can draw an educated, intelligent conclusion.
Why don't you wish us luck istead? Not that we need it, but why are you so
concerned about it?
I don't mind wishing you luck with your crusade (and book, LOL).
Rolf
But what do YOU think?
I think persons embrace DP because they don't want to believe life is an
outcome of natural processes on our planet.
> Ray
Steven L.
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K$BtZjEF7...@meden.invalid:
Directed panspermia depends on the past existence of advanced
extraterrestrial civilizations (i.e., high values for all but the last
term of the Drake Equation).
Yet Nyikos has never bothered to discuss the probability of that. He
just blithely assumes it implicitly and goes on from there.
-- Steven L.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Odd way of expressing agreement.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Imagine that; Genesis is scientifically correct afterall! LOL!
What then is preventing your conversion?
Ray
Ray Martinez
I think DP is embraced because abiogenesis is considered impossible.
Ray
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
All this really says is that I am a real Christian and Dana (believer
in abiogenesis) is not.
Like I have always said: Atheists (in this case RAM) would never
support a real Christian.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:33:08 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good description of abiogenesis.
The fact that the problem has not been solved in 150 years, yet
Atheists/Darwinists have faith in it anyway.
Ray
Vincent Maycock
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5t0e4795ev7frihke...@4ax.com...
snip
> 3. Fermi showed that if spacefaring extraterrestrial intelligence
> evolved even a few million years sooner than humans, we should see
> evidence of their existence on Earth or out in space, but we don't. So
> where are they?
Maybe abiogenesis is far less likely than we previously thought.
Ray Martinez
Your belief that Atheists and Christians can accept the same
explanation for the origin of life is quality evidence supporting the
fact that you are genuinely deluded.
Ray
>
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
Then what is the Atheist view for the origin of life, what is it
called?
Your "view" has everyone working to show how God created. Sorry,
Atheists are not working to show how God (that which does not exist)
created.
Ray
> > Do you even know what abiogenesis claims?
>
> I do. I suspect you don't.
>
>
>
> > Christians believe Genesis 1:1 is true.
>
> Some Christians do, but most who have an education, and can think for themselves accept that Genesis isn't a science text. There's nothing in Genesis that says that God can't create through natural processes
>
> There are also false "Christians" who claim to believe Genesis 1:1 but have no faith in God, and worship their own ego. That kind of person calls Christians who accept science to be "atheists".
>
> DJT
>
>
>
>
>
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
How rational is a belief that presupposes intelligent life to exist
elsewhere in the universe in full knowledge that modern science has
not discovered such life?
Ray
Ernest Major
<48b8ff5f-9dc3-43ed...@s18g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Is it rational to believe that such planets exist?
Until recently science had not discovered planets outside the solar
system. Was it rational to believe that such planets existed beforehand?
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
snip
> >
> > So facts don't matter to you because you have faith in things that are
> > known to be wrong.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Good description of abiogenesis.
Where has abiogenesis been shown to be wrong, Ray?
>
> The fact that the problem has not been solved in 150 years,
That the exact process of abiogenesis has not yet been found does not indicate that it will never be found. There's been much progress in learning about how life began. Remember that scientists aren't really trying to make new life appear, they are trying to figure out how it came about in the first place.
> yet
> Atheists/Darwinists have faith in it anyway.
Again, Ray, you don't understand what faith is. You also don't seem to understand that acceptance of an idea based on evidence is not faith. Abiogenesis happened at least once on Earth, because life is here. It was most likely a natural process, but even if it was magic, it still happened.
Science doesn't always produce instant results, but it does produce results, unlike your own preferred method of simply assuming what you want to believe.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 14, 8:04 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:33:08 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Aug 14, 2:03 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> > > wrote in talk.origins:
> >
Why, Ray? Atheists and Christians accept many of the same explanations for natural events. Why should the origin of life be any different?
Your own delusion keeps you from understanding why educated persons of all religious traditions accept science.
You keep claiming I'm deluded, but the evidence is always on my side. Why do you suppose that is?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 14, 2:03 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > > >
How do you justify such a claim, Ray? Your actions have never been those of a "real Christian", and my acceptance of abiogenesis has no bearing on whether or not I am.
>
> Like I have always said: Atheists (in this case RAM) would never
> support a real Christian.
No matter how often you state a falsehood, it is still false. The "support" someone gives to another is mostly based on whether that person is factually correct, not his or her religious beliefs are of one type. I am "supported" because I'm right. You get rejected because you are wrong. It's that simple.
DJT
Roger Shrubber
It would be irrational to believe in the existence of something
unseen that one rationally expects to see. That doesn't fit to
believing in the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence
as one doesn't rationally expect to observe it.
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 14, 8:12 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:39:36 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Aug 14, 2:03 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> > > wrote in talk.origins:
> >
Individual atheists I'm sure have their own views as to the origin of life. Educated individuals would tend to accept the findings of science, and accept that the most likely origin of life was a natural process. Abiogenesis is the process of life coming from non life. Atheists believe, by and large, that such an event was without any supernatural influence. I, and many other Christians believe that the event was God's way of creating.
>
> Your "view" has everyone working to show how God created.
Here's where you are in error. My "view" is that God creates through natural processes. Such a view is not held by atheists, as they don't believe in God. We both accept that natural processes are how life began. I believe in God, and that God is behind such processes. Atheists accept the process, but don't believe God was behind it.
> Sorry,
> Atheists are not working to show how God (that which does not exist)
> created.
Atheists do not believe that God exists, so they don't believe God is behind the natural processes by which life began. That's the difference between atheists and Christians, not that Christians can't accept scientific findings.
Your delusional state forces you to reject solid scientific findings because atheists accept such findings. This makes as little sense as someone rejecting apples because atheists eat apples too.
Atheists may not believe that God creates by natural processes, but they can't stop me from believing that God does create that way.
It doesn't matter to me what atheists might be "working towards" because I'm not an atheist. I believe what I feel is right. Your paranoid fantasy that atheists would reject things if they thought it would support Christianity is just a paranoid fantasy.
> > Some Christians do, but most who have an education, and can think for themselves accept that Genesis isn't a science text. There's nothing in Genesis that says that God can't create through natural processes
> >
> > There are also false "Christians" who claim to believe Genesis 1:1 but have no faith in God, and worship their own ego. That kind of person calls Christians who accept science to be "atheists".
No comment here, Ray?
Why not?
DJT
jillery
wrote:
It may be. What does that have to do with the Fermi Paradox?
Dana Tweedy
> >
> > As suspected. YOu have no clue as to the definistion of "abiogenesis"
> > Life from non-life. Even geneses includes that. Handful of dust to
> > life.
> >
> > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Imagine that; Genesis is scientifically correct afterall! LOL!
Ray, Harry didn't say that. He didn't even suggest it. Your own inability to read for comprehension is showing.
Abiogenesis is, as pointed out, merely life from non life. There are various scientific concepts relating to abiogenesis, but there are also religious ones.
>
> What then is preventing your conversion?
It would appear to be the complete lack of evidence for your preferred method of abiogenesis. You have no mechanism, no observations, and no reason anyone should accept your claims.
DJT
RAM
support religious fanatics, like you Ray, who claim to know the mind
of God and think they know who is a "true" Christian.
Handled any snakes or drank poison lately. Mark 16:18.
If not some of my hillbilly friends would claim you are not a "true"
Christian.
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 15, 4:06 am, Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Burkhard wrote:
> > > On Aug 12, 10:01 pm, Ray Martinez
> > >> On Aug 12, 12:24 am, Ernest Major<{$t....@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >>> In message
> > >>> <9a6c0e79-3797-4d4d...@v42g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > >>> Martinez
Ray, modern science has not discovered any evidence of the supernatural either. There's no evidence that the Pyramids were built by people for Atlantis. There's no evidence that life was poofed into existence. There's no evidence of a global flood.
Are you actually saying that you don't find it rational to believe in something that there is no scientific evidence for?
If so, you are endorsing atheism.
DJT
Ray Martinez
To be honest, your reply is baffling. Could you notify your
interpreter that their presence is needed?
Ray
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
And your willingness to ignore all evidence that your claims are
mistaken show us that you are genuinely dishonest.
Dana Tweedy
snip
> >
> > So facts don't matter to you because you have faith in things that are
> > known to be wrong.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Good description of abiogenesis.
Where has abiogenesis been shown to be wrong, Ray?
>
> The fact that the problem has not been solved in 150 years,
That the exact process of abiogenesis has not yet been found does not indicate that it will never be found. There's been much progress in learning about how life began. Remember that scientists aren't really trying to make new life appear, they are trying to figure out how it came about in the first place.
> yet
> Atheists/Darwinists have faith in it anyway.
Roger Shrubber
> On Aug 15, 3:25 pm, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 4:06 am, Roger Shrubber<rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> How rational is a belief that presupposes intelligent life to exist
>>> elsewhere in the universe in full knowledge that modern science has
>>> not discovered such life?
>>
>> It would be irrational to believe in the existence of something
>> unseen that one rationally expects to see. That doesn't fit to
>> believing in the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence
>> as one doesn't rationally expect to observe it.
>
> To be honest, your reply is baffling. Could you notify your
> interpreter that their presence is needed?
What is your rational expectation of observing extra-terrestrial
intelligence if there are 10 planets in the Milky Way with the
type of intelligence you hope to observe?
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
You have made it clear that you think that you are the only living
Christian on earth. Your ego is remarkable.
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>Good description of abiogenesis.
>
>The fact that the problem has not been solved in 150 years, yet
>Atheists/Darwinists have faith in it anyway.
What do you think the world was like before life existed on it?
Burkhard
It is not that difficult I'd say. It simply says that absence of
evidence is evidence of absence only if we should rationally expect
the evidence to be easy to find. Example: the fact that I do not
observe a green monster under my bed is good evidence that ther eis no
green monsterunder my bed.
But if we have good reasons that we simply can't see (yet) the
evidence, due e.g. to limitations in our equipment, absence of
evidence is not sufficient to reject a theory. Example: we can assume
that even stars in galaxies far far away have stars, because this
follows from our best theories about the formation of the universe.
However, we know the limiations of our equipment, which made it until
recently impossible to see them. But now we are able to identify more
and ore of them as our ability to search improves.