Hawking believes in abiogenesis. Where the evidence?--wait there is none-- he is a theorist---
Joseki
Vince Morgan
To say the universe is a natural consequence of it's own (as yet non
existent) properties is absolute bable. Perhaps this book is simply his way
of hanging his arse out the window, and getting paid for it.
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:037028ef-c89a-4107...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
spudnik
where does it all, go -- is there really any need
for abiogenesis, theoretically?
when will they carbon-date the "fossilized fuel TM?"
--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
Yap
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
You must be a nut to think that our solar system is just made by your
god for human only?
There are countless planets and systems out there where there is a
very good chance of another civilization.
The problem with verification is how to get there when the distance is
in light years and light years.
But if you do have a god, we don't mind your god providing some kind
of "space ship" that can break the barriers of distance.
Of course, you don't have a god and this universe never has one,
PERIOD.
Tim Miller
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
And he's SO much smarter than you. You're not even a Pet Rock
by comparison.
raven1
<jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
You seem badly confused. Hawking is talking about physics; abiogenesis
is part of biology, and has nothing to do with the creation of the
universe.
Vince Morgan
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5c0b143-8648-4800...@x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
I'm talking about a theory, what are you talking about?
Vince Morgan
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:82h08658loidpu0ci...@4ax.com...
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create
itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something
rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in
The Grand Design, which is being serialised by The Times newspaper.
[/quote]
Am I realy?
Vince Morgan
No, I don't think so. I didn't write the headline. And what I did write
didn't mention 'abiogenics' as far as I can see. Of course if you feel that
this is infered, then you might just be correct.
Vince Morgan
If Hawking is writing physics, then statements such as "Because there is a
law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
should be accompanied by some theory wouldn't you think? Like, how? By
what means does a universs create itself due to it's as yet non existent
'future' properties?
Accepting arguments on the basis of who the writer is, rather than the
content, is a matter of faith, is it not? He isn't writing physics as there
is no theory proposed whatsoever.
Vince Morgan
"Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c8046e1$0$3031$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
[quote]
why we exist
[/quote]
We are biological entities are we not?
Pink Freud
er... It's part of his new book, I believe.. serialised in The Telegraph I
think. You could check there, if you are that bothered.
PS I have a MAJOR hunch that there IS in fact a theory that accompanies the
statement! Unless it's a different Stephen Hawking than the one I'm familiar
with - you know, the one who is one of the most respected physicists in the
world?
PPS You confuse 'faith' with 'reputation'. Thanks for confirming that
Hawkins has a pretty damn good one.
Vince Morgan
"Pink Freud" <some...@here.com> wrote in message
news:z6Yfo.33486$ee6....@newsfe28.ams2...
You have a 'MAJOR hunch'? That's very scientific of you. I have a MAJOR
hunch that you are wrong.
> statement! Unless it's a different Stephen Hawking than the one I'm
familiar
> with - you know, the one who is one of the most respected physicists in
the
> world?
> PPS You confuse 'faith' with 'reputation'. Thanks for confirming that
Nope, not at all.
[quote]"loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the
faith"[/quote]
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:faith&sa=X&ei=sFSATJqBGo-2vQO3z4iKBA&ved=0CBQQkAE
Pink Freud
Then you're an idiot. That's not a hunch BTW.
>> statement! Unless it's a different Stephen Hawking than the one I'm
> familiar
>> with - you know, the one who is one of the most respected physicists in
> the
>> world?
>> PPS You confuse 'faith' with 'reputation'. Thanks for confirming that
>
> Nope, not at all.
> [quote]"loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the
> faith"[/quote]
> http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:faith&sa=X&ei=sFSATJqBGo-2vQO3z4iKBA&ved=0CBQQkAE
>
I don't care about your definition. I notice you didn't quote one for
'reputation'. Too much of a coward to look it up, were we?
>
>
Richo
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
No mention of abiogenesis at all.
You appear to be hallucinating.
Mark.
Vince Morgan
Bye troll PLONK
Pink Freud
It seems he was.
>> >
>
> Bye troll PLONK
>
>
Wexford
wrote:
> I think Hawking has a desperate need for attention.
> To say the universe is a natural consequence of it's own (as yet non
> existent) properties is absolute bable. Perhaps this book is simply his way
> of hanging his arse out the window, and getting paid for it.
>
>
> news:037028ef-c89a-4107...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
Why is Hawking babbling and people who claim "god did it" are not?
While you're at it, define God for us, will you?
Vince Morgan
"Wexford" <wry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ece9ce37-52e9-4cb4...@q2g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 7:59 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> I think Hawking has a desperate need for attention.
> To say the universe is a natural consequence of it's own (as yet non
> existent) properties is absolute bable. Perhaps this book is simply his
way
> of hanging his arse out the window, and getting paid for it.
>
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:037028ef-c89a-4107...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
Why is Hawking babbling and people who claim "god did it" are not?
While you're at it, define God for us, will you?
Huh?
Ohhhhh, silly silly me. You, and others apparently, think I am arguing from
a religious position. You seem to think that if I don't support Hawking's
view I must believe in a God creator.
Well, allow me to tell you what the point I'm making actualy is.
Physics is a scientific endevour. Therefore there are some constraints.
There has been an onging debate in the sci.physics.electromag group over
causality. You might like to go and peruse it for yourself.
Electrodynamics, being a science, has the same scientific contraints.
I can't be sure you have even read the link to the document in question, but
I shall assume you have. If so, you have read the following quote from
Hawking.
[quote]
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create
itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something
rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"
[/quote]
"create itself from nothing". So, whilest it doesn't yet exist it can, and
will, create itself.
Do you know that something cannot be the cause of something else, if the
something else doesn't yet even exist? That the effect cannot procede the
cause? Do you realize that Hawking has not as yet overturned 'causality',
nor offered any valid alternative, and therefore his book has virtualy
nothing to do with physics.
If you were to go to the doctor with a bleeding nose and he were to inform
you that the cause of the bleeding is/was an accident you are going to have
tomorrow, you wouldn't have a problem with that? Apparently not.
You do realize that 'proof by assertion' is of zero value in Science?
"Hawking said so" is not a valid scientific argument.
Do you also realize that his argument does far more for those who believe in
creation than it does for science? Why, you might ask? Because
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing",
explains the existence of a creator as much as it does for anything else.
In other words, the statement "god created himself from nothing" is made
valid by Hawking's very own argument. If I'm wrong here I'll be extremely
interested in your rebuttal.
Vince Morgan
> Do you know that something cannot be the cause of something else, if the
> something else doesn't yet even exist?
That should be "if the something doesn't yet exist".
Wexford
wrote:
> "Wexford" <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Vince, you're overreacting to an article written by a journalist about
the theories of a physicist who, by all accounts, is a genius. Even if
the quote is accurate we don't have the context so we don't know what
words came before and what words came after. My guess is this (and
it's only my guess)-- The universe that we know began with the "big
bang" and has been expanding ever since. At some point it will stop
expanding, gravity will take over, and it will begin to contract. It
will keep contracting until it is the size of a pea (or something)
then "Bang!" will blow itself back into a form persumably similar to
what we have now. This has happened an infinite number of times and
will continue to happen for all infinity. The idea isn't particularly
new. It's been banging around since the Big Bang theory was first
formulated. If that is indeed the way things work, then God is
redundant.
I don't know what proof, if any, Hawking has for this. Perhaps he sees
something in the calculations and measurements that others don't. It's
nothing to get upset about, unless of course you're a closet theist
and don't like to read anything that might lead you to question your
faith.
Ken
He's a delusional Fundy Xtian and hallucinations are the foundation of
their entire belief system
Joseki
> On 3 Sep, 06:11, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
>
> You must be a nut to think that our solar system is just made by your
> god for human only?
No wonder you use "Yap" all I hear is "yap yap yap" which is the
sound of those who due to poor genetics were born in the guise of a
moron. I have a Dog and a Cat, hence God created Humans to service
them.
> There are countless planets and systems out there where there is a
> very good chance of another civilization.
yup or yap, maybe yup.
> The problem with verification is how to get there when the distance is
> in light years and light years.
I gather all those advance civilizations have the same transportation
issue.
Joseki
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
>
> You seem badly confused. Hawking is talking about physics; abiogenesis
> is part of biology, and has nothing to do with the creation of the
> universe.
hummm let me think of this for a second. Ok Second is up. Abiogenesis
is Independence of any physical universe. Darn! and I thought there
was really an allspark out there
Joseki
sure..Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the
worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates
it. In Hawking case God is "Gravity".
Joseki
Claims the Chemist who believes he is a chemist because he can read
the content of a coca-cola can.
Budikka666
evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
We know that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced amino acids, the
building blocks of life, back in 1953:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
We know that other experiments have produced similar results using a
variety of simulated early Earth environments:
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment
We know that organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the
chemistry of life are common in space:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/08/07/1830.aspx
We know that 92 of them have come to Earth on a single meteorite:
http://www.meteorlab.com/METEORLAB2001dev/murchy.htm
"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
We know that they could survive the impact:
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
We also know that "locally grown" chemistry have started life:
"A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
We know that chemicals could congregate in sufficient undisturbed
volume to actually make a start on life:
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670
We know where these molecules could collect together:
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
We know that they can form "boundary structures" similar to cell
walls:
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
We know this can work in practice:
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
We know that even simple molecules can mimic life:
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
We know that the first cells wouldn't have been like modern cells, but
how complex would the first cell need to be if it had been a modern
cell?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
What's the smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
J. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
These are discoveries which bring us step-by-step closer to
understanding what happened and what has taken place since:
An introduction to evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm
Abiogenesis:
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
Origin of life on Earth:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
Cells hint at life's origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Cradle of life?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Early animal evolution:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
29+ evidences for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Only 600 genes separate mice from men:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
Whale evolution:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetidnew.html
How could an eye evolve?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
Are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Early human evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/default.htm
Same errors in human and chimp DNA:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Humans and chimps not so different:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Humans-Over-Primates-NOT12apr02.htm
The evidence for human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Transitional snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
Fossil bridges land and sea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stm
Feathery fossil shed light on origins:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stm
Archaeopteryx:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html
wings for speed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/336192.stm
Bones make feathers fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/879956.stm
Changing one gene launches new fly species:
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uocm-cog120403.php
Transitional vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Transition to mammals:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
The fossil record:
http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html
Transition to land:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/dyk.html
origin of feathers:
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Dec/msg00031.html
Sickle-clawed bird:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/sickle.htm
Different species with the same junk DNA:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
Evidences for Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
jury-rigged "design":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
robots programmed using evolution exhibit altruism:
http://www.ecal2007.org/prog/abs/kop.htm
The so-called "Chain of Life" can be seen, alive today, in the major
vertebrate groups: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. These
groups are not as distinct as creationists love to lie that they are.
Take fish, to begin with. There are almost 28,000 species of them
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), about a third of which are
freshwater varieties. Creationists love to claim that 28,000 pairs of
fish didn't need to be on the ark because they can swim on a flooded
planet, but they carefully ignore the fact that freshwater fish do not
do well in saltwater and vice-versa.
Nor do deepwater fish do well in the shallows and vice-versa. Nor do
fish specifically adapted to the polar regions do well in the tropics
and vice-versa. Nor does any species of aquatic life thrive in mud
broth, which is what the ocean
would be in a global flood.
Somewhere along the way, no matter what your perspective, fish *had*
to evolve to explain these 28,000 or so species. And we can see
examples of what they were doing in the fossil record, but just as
importantly, we can see examples of what they are doing to evolve and
survive today amongst the living populations.
Take the killifish for example:
http://www.newkerala.com/oct.php?action=fullnews&id=12015
This is a fish - but a fish that can live in insect burrows in
mangrove trees for extended periods when the local mangrove pools dry
up.
Frogfish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ATGAEnLzI
This is a fish that can walk as easily along the bottom as it can
swim. It effectively has legs, yet is still a fish.
Mudskipper:
http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htm
This lives in the littoral region - where the sea meets the shore and
is pretty much as at home out of the water as it is in it. Yet it's a
fish.
Everyone has heard of Lungfish:
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/images/8733.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
But has everyone heard of the walking catfish, and catfish that hunt
out of the water?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338989
Yes, they're still fish, but they're actually taking the first step or
two along the path to becoming amphibians, even without a huge
environmental incentive. What would fish such as these become given
sufficient time and natural selection?
The next step up from these fish is a true amphibian, and even amongst
those, there is some oddity. Consider the Axolotl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
It's an amphibian which effectively spends its entire life as a fish,
never leaving the water, but able to survive low water levels and
poorly oxygenated water. In rare circumstances it will mature into
what it actually is - a mole salamander. Axolotls are more advanced
than humans - in at least one regard. They can regenerate lost limbs,
which we cannot do naturally, not even in our wildest dreams, although
science doubtlessly will one day allow us to do this.
In the amphibian world, there's also an impressive variety. People
tend to think that amphibians are tied to water because that's where
they have to lay their eggs, but this isn't always true as we see at:
http://www.livingunderworld.org
"Salamandra atra, usually only produce one or two offspring out of a
clutch of 20-30, which are delivered as fully morphed, miniature
adults. The remaining, unfertilized eggs provide nourishment to the
developing larvae when their yolk sacs have been exhausted. The larvae
of Salamandra atra obtain further nourishment by scraping the mothers
reproductive tract with specialized teeth, which provides them with
enough nourishment to last through the 2-4 year gestation period.
Similar behavior is also observed in some populations of Salamandra
salamandra, but with a slight twist; after all the unfertilized eggs
have been consumed, some developing larvae may cannibalize other
developing larvae within the mothers oviduct. All larval development
occurs within the mother, making these species true terrestrials."
In other words, this amphibian is already heading away from its
dependence upon water.
But what about those cannibalistic babies? Did a loving intelligent
designer create this mean and barbaric system, or did it actually
evolve? These are not the only cannibals. Consider the caecilians
described at www.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist:
This is the best a loving god can do?
Moving on to reptiles, what, exactly, is the tuatara?
(at http://www.panda.org)
It's not an amphibian, but neither is it like any other reptile. You
might call it a living fossil. It's so strange that it has a whole
order all to itself, the rhynchocephalia.
Like fish and amphibians, reptiles are not at all uniform. Some lay
eggs, others, such as the venomous cottonmouth:
develop young inside their bodies (but the young can also pop out of
eggs immediately after the eggs are laid). The cottonmouth is semi-
aquatic but is neither a fish nor an amphibian.
Snakes are a good example of the fact that there isn't one snake
"kind". Snakes can live pretty much anywhere provided the temperature
isn't too chill. There are jungle snakes, plains snakes, prairie
snakes, forest snakes, desert snakes and even sea-snakes:
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/aquaticsnakes/true_sea.html
Any pair of snakes taken aboard the ark would have had to evolve -
evolve significantly and dramatically. There is no getting away from
evolution, even if you're a firm believer in a 6,000 year old Earth
and a global flood just 4,500 or so years ago.
Living representatives of a potential transitional form between
reptiles and mammals are the monotremes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme
They're mammals, but are commonly viewed as primitive even though
they're as evolved as any other living organism, including humans.
They lay eggs, like fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, but unlike
other mammals; however, the eggs are retained in the body for a while
and "fed" by the mother. The platypus feeds its young with milk, like
other mammals, but even this is different: there is no teat. The milk
simply exudes onto the mother's skin where it can be licked up by the
young.
This was designed? Why? Why just three living monotremes? And where
do the marsupials fit into the grand design? Why are there so few of
these "odd" mammals and why are they so limited in range today?
The transitions, visible in organisms alive today as well as in the
fossil record, go well beyond this, through birds, mammals and
reptiles. In short, we don't need design to explain either the origin
or the evolution of life:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Budikka
Joseki
> We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
I am not a creationist. And you know this. The thing is kakawoman,
you have haven't posted not a one line of any scientific evidence of
abiogenesis. Besides we know you are a Krank of the worst order, now
please return to your stye, your fellow pigs miss your absence.
alie...@gmail.com
> On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> I am not a creationist.
Then, what was your point?
Mark L. Fergerson
Olrik
That he can lie with impunity : "Joseki" is a jehova witness and thus is
require to be a creationist. His asking about abiogenesis in almost all
his posts betrayed him.
> Mark L. Fergerson
Androcles
Vince, you're overreacting to an article written by a journalist about
the theories of a physicist who, by all accounts, is a genius.
=============================================
The journalist is one of those providing the accounts.
Since Hawking is not a genius by my account, he is not a
genius by all accounts; your cliche is meaningless rhetoric.
Even if
the quote is accurate we don't have the context so we don't know what
words came before and what words came after. My guess is this (and
it's only my guess)-- The universe that we know began with the "big
bang" and has been expanding ever since.
=============================================
Is that
a) your guess,
b) just the opinion of a journalist writing about the theories of a
physicist, or
c) by all accounts?
At some point it will stop
expanding, gravity will take over, and it will begin to contract. It
will keep contracting until it is the size of a pea (or something)
then "Bang!" will blow itself back into a form persumably similar to
what we have now. This has happened an infinite number of times and
will continue to happen for all infinity. The idea isn't particularly
new.
=============================================
Santa Claus coming down the chimney on Xmas Eve isn't a particularly
new idea either, but it does explain prezzies under the tree.
A child might buy it.
It's been banging around since the Big Bang theory was first
formulated. If that is indeed the way things work, then God is
redundant.
==============================================
I don't know
===============================================
Let's leave it there, shall we? By all accounts nobody else knows either,
and that goes for genius journalists and crackpot physicists as well as
gullible idiots.
Joseki
Don't you just love how those with the brain of a flea, try to
identify you with a group a class or a religion to make themselves
feel like they have a certain secret to the universe and feel
themselves smart.
Hate to break this to you Mark, but you still have the brain of a
flea.
Joseki
Oops sorry Mark I didn't reply to the right source.. my remarks was
for Orlik. known on the net as cerveau aux puces.
My point is this. abiogenesis would be absolutely correct, if the
evidence for it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. Hawing
remarks as a theorist would be acceptable but not written in stone for
lack of evidence.
My reply to the Kaka Girl, relates to her ability to threw in not
iota of evidence that abiogenesis has occurred, and claim that it has.
Will Janoschka
>
> I don't know what proof, if any, Hawking has for this. Perhaps he sees
> something in the calculations and measurements that others don't. It's
> nothing to get upset about, unless of course you're a closet theist
> and don't like to read anything that might lead you to question your
> faith.
Steven is much smarter than us dweebs. Take his comments
seriously . Now need to belive, just somthing to consider.
Will Janoschka
> > Do you know that something cannot be the cause of something else, if the
> > something else doesn't yet even exist? ÿThat the effect cannot procede the
> > cause? ÿDo you realize that Hawking has not as yet overturned 'causality',
> > nor offered any valid alternative, and therefore his book has virtualy
> > nothing to do with physics.
What a buch of shit. 'causality', defines the universe that us
hairless apes
can conceive and try to understand, are there others, yes, but us
hairless
apes connot understand that, Try to think of why there is a finite
speed
of light, (communication)!! It is because in our world, something can
happen
only after something else has happend. "scietiific/phsyics" The
Buddhists
don't have that haingup -will-
Will Janoschka
> something in the calculations and measurements that others don't. It's
> nothing to get upset about, unless of course you're a closet theist
> and don't like to read anything that might lead you to question your
> faith.
MR. Hawking is both smart and careful of what he says!
His comment should be taken seriously
Vince Morgan
"Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-172.dyn.centurytel.net...
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 20:06:22, Wexford <wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do you know that something cannot be the cause of something else, if
the
> > > something else doesn't yet even exist? ÿThat the effect cannot procede
the
> > > cause? ÿDo you realize that Hawking has not as yet overturned
'causality',
> > > nor offered any valid alternative, and therefore his book has virtualy
> > > nothing to do with physics.
>
> What a buch of shit. 'causality', defines the universe that us
> hairless apes
> can conceive and try to understand, are there others, yes, but us
> hairless
> apes connot understand that, Try to think of why there is a finite
> speed
> of light, (communication)!! It is because in our world, something can
> happen
There are others? How, as a self declared "hairless ape" do you know that?
And what makes you think Hawking is not a "hairless ape" in line with your
own resoning, though a bit smarter than the average?
Again, there is no such thing as proof by assertion. Simply claiming it is
so is of no value, whether you are you, or you are Hawking. You see, that's
how real science works. You might find the story of "The Emporers New
Clothes" interesting reading, and perhaps educational.
You seem to be another "Hawking" cultist, which means you probably know very
little about physics at all. Not that that will stop you I'm sure.
Vince Morgan
"Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-172.dyn.centurytel.net...
you.
[quote]
For over 30 years Hawking and his followers were perpetuating the
theory that black holes -- resulting from gravitational collapse of
massive stars -- destroy everything that falls into them preventing
even light or information to escape.
Mitra, four years ago, in a controversial paper in the reputed
journal, Foundations of Physics Letters, showed that Hawking's theory
was flawed. He proved black holes couldn't exist because their
formation and existence flouted Einstein's general theory of
relativity.
[/quote]
Vince Morgan
"Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-172.dyn.centurytel.net...
"MEET THE BHARATIYA WHO TOOK ON STEPHEN HAWKING [2004]"
alie...@gmail.com
> On Sep 4, 12:12 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > > > evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > > > creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> > > I am not a creationist.
>
> > Then, what was your point?
>
> Oops sorry Mark I didn't reply to the right source
Fine.
> My point is this. abiogenesis would be absolutely correct, if the
> evidence for it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.
Do you consider "demonstrating" it to comprise nothing less than
documentation of the literal generation of a "living", reproducing
something-or-other from inorganic matter isolated in a "test tube";
the Miller-Urey experiment taken to its extreme conclusion?
> My reply to the Kaka Girl, relates to her ability to threw in not
> iota of evidence that abiogenesis has occurred, and claim that it has.
By definition abiogenesis is life arising from inanimate matter. We
know life exists now, because we claim we are it, ergo either it
"always" existed or it arose at some point in the past. What "always"
means in context is unclear. Also, "life" is so far poorly defined.
Mark L. Fergerson
Joseki
> On Sep 4, 10:55 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 4, 12:12 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > > > > evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > > > > creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> > > > I am not a creationist.
>
> > > Then, what was your point?
>
> > Oops sorry Mark I didn't reply to the right source
>
> Fine.
>
> > My point is this. abiogenesis would be absolutely correct, if the
> > evidence for it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.
>
> Do you consider "demonstrating" it to comprise nothing less than
> documentation of the literal generation of a "living", reproducing
> something-or-other from inorganic matter isolated in a "test tube";
> the Miller-Urey experiment taken to its extreme conclusion?
>
For it to described a scientific fact, yes. It must be more than the
MIller-Urey test tube experiments.
The scientist wannabe's of these group attribute Abiogenesis on the
same pedestal as Creationists has of a creator. There was a lot of
thought that went into Miller-Urey experiment. In fact the creation of
the Synthetic Cell where scientist did in fact made life from non life
last may 24th would be describe as per definition "abiogenesis". Life
from non life... I will reply to your other statement based on I just
wrote.
> > My reply to the Kaka Girl, relates to her ability to threw in not
> > iota of evidence that abiogenesis has occurred, and claim that it has.
>
> By definition abiogenesis is life arising from inanimate matter. We
> know life exists now, because we claim we are it, ergo either it
> "always" existed or it arose at some point in the past. What "always"
> means in context is unclear. Also, "life" is so far poorly defined.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
You mention a very interesting point. We are here now. Hawking's and
other stated information is never lost even though at one point he
believed it was in a BH. He reverted. Not only life but all
information in the Universe is declared to have a starting point. And
yet he have the "immutable " laws of physics where matter and energy
can not be created nor destroyed, and at that some theorist declared
these laws entered into action after the Big Bang. To avoid physical
law as being theory and not fact, theorist are considering what
before the BB. There is a lot at stake that the scientist wannabe's
of these lists can not comprehend. As you mentioned life is poorly
defined. The creation of the Synthetic cell demonstrated that. To
think that abiogenesis is the origin of mankind and life on our planet
is theory. Not theory and fact. What makes it a fact is the scientific
method.
The true argument here is to use abiogenesis to discard intelligent
design, and thus a Creator who tell us what to do. People don't like
being told what to do, nor what to believe in, but at the same point
are quite content to tell other exactly that, as justification for
their own moral compass or lack of. Interesting they are reflecting
the ideals in reflection of the same creator they denied. Fascinating
don't you think?
Budikka666
> On Sep 5, 6:38 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 10:55 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 4, 12:12 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > > > > > evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > > > > > creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> > > > > I am not a creationist.
>
> > > > Then, what was your point?
>
> > > Oops sorry Mark I didn't reply to the right source
>
> > Fine.
>
> > > My point is this. abiogenesis would be absolutely correct, if the
> > > evidence for it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.
>
> > Do you consider "demonstrating" it to comprise nothing less than
> > documentation of the literal generation of a "living", reproducing
> > something-or-other from inorganic matter isolated in a "test tube";
> > the Miller-Urey experiment taken to its extreme conclusion?
>
> For it to described a scientific fact, yes. It must be more than the
> MIller-Urey test tube experiments.
An you've been given more - far more than that - and infinitely more
than you've presented for your position. Here's the evidence once
again you LYING pile of pig shit. Then it's your turn to provide even
one iota of positive scientific evidence for your position. Got it
now you piece of trash?
Wexford
I don't know what it is with these people. If they want to believe in
an intelligent creator, why don't they just fantasize that the
intelligent creator established immutable rules for the governance of
the universe that flow out of His big bang? Among those rules, when
inanimate matter of a certain sort is stimulated by bursts of energy
it can begin to acquire its own energy and reproduce itself, thus life
is created? It's simple enough and can be made to fit their myths.
Actually, its quite pliable and can be made to explain all sorts of
nonsense and contradictions. It would certainly seem less vapid than
goddidit.
Joseki
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 6:38 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 4, 10:55 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 4, 12:12 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > > > > > > evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > > > > > > creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> > > > > > I am not a creationist.
>
> > > > > Then, what was your point?
>
> > > > Oops sorry Mark I didn't reply to the right source
>
> > > Fine.
>
> > > > My point is this. abiogenesis would be absolutely correct, if the
> > > > evidence for it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.
>
> > > Do you consider "demonstrating" it to comprise nothing less than
> > > documentation of the literal generation of a "living", reproducing
> > > something-or-other from inorganic matter isolated in a "test tube";
> > > the Miller-Urey experiment taken to its extreme conclusion?
>
> > For it to described a scientific fact, yes. It must be more than the
> > MIller-Urey test tube experiments.
>
> An you've been given more - far more than that -
Not by you... all you have posted is failures. Give us the one post
where abiogenesis has happened in a lab and been documented by peers.
Ken
A jehova witless?
And all along I thought he was just a regular babbling moron
Joseki
>
> I don't know what it is with these people. If they want to believe in
> an intelligent creator, why don't they just fantasize that the
> intelligent creator established immutable rules for the governance of
> the universe that flow out of His big bang? Among those rules, when
> inanimate matter of a certain sort is stimulated by bursts of energy
> it can begin to acquire its own energy and reproduce itself, thus life
> is created? It's simple enough and can be made to fit their myths.
> Actually, its quite pliable and can be made to explain all sorts of
> nonsense and contradictions. It would certainly seem less vapid than
> goddidit.
I agree. However I mus admit, I don't subscribe to a magical god that
snaps his fingers and things happen.
Will Janoschka
You cut my post in the middle
witch deserves a "plonk" but you
have interesting ideas.
Usenet is not a place to get agreement,
but insted criticism to help you refine your ideas!
my "hairless ape" is used to describe
what an outside observer would see.
You I and Steven seem to be all "hairless apes"
I am not a fan of Steven, but I take his remarks
seriously.
As far as ot other universes, just examine
what you know of what you do not know!
-will-
>
>
Wexford
Give us one scrap of evidence that God -- or gods or demons or angels
or nymphs or fairies or pixies or whatever the hell you believe in --
exists. The long list of scientific experiments and studies that's
already been provided gives ample evidence that life could be a
product of the right combination of chemicals and energy. The only
other choice is that goddidit. If you believe that, then fine, good
for you. Go away. If you don't then you're compelled to believe that
somehow chemicals and energy combined to make life.
alie...@gmail.com
> On Sep 5, 6:38 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 10:55 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 4, 12:12 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > > > > > evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > > > > > creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> > > > > I am not a creationist.
>
> > > > Then, what was your point?
>
> > > Oops sorry Mark I didn't reply to the right source
>
> > Fine.
>
> > > My point is this. abiogenesis would be absolutely correct, if the
> > > evidence for it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.
>
> > Do you consider "demonstrating" it to comprise nothing less than
> > documentation of the literal generation of a "living", reproducing
> > something-or-other from inorganic matter isolated in a "test tube";
> > the Miller-Urey experiment taken to its extreme conclusion?
>
> For it to described a scientific fact, yes. It must be more than the
> MIller-Urey test tube experiments.
> The scientist wannabe's of these group attribute Abiogenesis on the
> same pedestal as Creationists has of a creator.
Some are more willing than others to ignore the gaps in their
worldviews.
> There was a lot of
> thought that went into Miller-Urey experiment. In fact the creation of
> the Synthetic Cell where scientist did in fact made life from non life
> last may 24th would be describe as per definition "abiogenesis". Life
> from non life...
It doesn't quite qualify as abiogenesis for me since although he
indeed made DNA from scratch (that is, nonliving matter), he inserted
it in an already-existing cell which used the DNA as its template.
If he had made the cell from scratch as well I'd accept it as the
real deal, though making a cell from scratch is the yet-to-be
accomplished culmination of other works such as Urey-Miller making
amino acids and proteins, creating self-assembling cell walls and so
on.
As far as I can tell it's likely possible to make a cell from
scratch by combining all the individual steps and then insert homemade
DNA; it just hasn't been done yet.
> > > My reply to the Kaka Girl, relates to her ability to threw in not
> > > iota of evidence that abiogenesis has occurred, and claim that it has.
>
> > By definition abiogenesis is life arising from inanimate matter. We
> > know life exists now, because we claim we are it, ergo either it
> > "always" existed or it arose at some point in the past. What "always"
> > means in context is unclear. Also, "life" is so far poorly defined.
>
> You mention a very interesting point. We are here now. Hawking's and
> other stated information is never lost even though at one point he
> believed it was in a BH. He reverted. Not only life but all
> information in the Universe is declared to have a starting point. And
> yet he have the "immutable " laws of physics where matter and energy
> can not be created nor destroyed, and at that some theorist declared
> these laws entered into action after the Big Bang. To avoid physical
> law as being theory and not fact, theorist are considering what
> before the BB.
Some of that thinking is IMO hampered by the background religious
thinking (in the minds of scientists raised in religious contexts) of
Augustine et. al., who avoided the question "what was God doing before
creation" by asserting that their God created not only space for the
heavens and Earth to exist in as separate entities, but also time for
them to exist in. (As an aside I find that to be tantamount to
Christians accepting Einstein's melding of previously-considered
separate space and time into one thing, spacetime... either that, or
Einstein developed the concept of no time before Creation into
spacetime).
Just as there is no a priori reason to reject the notion that God
had time to Himself in a place we can't access before deciding to
create the Universe we see, there's no a priori reason to reject some
place with duration from which our Universe sprang during the BB.
Current cosmology already has predicted that "bubble universes" can
pinch themselves off from our universe (potentially with anywhere from
no to slight or even extreme differences in manifested physical laws)
and grow on their own, forever afterward unobservable by us, and
anything within them unable to observe anything in our Universe. I see
no reason to reject the possibility that *we* live in such a bubble
that pinched off from another, "earlier" Universe with possibly
different laws. Certainly, the conditions required for such a pinchoff
event would have to include some severe (but not impossible)
stretching of known physics.
As far as I'm concerned, the evidence so far assembled suggests we
need not go all the way to the Big Bang for the origin of life; I find
it acceptably reasonable that life could have arisen not just on Earth
soon after it cooled, but on other worlds as well. Mind you I accept
it in the sense of "for the sake of argument", not as "fact".
Conversely I see no reason to assume that other bubble universes
(the one ours sprang from, if any, and those if any that spring from
ours) must necessarily be barren.
> There is a lot at stake that the scientist wannabe's
> of these lists can not comprehend. As you mentioned life is poorly
> defined. The creation of the Synthetic cell demonstrated that. To
> think that abiogenesis is the origin of mankind and life on our planet
> is theory. Not theory and fact. What makes it a fact is the scientific
> method.
As we currently understand it life is largely chemistry involving
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (so called CHON) with some
traces of other elements added in. There may be things elsewhere that
do what we call "living" but comprise other elements, but there seem
to be some good reasons to expect them to be mostly carbon, or subject
to more stringent limits on temperature and pressure than Earthly
life.
However, imagining such life forms to be capable of, or interested
in, creating our sort of life seems unreasonable. Hence, "life from
life" implies Earthly life must have been created by something we
would recognize as life just from its chemistry.
I mean, if it were discovered that a member of some mostly sulfur-
silicon alien species came to Earth some billions of years ago and
allowed its chemistry experiment to get out of hand resulting in us,
would that qualify as "life from life", or does "life" *have to*
comprise CHON?
Would any reasonable person mistake that entity for a deity? Surely
not.
Now, some will insist on non-chemical components to life; the
"soul", or the "spirit", or whatever, but since such don't seem to be
subject to scientific investigation I'm content to ignore them for the
purposes of this discussion.
> The true argument here is to use abiogenesis to discard intelligent
> design, and thus a Creator who tell us what to do. People don't like
> being told what to do, nor what to believe in, but at the same point
> are quite content to tell other exactly that, as justification for
> their own moral compass or lack of. Interesting they are reflecting
> the ideals in reflection of the same creator they denied. Fascinating
> don't you think?
For myself, I try not to "believe" things; I require at least some
evidence that connects reasonably to other evidence. This attitude
gets me in a lot of trouble (with both scientists and religious
types).
But I don't see that demonstrating abiogenesis so unambiguously that
even the most set-in-stone Creationists have to accept it as fact will
have any impact on believers. They'll likely just fit it into their
worldview as "the way God intended it to happen all along" the same
way they have every scientific discovery in the last few centuries
that challenges some tenet of their belief system. Either that or
they'll ignore it or falsely redefine it, as they ignore chimps and
gorillas learning sign language (and teaching it to others of their
species) or redefine "lower animals" solving problems and using tools
as "instinct".
Also I see no reason to expect any impact on ethical systems; for
many Judaeo-Xtians their ethical and moral systems derive from "god
said so" but they don't read their Old Testaments very closely, or
we'd see more support for Ethnic Cleansing and stoning as a punishment
for infidelity.
The faithful and the non-faithful have the same drive to share their
worldviews; they think that what they believe is "right" or "better",
and want others to have the "advantage" they do in order to make the
world a better place *in the terms of their own worldview*. This in
itself is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned; the bad part comes
in when penalties are involved for failure to comply. So far the
scientific community has not taken up the "tradition" of killing those
who don't accept their worldview...
Mark L. Fergerson
Joseki
I don't have any. Never said that I was a creationist neither. So I do
not have to provide any evidence of pixies, because I don't believe in
them
>The long list of scientific experiments and studies that's
> already been provided gives ample evidence that life could be a
> product of the right combination of chemicals and energy.
Key word, " could be". that term just invalidate any experiment done
in a lab. the experiments are done in accordance with the scientific
method. The experiments failed to demonstrate abiogenesis is the
origin of life on our planet.
> The only
> other choice is that goddidit.
No, that is not the only choice. If you knew real science, you would
know there are many theories. Not the two. However your knowledge in
science is in want.
? If you believe that, then fine, good
> for you. Go away. If you don't then you're compelled to believe that
> somehow chemicals and energy combined to make life.
A foolish statement made by a fool. Go figure.
Joseki
If read the paper correctly, he used yeast, but only the membrane
because it can assist in the sequencing of the DNA, it can become
viable. I am sure he will figure how the membrane works in this
regards eventually.
Good observations.
> Just as there is no a priori reason to reject the notion that God
> had time to Himself in a place we can't access before deciding to
> create the Universe we see, there's no a priori reason to reject some
> place with duration from which our Universe sprang during the BB.
> Current cosmology already has predicted that "bubble universes" can
> pinch themselves off from our universe (potentially with anywhere from
> no to slight or even extreme differences in manifested physical laws)
> and grow on their own, forever afterward unobservable by us, and
> anything within them unable to observe anything in our Universe. I see
> no reason to reject the possibility that *we* live in such a bubble
> that pinched off from another, "earlier" Universe with possibly
> different laws. Certainly, the conditions required for such a pinchoff
> event would have to include some severe (but not impossible)
> stretching of known physics.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the evidence so far assembled suggests we
> need not go all the way to the Big Bang for the origin of life; I find
> it acceptably reasonable that life could have arisen not just on Earth
> soon after it cooled, but on other worlds as well. Mind you I accept
> it in the sense of "for the sake of argument", not as "fact".
>
I can go there, you are describing Bublbe universes, Bubble universe
theory says that there are many universes, perhaps connected by black
holes, which are altogether a sort of "multi-verse". Some think that
it was two of these universes, two higher dimensions, which collided
to cause the Big Bang.
And many think that there's a sort of "natural selection with
universes" going on - that many of those universes never developed the
right physical laws to be stable, and collapsed; it's only ones like
ours which have the right balance of the 4 principal forces to
"survive" and eventually form life. There's also a theory that these
universes are constantly being created and destroyed, and only the
stable ones survive.
> Conversely I see no reason to assume that other bubble universes
> (the one ours sprang from, if any, and those if any that spring from
> ours) must necessarily be barren.
>
> > There is a lot at stake that the scientist wannabe's
> > of these lists can not comprehend. As you mentioned life is poorly
> > defined. The creation of the Synthetic cell demonstrated that. To
> > think that abiogenesis is the origin of mankind and life on our planet
> > is theory. Not theory and fact. What makes it a fact is the scientific
> > method.
>
> As we currently understand it life is largely chemistry involving
> carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (so called CHON) with some
> traces of other elements added in. There may be things elsewhere that
> do what we call "living" but comprise other elements, but there seem
> to be some good reasons to expect them to be mostly carbon, or subject
> to more stringent limits on temperature and pressure than Earthly
> life.
>
> However, imagining such life forms to be capable of, or interested
> in, creating our sort of life seems unreasonable. Hence, "life from
> life" implies Earthly life must have been created by something we
> would recognize as life just from its chemistry.
>
That would be theory, another theory I play with is terraforming from
a type 3 or 4 civilization. But that idea can not be demonstrated
with SM neither
> I mean, if it were discovered that a member of some mostly sulfur-
> silicon alien species came to Earth some billions of years ago and
> allowed its chemistry experiment to get out of hand resulting in us,
> would that qualify as "life from life", or does "life" *have to*
> comprise CHON?
>
A question I can not answer :-)
> Would any reasonable person mistake that entity for a deity? Surely
> not.
>
> Now, some will insist on non-chemical components to life; the
> "soul", or the "spirit", or whatever, but since such don't seem to be
> subject to scientific investigation I'm content to ignore them for the
> purposes of this discussion.
>
> > The true argument here is to use abiogenesis to discard intelligent
> > design, and thus a Creator who tell us what to do. People don't like
> > being told what to do, nor what to believe in, but at the same point
> > are quite content to tell other exactly that, as justification for
> > their own moral compass or lack of. Interesting they are reflecting
> > the ideals in reflection of the same creator they denied. Fascinating
> > don't you think?
>
> For myself, I try not to "believe" things; I require at least some
> evidence that connects reasonably to other evidence. This attitude
> gets me in a lot of trouble (with both scientists and religious
> types).
>
Welcome to the club, the members are few and exclusive.
> But I don't see that demonstrating abiogenesis so unambiguously that
> even the most set-in-stone Creationists have to accept it as fact will
> have any impact on believers. They'll likely just fit it into their
> worldview as "the way God intended it to happen all along" the same
> way they have every scientific discovery in the last few centuries
> that challenges some tenet of their belief system. Either that or
> they'll ignore it or falsely redefine it, as they ignore chimps and
> gorillas learning sign language (and teaching it to others of their
> species) or redefine "lower animals" solving problems and using tools
> as "instinct".
>
Yup there is that.
> Also I see no reason to expect any impact on ethical systems; for
> many Judaeo-Xtians their ethical and moral systems derive from "god
> said so" but they don't read their Old Testaments very closely, or
> we'd see more support for Ethnic Cleansing and stoning as a punishment
> for infidelity.
>
> The faithful and the non-faithful have the same drive to share their
> worldviews; they think that what they believe is "right" or "better",
> and want others to have the "advantage" they do in order to make the
> world a better place *in the terms of their own worldview*. This in
> itself is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned; the bad part comes
> in when penalties are involved for failure to comply. So far the
> scientific community has not taken up the "tradition" of killing those
> who don't accept their worldview...
>
That may be true, but the science community do inflect enormous peer
pressure. Hawkins makes the statements that he makes based on his
reputation as a risk. Any scientist of lower recognition would get his
head chopped off and would only be allowed to teach science in an
unknown elementary school well the Bell Curve is more of a flat line.
> Mark L. Fergerson
t...@vcn.bc.ca
is something rather than nothing."
Who does he think begun the spontaneous creation?
On Sep 2, 4:11 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
Vince Morgan
Your response is more polite and reasonable than mine. Please accept my
appology for being so curt.
Regards,
Vince
Joseki
What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've
ever read. At no point were you even close to anything that could be
considered a rational thought. Everyone in this group is now dumber
for having read to it.
Budikka666
> On Sep 5, 3:30 pm, Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 9:30 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Le 2010-09-04 00:12, n...@bid.nes a écrit :
>
> > > > On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, Joseki<jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666<budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>> We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > > >>> evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > > >>> creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> > > >> I am not a creationist.
>
> > > > Then, what was your point?
>
> > > That he can lie with impunity : "Joseki" is a jehova witness and thus is
> > > require to be a creationist. His asking about abiogenesis in almost all
> > > his posts betrayed him.
>
> > > > Mark L. Fergerson-
>
> > A jehova witless?
> > And all along I thought he was just a regular babbling moron
>
> What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've
> ever read
You'd be the expert on things idiotic, so now argument from me there.
Budikka
Andrew
> He is quoted as saying that, "spontaneous creation is the reason there
> is something rather than nothing."
> Who does he think begun the spontaneous creation?
In the beginning ~~~~~ Gravity.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create
itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something
rather than nothing, why the Universe exists." -- Stephen Hawking
Joseki
I don't argue with the mentally challenged, I might be accused of
abuse of a corpse.
American
> <t...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in messagenews:55004b92-cdb3-4dfc...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
If "the beginning" that Hawking refers to, happened outside of YHWH's
creation of man, it makes perfect sense to apply the logic "if a tree
fell in the woods, and there was nobody there to hear it, did it make
a noise?" The answer comes back to an "observer" in retrospect - that
is, the trained "hearer" believes that this is what happened, but this
is based completely through (his) own filter of sense perception and
memory - that is "intelligence", to which according to the quantum
physical state, automatically creates its own "observer affected
outcome" - a "self-fulfilling prophecy" so to speak, in which all
decision-making ability must become based upon the immediate
environment in which the boundaries of sense-perception had
immediately and previously been determined.
So, according to the "Hawking" view of spontaneous creation, since the
(or his) boundaries of sense-perception can never "know" the
"spontaneity" of creation (I believe that this was a simultaneous near
field <-> far field event), a loving YHWH has to remain "outside" as
well as "out of control" of this event, which is, well, absurd...
To make the claim that Hawking has predetermined the boundaries of
YHWH's own operating parameters, by equating simple man's with those
of God, or "a God" as it were, becomes patently false in the world of
a higher intelligence.
Hawking may have become much too "wise in his own eyes".
Please give up the ghost, professor...
~
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> <t...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:55004b92-cdb3-4dfc...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > He is quoted as saying that, "spontaneous creation is the reason there
> > is something rather than nothing."
> > Who does he think begun the spontaneous creation?
One might properly ask
"WHAT does he think begun the spontaneous creation?"
but "WHO" begs the question.
And Andrew is a notorious question beggar.
Will Janoschka
<vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Your response is more polite and reasonable than mine. Please accept my
> appology for being so curt.
> Regards,
> Vince
>
Thank you,
I have read your later posts, and you, although correct,
are pissing ageinst the wind,
My self, have only one belief.." I believe I will have another beer"
Usenet could become so uselful, like the old Amature Radio network.
But folk need to be polite and courtious, in order to learn,
else we have somthing like Sci.physics
Vince Morgan
got me going Will.
What realy gets me going though is some of the recent popular "science"
writing that seems to be pushing a populist public agenda. Basicaly, the
more outrageous the writings, the more books are sold.
This is fine for the few who profit from such disinformation (and that is
what it is) but is more than useless as far as science is concerned. In
fact it seems to be dumbing down the average layman as they absorb this
stuff in the belief that it is real science. The fact that much of it is
completely impossible to understand is very rarely due to the fact that the
writer is a genius, but that the material doesn't stand to reason in the
first place.
Still, you are entirely right. Trying to correct it is a waste of ones
time.
Regards,
Vince
Budikka666
wrote:
> I think Hawking has a desperate need for attention.
> To say the universe is a natural consequence of it's own (as yet non
> existent) properties is absolute bable. Perhaps this book is simply his way
> of hanging his arse out the window, and getting paid for it.
You seem to be very confused. Science is based on observable evidence
and upon rational theorizing from that evidence. It's religion that's
based on the babble of ancient ignoramuses. Do note the spelling of
"babble", Vince. It's not spelled like Bible although the two have a
lot in common.
Got it now, Vince?
Budikka
Vince Morgan
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2d8adc61-3a38-49a2...@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 6:59 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> I think Hawking has a desperate need for attention.
> To say the universe is a natural consequence of it's own (as yet non
> existent) properties is absolute bable. Perhaps this book is simply his
way
> of hanging his arse out the window, and getting paid for it.
You seem to be very confused. Science is based on observable evidence
and upon rational theorizing from that evidence. It's religion that's
based on the babble of ancient ignoramuses. Do note the spelling of
"babble", Vince. It's not spelled like Bible although the two have a
lot in common.
Got it now, Vince?
Budikka
[/quote]
Another one in desperate need of attention apparently.
Androcles
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2d8adc61-3a38-49a2...@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Got it now, Vince?
Budikka
======================================
Please provide observababble evidence of Hawking's black holes.
Got it now, Boudica (which is not spelt like Boudicca or Bo-dick-er)?
Joseki
How can he get it when you don't have the capacity to do so. Tell us
Oh great ToiletBrain. where is the evidence for Abiogenesis. Where has
it been observed. you come and quote: "Science is based on observable
evidence" and there seem to be none around for abiogenesis.
Joseki
wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
All she does is quote, one time we asked her to identify the
following: "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
She said " Cookie Monster".
Go figure
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
Here's a scientific paper on it:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5627/1898
Now I've done that, where's your positive scientific evidence for a
creator god? When you fail to provide that, as you inevitably will,
then provide me with positive objective evidence for a creator god.
When you fail to do that, as you inevitably will, then provide me with
an intelligent rationale for this god. When you fail to do that, as
you inevitably will, please allow me to introduce you to your
shameless vacuity and laughable hypocrisy. Got it now, you pompous,
clueless, asshole?
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Sep 7, 5:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 6:59 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I think Hawking has a desperate need for attention.
> > > To say the universe is a natural consequence of it's own (as yet non
> > > existent) properties is absolute bable. Perhaps this book is simply his way
> > > of hanging his arse out the window, and getting paid for it.
>
> > You seem to be very confused. Science is based on observable evidence
> > and upon rational theorizing from that evidence. It's religion that's
> > based on the babble of ancient ignoramuses. Do note the spelling of
> > "babble", Vince. It's not spelled like Bible although the two have a
> > lot in common.
>
> > Got it now, Vince?
>
> > Budikka
>
> How can he get it when you don't have the capacity to do so. Tell us
> Oh great ToiletBrain. where is the evidence for Abiogenesis.
Toilet Brian? LoL! What a pathetic little child you are. A tiny
fraction of the steadily increasing evidence for abiogenesis is listed
below. Now I've done that, where's your positive scientific evidence
for a creator god? When you fail to provide that, as you inevitably
will, then provide me with positive objective evidence for a creator
god. When you fail to do that, as you inevitably will, then provide
me with an intelligent rationale for this god. When you fail to do
that, as you inevitably will, then all of Usenet will know that once
again I answered your question with a raft of evidence and all of you
pathetic Assholes for Christ RAN AWAY when I asked the same of you.
Keep running like the stinking diarrhea you are.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/08/07/1830.aspx
http://www.meteorlab.com/METEORLAB2001dev/murchy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
An introduction to evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm
Abiogenesis:
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Cradle of life?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Early animal evolution:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
29+ evidences for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
Whale evolution:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetidnew.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
Are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Early human evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/default.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Humans-Over-Primates-NOT12apr02.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Transitional snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stm
Archaeopteryx:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html
wings for speed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/336192.stm
Bones make feathers fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/879956.stm
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uocm-cog120403.php
Transitional vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Transition to mammals:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
The fossil record:
http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html
Transition to land:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/dyk.html
origin of feathers:
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Dec/msg00031.html
Sickle-clawed bird:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/sickle.htm
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
Evidences for Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
jury-rigged "design":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
http://www.ecal2007.org/prog/abs/kop.htm
http://www.newkerala.com/oct.php?action=fullnews&id=12015
Frogfish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ATGAEnLzI
Mudskipper:
http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htm
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/images/8733.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
http://www.livingunderworld.org
(at http://www.panda.org)
Joseki
> On Sep 7, 5:55 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 5:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 2, 6:59 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I think Hawking has a desperate need for attention.
> > > > To say the universe is a natural consequence of it's own (as yet non
> > > > existent) properties is absolute bable. Perhaps this book is simply his way
> > > > of hanging his arse out the window, and getting paid for it.
>
> > > You seem to be very confused. Science is based on observable evidence
> > > and upon rational theorizing from that evidence. It's religion that's
> > > based on the babble of ancient ignoramuses. Do note the spelling of
> > > "babble", Vince. It's not spelled like Bible although the two have a
> > > lot in common.
>
> > > Got it now, Vince?
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > How can he get it when you don't have the capacity to do so. Tell us
> > Oh great ToiletBrain. where is the evidence for Abiogenesis.
>
> Toilet Brian? LoL! What a pathetic little child you are. A tiny
> fraction of the steadily increasing evidence for abiogenesis is listed
> below.
Actually you listed nothing, And me as a "little" child... I have
more brain power, than the dead cells of your pinky Both pinky put
together... to you that would be 1 + 1 =0.
Budikka666
Keep on LYING and RUNNING, Pig Shit. Now everyone on Usenet knows
what a dishonest and vacuous coward you are.
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
I doubt it.
>Budikka
Joseki
Yada yada yada, because adults don't want to play with children you
call it running. and as for being dishonest well... You know that
Monkey in the Family guy? he pointing his finger at you, the middle
one at that.
Androcles
On Sep 7, 5:35 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2d8adc61-3a38-49a2...@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 2, 6:59 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > I think Hawking has a desperate need for attention.
> > To say the universe is a natural consequence of it's own (as yet non
> > existent) properties is absolute bable. Perhaps this book is simply his
> > way
> > of hanging his arse out the window, and getting paid for it.
>
> You seem to be very confused. Science is based on observable evidence
> and upon rational theorizing from that evidence. It's religion that's
> based on the babble of ancient ignoramuses. Do note the spelling of
> "babble", Vince. It's not spelled like Bible although the two have a
> lot in common.
>
> Got it now, Vince?
>
> Budikka
>
> ======================================
> Please provide observababble evidence of Hawking's black holes.
Here's a scientific paper on it:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5627/1898
===========================================
science "mag"? What is a "mag"? More observabble?
Now I've done that, where's your positive scientific evidence for a
creator god? When you fail to provide that, as you inevitably will,
then provide me with positive objective evidence for a creator god.
When you fail to do that, as you inevitably will, then provide me with
an intelligent rationale for this god. When you fail to do that, as
you inevitably will, please allow me to introduce you to your
shameless vacuity and laughable hypocrisy. Got it now, you pompous,
clueless, asshole?
Budikka
============================
I'm an atheist, why should I?
Got it now, you laughabbling assuming irrational clueless cunt?
Mickey
> On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> you have haven't posted not a one line of any scientific evidence of
> abiogenesis. Besides we know you are a Krank of the worst order, now
> please return to your stye, your fellow pigs miss your absence.
Budikka has not been absent, though your own
absence is much desired. Knowing you, after all
your years of trolling, you probably didn't even read
any of the websites she posted the urls to.
And, are you telling us that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't
creationists? You both base your beliefs on Genesis, just
translated differently. To me, that just makes you a
different kind of creationist.
Mickey
> >> On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666<budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>> We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> >>> evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> >>> creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> >> I am not a creationist.
>
>
> That he can lie with impunity : "Joseki" is a jehova witness and thus is
> require to be a creationist. His asking about abiogenesis in almost all
> his posts betrayed him.
It's just Jabriol. He does't even try to hide who
he is in his address.
Mickey
>
> Don't you just love how those with the brain of a flea, try to
> identify you with a group a class or a religion to make themselves
> feel like they have a certain secret to the universe and feel
> themselves smart.
>
> Hate to break this to you Mark, but you still have the brain of a
> flea.-
And, Jabbers is just as nasty as he ever was.
Mickey
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le 2010-09-04 00:12, n...@bid.nes a écrit :
>
> > > On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, Joseki<jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sep 3, 7:28 pm, Budikka666<budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> We're all still waiting even *ONE* item of positive scientific
> > >>> evidence for a creator or a creation! LoL! Meanwhile, to all you
> > >>> creationists: bend over and take it all, bitch:
>
> > >> I am not a creationist.
>
> > > Then, what was your point?
>
> > That he can lie with impunity : "Joseki" is a jehova witness and thus is
> > require to be a creationist. His asking about abiogenesis in almost all
> > his posts betrayed him.
>
>
> A jehova witless?
He's both.
Mickey
Joseki
Actually if you read my posts, I believe in terraforming by an Ancient
type 4 civilization on the Kardashev scale. Thanks for playing.
Joseki
Hi Carol... welcome you to the Looney bin for Gulley sock puppets. I
see nobody else is paying attention to you in the other threads....
why would they. Bye-bye now.
Hot to spot a Gulley sock puppet:
1-Jabriol owns her thoughts
2-Jabriol owns her soul
3-Jabriol own her full attention.
And most of all Jabriol know her husband Randy is into kiddy goat
porn... the sick bastard.
Anyways watch her foam at the mouth and into a multiple ad-hom Jabriol
sock-puppet orgy...
Joseki
ANd watch How CArol denies she is Michelle LOL!!!!!!
alie...@gmail.com
> On Sep 5, 11:21 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
(Some brevity snips of boring stuff we aren't arguing about)
> > > There was a lot of
> > > thought that went into Miller-Urey experiment. In fact the creation of
> > > the Synthetic Cell where scientist did in fact made life from non life
> > > last may 24th would be describe as per definition "abiogenesis". Life
> > > from non life...
>
> > It doesn't quite qualify as abiogenesis for me since although he
> > indeed made DNA from scratch (that is, nonliving matter), he inserted
> > it in an already-existing cell which used the DNA as its template.
>
> If read the paper correctly, he used yeast, but only the membrane
> because it can assist in the sequencing of the DNA, it can become
> viable. I am sure he will figure how the membrane works in this
> regards eventually.
Yep, he used yeast to do the final stitching on the DNA sequences,
but it was designed to be used in a bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum:
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cell/overview/
A macroscopic analogy would be turning all of a tiger's DNA into
lion DNA at once and then watching the tiger turn into a lion.
> > As far as I'm concerned, the evidence so far assembled suggests we
> > need not go all the way to the Big Bang for the origin of life; I find
> > it acceptably reasonable that life could have arisen not just on Earth
> > soon after it cooled, but on other worlds as well. Mind you I accept
> > it in the sense of "for the sake of argument", not as "fact".
>
> I can go there, you are describing Bublbe universes, Bubble universe
> theory says that there are many universes, perhaps connected by black
> holes, which are altogether a sort of "multi-verse".
Perhaps some are connectible that way, perhaps some are not; can
Universes form that are not able to support black holes? I don't mean
do we live in that sort of Universe, I mean is that sort of Universe
possible? If so, and we live in one that does, you literally can't get
there from here.
I'm not really so much concerned about travel between them though,
as I am in them "inheriting" things from their "parent" Universes.
Things like life.
> And many think that there's a sort of "natural selection with
> universes" going on - that many of those universes never developed the
> right physical laws to be stable, and collapsed; it's only ones like
> ours which have the right balance of the 4 principal forces to
> "survive" and eventually form life. There's also a theory that these
> universes are constantly being created and destroyed, and only the
> stable ones survive.
Our Universe might not be stable though. Google "Big Rip".
> > As we currently understand it life is largely chemistry involving
> > carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (so called CHON) with some
> > traces of other elements added in. There may be things elsewhere that
> > do what we call "living" but comprise other elements, but there seem
> > to be some good reasons to expect them to be mostly carbon, or subject
> > to more stringent limits on temperature and pressure than Earthly
> > life.
>
> > However, imagining such life forms to be capable of, or interested
> > in, creating our sort of life seems unreasonable. Hence, "life from
> > life" implies Earthly life must have been created by something we
> > would recognize as life just from its chemistry.
>
> That would be theory, another theory I play with is terraforming from
> a type 3 or 4 civilization. But that idea can not be demonstrated
> with SM neither
Implication is necessary, but not sufficient to form a theory.
> > I mean, if it were discovered that a member of some mostly sulfur-
> > silicon alien species came to Earth some billions of years ago and
> > allowed its chemistry experiment to get out of hand resulting in us,
> > would that qualify as "life from life", or does "life" *have to*
> > comprise CHON?
>
> A question I can not answer :-)
It's relevant to the subject though; if a sulfur-silicon lifeform
begat us, is it or is it not life from life? Is a postulated not-
Earthly-organic lifeform "alive" in the same sense we are; is life
just a pattern that can manifest in more than one way, or is it
exclusive to the Earthly sort of meat?
> > > The true argument here is to use abiogenesis to discard intelligent
> > > design, and thus a Creator who tell us what to do. People don't like
> > > being told what to do, nor what to believe in, but at the same point
> > > are quite content to tell other exactly that, as justification for
> > > their own moral compass or lack of. Interesting they are reflecting
> > > the ideals in reflection of the same creator they denied. Fascinating
> > > don't you think?
>
> > For myself, I try not to "believe" things; I require at least some
> > evidence that connects reasonably to other evidence. This attitude
> > gets me in a lot of trouble (with both scientists and religious
> > types).
>
> Welcome to the club, the members are few and exclusive.
Well, if this is going to devolve into "the" source of True
Morality, we have a meta-problem; what is True Morality true *to*?
> > So far the
> > scientific community has not taken up the "tradition" of killing those
> > who don't accept their worldview...
>
> That may be true, but the science community do inflect enormous peer
> pressure. Hawkins makes the statements that he makes based on his
> reputation as a risk. Any scientist of lower recognition would get his
> head chopped off and would only be allowed to teach science in an
> unknown elementary school well the Bell Curve is more of a flat line.>
At some point early in life I decided to shut my mouth and keep my
head down on certain points; to "go along to get along".
Later on I decided to not do that because I didn't *like* who and
what I was supposed to get along with. I felt much better.
I can't remember her name, and my Google-Fu is weak right now, but
there's this female archaeologist who found a cave in South America
containing stuff indicating human habitation 50,000 years ago, long
before anyone else believes humans arrived there. She pressed her
findings' validity (which passed isotope decay testing etc.) and
eventually got fired and blacklisted. Mind you nobody falsified her
findings; they didn't bother to try because "everybody knows" 10,000
BCE is the earliest humans got there.
IMO those who shushed her are not her peers. FTM they aren't
scientists.
Mark L. Fergerson
Budikka666
> Actually if you read my posts, I believe in terraforming by an Ancient
> type 4 civilization on the Kardashev scale. Thanks for playing.
Now you've admitted that all you have is blind belief whereas
abiogenesis has decades of solid scientific research, you've given it
all away.
As soon as you have decades of scientific research supporting your
bizarre and juvenile claims, do let us know. Until then, abiogenesis
is the only scientific explanation for the origin of life. End of
story, Case closed.
Thanks for playing. I'm done with you. You can go now.
Budikka
Ips-Switch
news:781f7cd7-b7a0-45e8...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
And, Jabbers is just as nasty as he ever was.
~~~~~~~~
That's what the abuse of the Watchtower Society does to people. Don't
answer the door when they come knocking. Avoid these people like the plague
they are.
Joseki
> On Sep 8, 5:47 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually if you read my posts, I believe in terraforming by an Ancient
> > type 4 civilization on the Kardashev scale. Thanks for playing.
>
> Now you've admitted that all you have is blind belief whereas
> abiogenesis has decades of solid scientific research, you've given it
> all away.
>
Having a belief is different than having evidence. We are all
entitled You can believe in Gazoo the great, so? . If you were paying
attention closely to any of my posts in this regards you would have
notice I've said I can't demonstrate a type 4 civilization and I have
repeated this many times. As for abiogenesis, waht you have decades
of trying to prove it. and test were met with failures.
> As soon as you have decades of scientific research supporting your
> bizarre and juvenile claims, do let us know.
Let you know what exactly? reading comprehension you have? The problem
you have is that your on-celled Amoeba mind only scan Usenet posts.
You can't read and you don't know how. ( American education in action
I gather) All you do is home in on keywords So you can formulate an ad-
hom attack to satisfy your need for attention.
Go watch the first three Episodes of Sesame street, and once you know
how to formulate and read a sentence get back to us.
Joseki
> "Mickey" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Yeah... as expected a sock-puppet reply, when I'm right, I'm right.
Which is always.
Ips-Switch
Budikka has not been absent, though your own
absence is much desired. Knowing you, after all
your years of trolling, you probably didn't even read
any of the websites she posted the urls to.
* JWs are only allowed to read WTS approved websites. Nothing concerning
abiogenesis or evolution is allowed. The WTS claims it will "stumble" them.
And, are you telling us that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't
creationists? You both base your beliefs on Genesis, just
translated differently. To me, that just makes you a
different kind of creationist.
* They are indeed creationists. I asked my JW neighbor several months ago.
They do believe in a creation that took place over a 7000 year, not day,
period.
Joseki
>
> * They are indeed creationists. I asked my JW neighbor several months ago.
> They do believe in a creation that took place over a 7000 year, not day,
> period.
Yeah Carol, If you say so it must be true, more so because you don't
even have a clue....
Wombat
> "Mickey" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote in message
I like to tell them these days that they are liars. Once a pair
promised to return with evidence supporting their position. Needless
to say, they never returned. This happened three times. Once a whole
gruppe of them descended on my street. It was noticeable that my
house was ignored.
Wombat