17 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerGiven the abundant and repeated nature of the ignorance of science, math, logic, and English that you have displayed in just this thread alone, you should exercise a great deal more parsimony with your condescending laughter.
So you are saying that Maths explains where the H O C and N plus energy come from?
Don't make me laugh...
17 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou just continue to play word games, it's like you realize you are entirely bereft of scientific knowlege.
So you are saying that Maths explains where the H O C and N plus energy come from?
Don't make me laugh...
So laugh all you want ,, the laughs really on you.
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, they would not surely have funded it. It would cost a lot of money, and there are many, many scientific issues that need funding and which are far more pressing.
If so, then why has nobody funded it? They have tried to produce life in the lab for the last century. If BM was a possibility they would surely have funded it.
If you want to pay for it, I'll do the experiments!
18 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYour implication is that to explain the origin of life, one must explain the origin of the universe. Do you agree that maybe intelligence did not enter the picture after the universe was created, and that the Earth is billions of years old?
OK. Lets assume what you are saying is true.
The question is: Where did the H O C and N plus energy come from?
I don't have much reason to believe some intelligence did not start the universe going. I don't have any reason to believe one did either. What I feel somewhat confident about is how life originated from non-life, not where the original matter and energy came from.
Once again, by the way, adding some god to the explanation does not take away the need to explain where things came from. It just means you need to explain where the god came from.
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe Gnostics had a cosmology that reminds me of Quantum Field Theory , in it they say the god of the OT was Error. That the Church suppressed them ( violently, of course) is one of the greater crimes against freedom of religion in history. As it is : it's possibly the best possible chance to merge Religion and Science,,however much both regimens would resist it.
Your implication is that to explain the origin of life, one must explain the origin of the universe. Do you agree that maybe intelligence did not enter the picture after the universe was created, and that the Earth is billions of years old?
I don't have much reason to believe some intelligence did not start the universe going. I don't have any ...[text shortened]... d to explain where things came from. It just means you need to explain where the god came from.
Although I tend to think an explanation of the universe that says God is only a waving of space would really get the Thumpers a Thumping. And science would probably disprove it anyway.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWould it cost more money than going on a wild goose chase looking for life on Mars?
No, they would not surely have funded it. It would cost a lot of money, and there are many, many scientific issues that need funding and which are far more pressing.
If you want to pay for it, I'll do the experiments!
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't know. That is a good point; both issues seem to be of equal importance and urgency (or lack thereof). I suppose it would depend on what experiments people choose to do.
Would it cost more money than going on a wild goose chase looking for life on Mars?
People have been doing experiments which investigate abiogenesis actually. For example, take a look at this page:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=abiogenesis
So when I said such experiments aren't being funded clearly I was in error. However, there is a lot more that could be done with more funding.
Why is the possibility of life on Mars being funded so heavily but not the possibility of abiogenesis? I don't know. I'd guess it's simply the whim of scientists and/or those who fund them. With the current resurgence of creationism, I'll bet abiogenesis will become a hot topic in science fairy soon.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo you don't think that scientists are being funded billions of dollars to look for life on Mars because they seem to have failed to prove abiogenisis?
Because they both seem equally important yet if life is found on mars then it would not be neccessary to prove abiogenisis.
Don't you think that they are just funding these projects to try to explain away the existance of God? Be somehow they seem to be failing...
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, I don't think that is true.
So you don't think that scientists are being funded billions of dollars to look for life on Mars because they seem to have failed to prove abiogenisis?
Because they both seem equally important yet if life is found on mars then it would not be neccessary to prove abiogenisis.
It's not "necessary" to prove abiogenesis regardless of whether life is found on Mars or not. If life were found on Mars, it would not prove abiogenesis. The two are mostly independent issues.
18 Jun 05
1 edit
Don't you think that they are just funding these projects to try to explain away the existance of God? Be somehow they seem to be failing...
Which projects are you referring to? The abiogenesis experiments or the experiments to determine if there is or was life on Mars?
I don't think the scientific community as a whole tries to disprove the existence of God. Some scientists do. Some scientists are theists, even those who accept the TOE, the possibility of abiogenesis and/or the possibility that there might be life on Mars.
EDIT to fix a spelling error.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo do you agree that abiogenisis has not yet been proven?
No, I don't think that is true.
It's not "necessary" to prove abiogenesis regardless of whether life is found on Mars or not. If life were found on Mars, it would not prove abiogenesis. The two are mostly independent issues.
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWithout looking I already know he doesn't present any facts to to support the god hypothesis. Sometimes gnosis is worth having. I can't see why you "christians" are so intent on using creation to prove your god of Error, anyway. It certainly isn't the Father that Christ spoke of.
Fine. I would recomend that you read this article, written by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
I would appreciate it if you could give me your thoughts on it.
Unless you can show some data that shows It exists anything you claim was done in It's name will be suspect.
Meantime, the Truth is back and it's not going to be surpressed again, so tell your minister the Big U is taking His son back from the Error preachers.