11 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt's a relatively young branch of science, still finding its feet.
I'll agree that we still have alot to learn, but we're working on it every day. I'd suggest that you are a little more carefull with your verbage in the future.
I'd suggest that you are a little more carefull[sic] with your verbage[sic] in the future.
I'll try being less plebian in my verbiage next time round. 😀
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseYes, they do. Impressive.
Don't viruses need hosts to reproduce?
However, my point was that after 4 billion years of evolution viruses are probably closest to what we think the initial organisms were like. Then they evolved into something resembling prokaryotic organisms (microbes), then about 2 billion years ago eukaryotic cells evolved. We have huge amounts of data, both based on genetic sequences and on physiology / biochemistry to suggest that, for example, that chloroplasts in plant cells are closely related to still extant green microbe cells. The fossil record certainly shows the stages that we would predict extremely adequately.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzFair enough. So would you agree that science with all its sophisticated laboratories has not yet been able to (re)produce life from non-life - a process credited to random chance (and luck)?
Yes, they do. Impressive.
However, my point was that after 4 billion years of evolution viruses are probably closest to what we think the initial organisms were like. Then they evolved into something resembling prokaryotic organisms (microbes), then about 2 billion years ago eukaryotic cells evolved. We have huge amounts of data, both based on gen ...[text shortened]... cells. The fossil record certainly shows the stages that we would predict extremely adequately.
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseWell maybe if we had billions of years and a lab the size of the earth.
Fair enough. So would you agree that science with all its sophisticated laboratories has not yet been able to (re)produce life from non-life - a process credited to random chance (and luck)?
[EDIT]we are not quite sure yet where on earth life started and im not sure if we will ever know but knowing that would reduce it to millions.
Hmmm maybe it says in the bible i will have a little look
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThe scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Science (by means of the scientific method) is the observation, testing and hypothesising of nature's laws.
The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Science (by means of the scientific method) is the observation, testing and hypothesising of nature's laws. If you believe in a creator, then obviously the creator would have programmed these laws into his creation. I'm not too sure one can therefore deduce that the creator created science.[/b]
Yes, this is the process of learning.
If you believe in a creator, then obviously the creator would have programmed these laws into his creation. I'm not too sure one can therefore deduce that the creator created science.
Wow, I don’t follow your reasoning at all. By your logic, a computer programmer who creates a program is not really the creator of the program because he programmed the laws himself.
Tell me that this is not what you are saying. God created hydrogen and oxygen molecules so that they attract one another and form water, but he somehow did not create water. Is this it?
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess Express[/b]Erm, science does not equal the laws of nature - it merely observes them.
[b]The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Science (by means of the scientific method) is the observation, testing and hypothesising of nature's laws.
Yes, this is the process of learning.
If you believe in a creator, ...[text shortened]... o that they attract one another and form water, but he somehow did not create water. Is this it?
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseYes, absolutely. I'll take that wager. I'll even take the suggestion further;
Is that a yes? If you were to level the playingfield in that way I suggest removing all forms of intelligence (scientists, computers etc) from this giant lab of yours.
Provided that there is an adequate supply of energy, water (mainly due to of physico-chemical properties on earth), and the most abundant element was either carbon or silicon then I would suggest that provided the right conditions (such as a sea which slops about abit) are present life will evolve given enough time.
Now, scientifically the burden of proof is on you - you must disprove me. I'll take a check for the scientific work necessary. Shouldn't be more than a few hundred billion $ or so.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by Will EverittYes, Newton's laws are extemely useful and applicable today. That is what is so attractive about science, it WORKS. But, my point is not that science is getting nowhere, but that science is not truth. Newton's laws work, but they are not a 100% accurate description of the way the physical world operates. This shortcoming is illustrated on the astronmical and molecular scales.
Newton’s laws still apply they are not perfect but they serve a job well they explain the majority of situations. I think they are an important development in the way science progresses also they helped inspire the "updates" it would of been wrong of Newton if he thought there might of been situations where they didn’t apply and so didn’t publics them ...[text shortened]... rd and then when the exceptions where found 1 step back as the overall impact is still positive.
Why does this matter? Because I was attempting to explain that God does not have to make anything agree with scientific laws that are obviously flawed on some level and which do not equate physical reality. These laws are simply things we have made, that work, in an attempt to describe the physical world as we see it.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by Will EverittWe have an idea it may have been in shallow bodies of saline water. Saline comes from the fact that the cytoplasm in our cells is quite salty, relatively similar in composition to seawater. The shallow seas bit is for two reasons, 1) water absorbs light, these organisms would have to have been relatively close to the surface to get some light / energy, 2) water absorbs UV, the amount of UV the sun was throwing out at that time would have destroyed the RNA /DNA of any organisms living on land.
Well maybe if we had billions of years and a lab the size of the earth.
[EDIT]we are not quite sure yet where on earth life started and im not sure if we will ever know but knowing that would reduce it to millions.
Hmmm maybe it says in the bible i will have a little look
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseJust because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done. Just about every technogical advance ever made has been impossible until someone went and did it, like flight, travelling over 30 mph, the train etc.
Is that a yes? If you were to level the playingfield in that way I suggest removing all forms of intelligence (scientists, computers etc) from this giant lab of yours.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzProvided that there is an adequate supply of energy, water (mainly due to of physico-chemical properties on earth), and the most abundant element was either carbon or silicon then I would suggest that provided the right conditions (such as a sea which slops about abit) are present life will evolve given enough time.
Yes, absolutely. I'll take that wager. I'll even take the suggestion further;
Provided that there is an adequate supply of energy, water (mainly due to of physico-chemical properties on earth), and the most abundant element was either carbon or silicon then I would suggest that provided the right conditions (such as a sea which slops about abit) ...[text shortened]... check for the scientific work necessary. Shouldn't be more than a few hundred billion $ or so.
So random chance, time and non-intelligence always triumphs over intelligence?
Now, scientifically the burden of proof is on you - you must disprove me.
You're slipping me a fast one here - you first need to prove that an organism will emerge.
Shouldn't be more than a few hundred billion $ or so.
C'mon it wouldn't be that expensive - arrange all the amino acids in the correct sequence, give them a whammy - blast 'em with energy and presto, the monster awakes; easy as pie.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by yousersI think one day we will have laws that describe things perfectly this is what science is striving for a law that is perfect. Also how do newtons laws disagree on an astronmical scale?i thoguht they were fine when you taking everything into account.
Yes, Newton's laws are extemely useful and applicable today. That is what is so attractive about science, it WORKS. But, my point is not that science is getting nowhere, but that science is not truth. Newton's laws work, but they are not a 100% accurate description of the way the physical world operates. This shortcoming is illustrated on the astronmic ...[text shortened]... imply things we have made, that work, in an attempt to describe the physical world as we see it.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by Halitose"So random chance, time and non-intelligence always triumphs over intelligence?"
[b]Provided that there is an adequate supply of energy, water (mainly due to of physico-chemical properties on earth), and the most abundant element was either carbon or silicon then I would suggest that provided the right conditions (such as a sea which slops about abit) are present life will evolve given enough time.
So random chance, time and non- ...[text shortened]... quence, give them a whammy - blast 'em with energy and presto, the monster awakes; easy as pie.[/b]
not always but there are time when it can do the job better for example if i wanted to errode a big block of rock it would be much easier to leave it in the sea then use intelligence
"C'mon it wouldn't be that expensive - arrange all the amino acids in the correct sequence, give them a whammy - blast 'em with energy and presto, the monster awakes; easy as pie."
you asked to do ti with no inteligence so i would like funding to terraform a planet into the right situation and leave it long enough.