Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on February 13, 2019, 11:26:29 PM
-
This Opportunity Rover has been at it for 14 years and all it managed to do was to bury itself in dust while not busy catching desert images. Now it's no more
https://nyti.ms/2E7Gk8C
Seriously, I still think evolution is a worse guess of origins compared to Creationism ,but the idea that life can or did evolve simultaneously in different parts of the Galaxy is crazy. Imagine all the chance events that led to life on Earth according to evolutionists independently replicated elsewhere.
-
There are billions of earth like objects in our infinite universe. Relazy. Evolution is solid science. The foundation of any modern life science.
-
I believe that there is no other form of what we understand as life apart from this one. Evolution did occur and we are just part of result from it.
-
I don't buy evolution. It's like saying a hammer evolved from a piece of iron.
-
Our universe as we know is infinite and if not infinite - incredibly large. This I think should be left to scientist - as the rest of us try to live our short lives in planet earth.
I believe that there is no other form of what we understand as life apart from this one. Evolution did occur and we are just part of result from it.
-
This Opportunity Rover has been at it for 14 years and all it managed to do was to bury itself in dust while not busy catching desert images. Now it's no more
https://nyti.ms/2E7Gk8C
Seriously, I still think evolution is a worse guess of origins compared to Creationism ,but the idea that life can or did evolve simultaneously in different parts of the Galaxy is crazy. Imagine all the chance events that led to life on Earth according to evolutionists independently replicated elsewhere.
Opportunity was only meant to last a few months. And it was not looking for life.
On your conclusion, that’s a bold statement that is unfalsifiable. How do you prove there is no life elsewhere?
The question is also dispositive in only one direction; if we find what we currently think of as life or a good analogue of it. If the universe were the size of room, and we had siffed around maybe 90% of it we could be confident with such a conclusion.
The search for life elsewhere has not even really started. Presently it’s mostly just theorizing how it happened on earth. And, no, it didn’t happen in one week a few thousand years ago.
-
I believe that there is no other form of what we understand as life apart from this one. Evolution did occur and we are just part of result from it.
Strictly speaking that is true. Different things adapt differently to different places. There might be similarities at the primitive stages that all but vanish to a point where you don’t know what to expect. It’s early days.
-
I don't buy evolution. It's like saying a hammer evolved from a piece of iron.
I'm with you, Veri, regarding true Darwinian evolution. If it did happen, it was manipulated by an intelligent mechanism, especially the emergence of DNA and the various points in the evolutionary record where there seems to have been an infusion of new info into the code, like in the Cambrian explosion.
Still, though, I don't think the two questions in the OP are related: I.e the existence of life elsewhere and Darwinian evolution. They simply transfer the same debate/problem/question to another planet.
-
I'm with you too, Kadame.
-
I believe that there is no other form of what we understand as life apart from this one. Evolution did occur and we are just part of result from it.
Strictly speaking that is true. Different things adapt differently to different places. There might be similarities at the primitive stages that all but vanish to a point where you don’t know what to expect. It’s early days.
Adaptation is no proof of evolution. I wanted to laugh out loud about Veritas' hammer evolving from iron (never) but the neighbors might be disturbed.
-
This Opportunity Rover has been at it for 14 years and all it managed to do was to bury itself in dust while not busy catching desert images. Now it's no more
https://nyti.ms/2E7Gk8C
Seriously, I still think evolution is a worse guess of origins compared to Creationism ,but the idea that life can or did evolve simultaneously in different parts of the Galaxy is crazy. Imagine all the chance events that led to life on Earth according to evolutionists independently replicated elsewhere.
Opportunity was only meant to last a few months. And it was not looking for life.
On your conclusion, that’s a bold statement that is unfalsifiable. How do you prove there is no life elsewhere?
The question is also dispositive in only one direction; if we find what we currently think of as life or a good analogue of it. If the universe were the size of room, and we had siffed around maybe 90% of it we could be confident with such a conclusion.
The search for life elsewhere has not even really started. Presently it’s mostly just theorizing how it happened on earth. And, no, it didn’t happen in one week a few thousand years ago.
Pure maths. Probability of life evolving from nothing is next to nil. Probability of this happing simultaneously and independently on different planets is lower than nil. It’s like probability of picking Brembo brake pads or iPhone XS anywhere outside the earth
-
There are billions of earth like objects in our infinite universe. Relazy. Evolution is solid science. The foundation of any modern life science.
It’s a fluid theory passing as fact
-
This Opportunity Rover has been at it for 14 years and all it managed to do was to bury itself in dust while not busy catching desert images. Now it's no more
https://nyti.ms/2E7Gk8C (https://nyti.ms/2E7Gk8C)
Seriously, I still think evolution is a worse guess of origins compared to Creationism ,but the idea that life can or did evolve simultaneously in different parts of the Galaxy is crazy. Imagine all the chance events that led to life on Earth according to evolutionists independently replicated elsewhere.
Opportunity was only meant to last a few months. And it was not looking for life.
On your conclusion, that’s a bold statement that is unfalsifiable. How do you prove there is no life elsewhere?
The question is also dispositive in only one direction; if we find what we currently think of as life or a good analogue of it. If the universe were the size of room, and we had siffed around maybe 90% of it we could be confident with such a conclusion.
The search for life elsewhere has not even really started. Presently it’s mostly just theorizing how it happened on earth. And, no, it didn’t happen in one week a few thousand years ago.
Pure maths. Probability of life evolving from nothing is next to nil. Probability of this happing simultaneously and independently on different planets is lower than nil. It’s like probability of picking Brembo brake pads or iPhone XS anywhere outside the earth
Those probabilities are unknown. It's OK to not know.
-
This Opportunity Rover has been at it for 14 years and all it managed to do was to bury itself in dust while not busy catching desert images. Now it's no more
https://nyti.ms/2E7Gk8C (https://nyti.ms/2E7Gk8C)
Seriously, I still think evolution is a worse guess of origins compared to Creationism ,but the idea that life can or did evolve simultaneously in different parts of the Galaxy is crazy. Imagine all the chance events that led to life on Earth according to evolutionists independently replicated elsewhere.
Opportunity was only meant to last a few months. And it was not looking for life.
On your conclusion, that’s a bold statement that is unfalsifiable. How do you prove there is no life elsewhere?
The question is also dispositive in only one direction; if we find what we currently think of as life or a good analogue of it. If the universe were the size of room, and we had siffed around maybe 90% of it we could be confident with such a conclusion.
The search for life elsewhere has not even really started. Presently it’s mostly just theorizing how it happened on earth. And, no, it didn’t happen in one week a few thousand years ago.
Pure maths. Probability of life evolving from nothing is next to nil. Probability of this happing simultaneously and independently on different planets is lower than nil. It’s like probability of picking Brembo brake pads or iPhone XS anywhere outside the earth
Those probabilities are unknown. It's OK to not know.
We don’t know how small they are but we know they are next to negligible.
-
There are billions of earth like objects in our infinite universe. Relazy. Evolution is solid science. The foundation of any modern life science.
It’s a fluid theory passing as fact
It's a scientific theory, not an "established" fact. Scientific theories are inherently tentative(fluid), open to challenges, and discarded when a new theory with superior explanatory power presents itself. It's a bit like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, with many pieces missing.
-
Opportunity was only meant to last a few months. And it was not looking for life.
On your conclusion, that’s a bold statement that is unfalsifiable. How do you prove there is no life elsewhere?
The question is also dispositive in only one direction; if we find what we currently think of as life or a good analogue of it. If the universe were the size of room, and we had siffed around maybe 90% of it we could be confident with such a conclusion.
The search for life elsewhere has not even really started. Presently it’s mostly just theorizing how it happened on earth. And, no, it didn’t happen in one week a few thousand years ago.
Pure maths. Probability of life evolving from nothing is next to nil. Probability of this happing simultaneously and independently on different planets is lower than nil. It’s like probability of picking Brembo brake pads or iPhone XS anywhere outside the earth
Those probabilities are unknown. It's OK to not know.
We don’t know how small they are but we know they are next to negligible.
You'd have to know a bit more about the universe to assume how small we know they are. The only thing we know with certainty is it is in the closed interval [0,1]. The observable universe is huge. The entire universe(including parts we cannot observe in principal, even bigger). On that basis alone, we can only know with certainty one thing - if there is life outside the earth. But we cannot know if there is no life elsewhere.
But looking at the universe might be going too far. We are only starting to scratch the surface even right here in our Solar System backyard. It makes sense to wait and see. Hopefully the question can be resolved in our lifetime, but that is not a necessity to understand why you can't rule out life elsewhere.
-
It's possible there's life outside our own world (the Bible suggests it from Jesus' parable of the shepherd who left 99 sheep to go and look for the one who was lost - our world), but such an existence would not even begin to prove evolution. In fact, it would prove creation beyond any reasonable doubt.
-
It's possible there's life outside our own world (the Bible suggests it from Jesus' parable of the shepherd who left 99 sheep to go and look for the one who was lost - our world), but such an existence would not even begin to prove evolution. In fact, it would prove creation beyond any reasonable doubt.
It's possible because there is evidence of it on earth, which is just one of countless celestial bodies. It's possible for the same reason observation of life in Borneo, points to its likelihood in the Congo Forest.
-
I believe that there is no other form of what we understand as life apart from this one. Evolution did occur and we are just part of result from it.
Strictly speaking that is true. Different things adapt differently to different places. There might be similarities at the primitive stages that all but vanish to a point where you don’t know what to expect. It’s early days.
Adaptation is no proof of evolution. I wanted to laugh out loud about Veritas' hammer evolving from iron (never) but the neighbors might be disturbed.
I don't claim to have "proofs" of anything. But adaptation is at the heart of the idea behind natural selection. That is because the earth is in constant flux. Oxygen levels, atmospheric pressure, temperatures, food resources, etc, these things are not static over geological periods. If changes happen one way, a poorly adapted species could vanish, while a better adapted one one would thrive.
-
It's possible there's life outside our own world
That's my position as well. It's not possible to say that there's no life anywhere else because after all, the same mechanism that would enable it to develop here could do the same in a countless other places. This holds true whether you believe in a literal six-day creation or full-blown materialistic Darwinism. If either happened here, it could've happened elsewhere in the universe. The question of whether there's life elsewhere is not at all related to the question of how life developed, so I don't know why Christians dismiss it so readily. The universe's staggering size precludes us from excluding life elsewhere. And even in the most literalist reading of the Bible, God never said he had made a full record of all his activities known, so really there's no need. Even Jews believe God made other worlds before this one and destroyed them.
-
There are billions of earth like objects in our infinite universe. Relazy. Evolution is solid science. The foundation of any modern life science.
It’s a fluid theory passing as fact
It's a scientific theory, not an "established" fact. Scientific theories are inherently tentative(fluid), open to challenges, and discarded when a new theory with superior explanatory power presents itself. It's a bit like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, with many pieces missing.
Then it's no ’solid science’
-
You can't separate origins from evolution. That is being disingenuous.
’we don't know how it started, but we know we started as unicellular organisms’.
That's capital BS.
Science shies away from the question of origins because it throws their evolution theory into disarray.
Formation of life from basic elements (for which nobody can even guess how they came about) takes tons of assumptions. It is simply impossible. But grant that by that chance in trillions it happened and here we are. For the same chance to happen elsewhere say in Mars, you'd need the same conditions and opportunities. If these probabilities were to be applied to something else, any sober head would dismiss them as impossible, but they are tolerated in evilution.
On the other hand, if you believe in creation, there is absolutely nothing stopping God from creating life a billion billion times simultaneously elsewhere.
That's why I can confidently say that we need not tour all of the universe to conclude there is no life. As an evolutionist, the impossibility of natural origins should banish that idea. Problem is, the evolutionist embraces natural origins as a fact though with lots of difficulties.
-
There are billions of earth like objects in our infinite universe. Relazy. Evolution is solid science. The foundation of any modern life science.
It’s a fluid theory passing as fact
It's a scientific theory, not an "established" fact. Scientific theories are inherently tentative(fluid), open to challenges, and discarded when a new theory with superior explanatory power presents itself. It's a bit like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, with many pieces missing.
Then it's no ’solid science’
It’s the nature of the beast. Your religion tells you without equivocation whatever it wants to tell you. Science remains a work in progress. At the mercy of new evidence. You don’t even have to be a scientist or a genius to learn how it works.
-
You can't separate origins from evolution. That is being disingenuous.
’we don't know how it started, but we know we started as unicellular organisms’.
That's capital BS.
Science shies away from the question of origins because it throws their evolution theory into disarray.
Formation of life from basic elements (for which nobody can even guess how they came about) takes tons of assumptions. It is simply impossible. But grant that by that chance in trillions it happened and here we are. For the same chance to happen elsewhere say in Mars, you'd need the same conditions and opportunities. If these probabilities were to be applied to something else, any sober head would dismiss them as impossible, but they are tolerated in evilution.
On the other hand, if you believe in creation, there is absolutely nothing stopping God from creating life a billion billion times simultaneously elsewhere.
That's why I can confidently say that we need not tour all of the universe to conclude there is no life. As an evolutionist, the impossibility of natural origins should banish that idea. Problem is, the evolutionist embraces natural origins as a fact though with lots of difficulties.
Textbook argument from ignorance. We don’t know, therefore garden of Eden.
-
You can't separate origins from evolution. That is being disingenuous.
’we don't know how it started, but we know we started as unicellular organisms’.
That's capital BS.
Science shies away from the question of origins because it throws their evolution theory into disarray.
Formation of life from basic elements (for which nobody can even guess how they came about) takes tons of assumptions. It is simply impossible. But grant that by that chance in trillions it happened and here we are. For the same chance to happen elsewhere say in Mars, you'd need the same conditions and opportunities. If these probabilities were to be applied to something else, any sober head would dismiss them as impossible, but they are tolerated in evilution.
On the other hand, if you believe in creation, there is absolutely nothing stopping God from creating life a billion billion times simultaneously elsewhere.
That's why I can confidently say that we need not tour all of the universe to conclude there is no life. As an evolutionist, the impossibility of natural origins should banish that idea. Problem is, the evolutionist embraces natural origins as a fact though with lots of difficulties.
Textbook argument from ignorance. We don’t know, therefore garden of Eden.
Origins is not ’we don't know’, it is dirt came out of nothing before it became Termie
-
There are billions of earth like objects in our infinite universe. Relazy. Evolution is solid science. The foundation of any modern life science.
It’s a fluid theory passing as fact
It's a scientific theory, not an "established" fact. Scientific theories are inherently tentative(fluid), open to challenges, and discarded when a new theory with superior explanatory power presents itself. It's a bit like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, with many pieces missing.
Then it's no ’solid science’
It’s the nature of the beast. Your religion tells you without equivocation whatever it wants to tell you. Science remains a work in progress. At the mercy of new evidence. You don’t even have to be a scientist or a genius to learn how it works.
Guesswork/chemical evolution is not science.
Let's try this. What makes nothing-dirt-Termie science?
-
You can't separate origins from evolution. That is being disingenuous.
’we don't know how it started, but we know we started as unicellular organisms’.
That's capital BS.
Science shies away from the question of origins because it throws their evolution theory into disarray.
Formation of life from basic elements (for which nobody can even guess how they came about) takes tons of assumptions. It is simply impossible. But grant that by that chance in trillions it happened and here we are. For the same chance to happen elsewhere say in Mars, you'd need the same conditions and opportunities. If these probabilities were to be applied to something else, any sober head would dismiss them as impossible, but they are tolerated in evilution.
On the other hand, if you believe in creation, there is absolutely nothing stopping God from creating life a billion billion times simultaneously elsewhere.
That's why I can confidently say that we need not tour all of the universe to conclude there is no life. As an evolutionist, the impossibility of natural origins should banish that idea. Problem is, the evolutionist embraces natural origins as a fact though with lots of difficulties.
Textbook argument from ignorance. We don’t know, therefore garden of Eden.
Origins is not ’we don't know’, it is dirt came out of nothing before it became Termie
I don't understand what this even means.
-
It’s a fluid theory passing as fact
It's a scientific theory, not an "established" fact. Scientific theories are inherently tentative(fluid), open to challenges, and discarded when a new theory with superior explanatory power presents itself. It's a bit like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, with many pieces missing.
Then it's no ’solid science’
It’s the nature of the beast. Your religion tells you without equivocation whatever it wants to tell you. Science remains a work in progress. At the mercy of new evidence. You don’t even have to be a scientist or a genius to learn how it works.
Guesswork is not science.
Let's try this. What makes nothing-dirt-Termie science?
No. Guesswork is guesswork. Is it used in science? Sometimes. Like I mentioned, doing real science is like playing a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.
The difference with science is when they are guessing(educated or otherwise) they don't call it divine revelation.
What's the meaning of your last question?
-
It’s a fluid theory passing as fact
It's a scientific theory, not an "established" fact. Scientific theories are inherently tentative(fluid), open to challenges, and discarded when a new theory with superior explanatory power presents itself. It's a bit like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, with many pieces missing.
Then it's no ’solid science’
It’s the nature of the beast. Your religion tells you without equivocation whatever it wants to tell you. Science remains a work in progress. At the mercy of new evidence. You don’t even have to be a scientist or a genius to learn how it works.
Guesswork is not science.
Let's try this. What makes nothing-dirt-Termie science?
No. Guesswork is guesswork. Is it used in science? Sometimes. Like I mentioned, doing real science is like playing a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.
The difference with science is when they are guessing(educated or otherwise) they don't call it divine revelation.
What's the meaning of your last question?
Chemical evolution is spontaneous generation which was discredited before evolution was conceived
What makes chemical evolution science and not religion?
-
It's a scientific theory, not an "established" fact. Scientific theories are inherently tentative(fluid), open to challenges, and discarded when a new theory with superior explanatory power presents itself. It's a bit like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, with many pieces missing.
Then it's no ’solid science’
It’s the nature of the beast. Your religion tells you without equivocation whatever it wants to tell you. Science remains a work in progress. At the mercy of new evidence. You don’t even have to be a scientist or a genius to learn how it works.
Guesswork is not science.
Let's try this. What makes nothing-dirt-Termie science?
No. Guesswork is guesswork. Is it used in science? Sometimes. Like I mentioned, doing real science is like playing a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.
The difference with science is when they are guessing(educated or otherwise) they don't call it divine revelation.
What's the meaning of your last question?
Chemical evolution is spontaneous generation which was discredited before evolution was conceived
What makes chemical evolution science and not religion?
Even assuming that your claim is correct, and that chemical evolution is discredited. So what? It's the best information at the moment. When better evidence emerges, it might indeed turn out to be wrong replaced by a totally different mechanism. That is what makes it science.
A more clearer example. Dark matter. Nobody has seen it. But it is hypothesized because it preserves what is currently the best model of the universe so far. When something better comes up, general relativity is not infallible, and can be refined if not discarded entirely.
-
It's a scientific theory, not an "established" fact. Scientific theories are inherently tentative(fluid), open to challenges, and discarded when a new theory with superior explanatory power presents itself. It's a bit like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, with many pieces missing.
Then it's no ’solid science’
It’s the nature of the beast. Your religion tells you without equivocation whatever it wants to tell you. Science remains a work in progress. At the mercy of new evidence. You don’t even have to be a scientist or a genius to learn how it works.
Guesswork is not science.
Let's try this. What makes nothing-dirt-Termie science?
No. Guesswork is guesswork. Is it used in science? Sometimes. Like I mentioned, doing real science is like playing a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.
The difference with science is when they are guessing(educated or otherwise) they don't call it divine revelation.
What's the meaning of your last question?
Chemical evolution is spontaneous generation which was discredited before evolution was conceived
What makes chemical evolution science and not religion?
Even assuming that your claim is correct, and that chemical evolution is discredited. So what? It's the best information at the moment. When better evidence emerges, it might indeed turn out to be wrong replaced by a totally different mechanism. That is what makes it science.
A more clearer example. Dark matter. Nobody has seen it. But it is hypothesized because it preserves what is currently the best model of the universe so far. When something better comes up, general relativity is not infallible, and can be refined if not discarded entirely.
It is not ’best information’ it is the best baseless guess ASSUMING no creator.
15 billion years ago we had nothing but hydrogen, time and energy.
10 billion years later hydrogen had formed all other elements and we had hydrogen, ammonia, oxygen, water
Out of these, organic molecules which are necessary for life emerged. Amino acids, sugars, nucleotides. These formed longer chains or polymers. Sugars formed starch, amino acids formed proteins, nucleotides firmed DNA.
Then magically, these three formed living cells. This is pure conjecture. Probability of such just can't be computed. It's too small.
Dark matter is an attempt to explain phenomena that seemingly defies predictions of scientific theories. So there is a distinct possibility of its existence, but chemical evolution is increasingly discredited by what we know. Every day we are learning of just how complex the simplest cells is, and this pushes probability of chemical evolution even lower. Labs can simulate about every imaginable primordial environment but nothing comes close to demonstrating chemical evolution.
Means you can't hide behind, ’we don't know everything’, or ’we are still learning’. It is so embarrassing that evolutionists pretend it is not part of their theory.
-
Yep. You have to show the evidence for creator(s) if you include it in the hypothesis. Or else it becomes even more discredited than you claim it already is. It’s amazing how much woo you swallow hook line and sinker for someone with such demands for evidence.
-
Here is a more comprehensive response. I was in the gym on a phone, so I couldn’t handle all the nested posts.
It is not ’best information’ it is the best baseless guess ASSUMING no creator.
I think you make a fundamental mistake by assuming science seeks to replace religions and God(or whatever deity one may subscribe to). It doesn’t.
It would only do that if it tried to answer “why” as opposed to “how” the universe functions. If I were religious, that is how I would accommodate it. Put another way, religion stands no chance in the domain of science and vice versa.
If it makes you feel better, the scientific method is here in no small part thanks to a Roman Catholic friar.
15 billion years ago we had nothing but hydrogen, time and energy.
10 billion years later hydrogen had formed all other elements and we had hydrogen, ammonia, oxygen, water
Out of these, organic molecules which are necessary for life emerged. Amino acids, sugars, nucleotides. These formed longer chains or polymers. Sugars formed starch, amino acids formed proteins, nucleotides firmed DNA.
Then magically, these three formed living cells. This is pure conjecture. Probability of such just can't be computed. It's too small.
I am not familiar with abiogenesis in any detail beyond general knowledge. That some initial conditions on earth led to the development of living things. Obviously you are more familiar with it.
But if your point is, if we don’t know how life formed, then we don’t know how it behaves(evolution), that is just ridiculous. As bad as saying we cannot understand digestion, if we don’t know how the gut was formed.
Dark matter is an attempt to explain phenomena that seemingly defies predictions of scientific theories. So there is a distinct possibility of its existence
There are good reasons to believe it exists. But there are equally valid reasons to question our understanding of gravity and hence question it’s existence.
Either way, it’s a good demonstration of the limitations of science. And also why science cannot claim to have the facts nailed down. It’s the best we have, but the best we have can be pretty close to nothing.
, but chemical evolution is increasingly discredited by what we know. Every day we are learning of just how complex the simplest cells is, and this pushes probability of chemical evolution even lower. Labs can simulate about every imaginable primordial environment but nothing comes close to demonstrating chemical evolution.
Oftentimes the more we learn, the more we discover we don’t know. Would we even know this simple fact if we quit because a Bible thumper told us he has all the answers?
Means you can't hide behind, ’we don't know everything’, or ’we are still learning’. It is so embarrassing that evolutionists pretend it is not part of their theory.
If you don’t know, you don’t know. What do you want them to say?
-
Here is a more comprehensive response. I was in the gym on a phone, so I couldn’t handle all the nested posts.
It is not ’best information’ it is the best baseless guess ASSUMING no creator.
I think you make a fundamental mistake by assuming science seeks to replace religions and God(or whatever deity one may subscribe to). It doesn’t.
It would only do that if it tried to answer “why” as opposed to “how” the universe functions. If I were religious, that is how I would accommodate it. Put another way, religion stands no chance in the domain of science and vice versa.
If it makes you feel better, the scientific method is here in no small part thanks to a Roman Catholic friar.
15 billion years ago we had nothing but hydrogen, time and energy.
10 billion years later hydrogen had formed all other elements and we had hydrogen, ammonia, oxygen, water
Out of these, organic molecules which are necessary for life emerged. Amino acids, sugars, nucleotides. These formed longer chains or polymers. Sugars formed starch, amino acids formed proteins, nucleotides firmed DNA.
Then magically, these three formed living cells. This is pure conjecture. Probability of such just can't be computed. It's too small.
I am not familiar with abiogenesis in any detail beyond general knowledge. That some initial conditions on earth led to the development of living things. Obviously you are more familiar with it.
But if your point is, if we don’t know how life formed, then we don’t know how it behaves(evolution), that is just ridiculous. As bad as saying we cannot understand digestion, if we don’t know how the gut was formed.
Dark matter is an attempt to explain phenomena that seemingly defies predictions of scientific theories. So there is a distinct possibility of its existence
There are good reasons to believe it exists. But there are equally valid reasons to question our understanding of gravity and hence question it’s existence.
Either way, it’s a good demonstration of the limitations of science. And also why science cannot claim to have the facts nailed down. It’s the best we have, but the best we have can be pretty close to nothing.
, but chemical evolution is increasingly discredited by what we know. Every day we are learning of just how complex the simplest cells is, and this pushes probability of chemical evolution even lower. Labs can simulate about every imaginable primordial environment but nothing comes close to demonstrating chemical evolution.
Oftentimes the more we learn, the more we discover we don’t know. Would we even know this simple fact if we quit because a Bible thumper told us he has all the answers?
Means you can't hide behind, ’we don't know everything’, or ’we are still learning’. It is so embarrassing that evolutionists pretend it is not part of their theory.
If you don’t know, you don’t know. What do you want them to say?
A scientist entertaining possibility of iPhones existing anywhere else in this universe other than here in earth is mad. We need not tear the universe apart before concluding that iPhones exist only on earth. Understanding how iPhones got here is all we need to rule out their existence elsewhere.
-
Here is a more comprehensive response. I was in the gym on a phone, so I couldn’t handle all the nested posts.
It is not ’best information’ it is the best baseless guess ASSUMING no creator.
I think you make a fundamental mistake by assuming science seeks to replace religions and God(or whatever deity one may subscribe to). It doesn’t.
It would only do that if it tried to answer “why” as opposed to “how” the universe functions. If I were religious, that is how I would accommodate it. Put another way, religion stands no chance in the domain of science and vice versa.
If it makes you feel better, the scientific method is here in no small part thanks to a Roman Catholic friar.
15 billion years ago we had nothing but hydrogen, time and energy.
10 billion years later hydrogen had formed all other elements and we had hydrogen, ammonia, oxygen, water
Out of these, organic molecules which are necessary for life emerged. Amino acids, sugars, nucleotides. These formed longer chains or polymers. Sugars formed starch, amino acids formed proteins, nucleotides firmed DNA.
Then magically, these three formed living cells. This is pure conjecture. Probability of such just can't be computed. It's too small.
I am not familiar with abiogenesis in any detail beyond general knowledge. That some initial conditions on earth led to the development of living things. Obviously you are more familiar with it.
But if your point is, if we don’t know how life formed, then we don’t know how it behaves(evolution), that is just ridiculous. As bad as saying we cannot understand digestion, if we don’t know how the gut was formed.
Dark matter is an attempt to explain phenomena that seemingly defies predictions of scientific theories. So there is a distinct possibility of its existence
There are good reasons to believe it exists. But there are equally valid reasons to question our understanding of gravity and hence question it’s existence.
Either way, it’s a good demonstration of the limitations of science. And also why science cannot claim to have the facts nailed down. It’s the best we have, but the best we have can be pretty close to nothing.
, but chemical evolution is increasingly discredited by what we know. Every day we are learning of just how complex the simplest cells is, and this pushes probability of chemical evolution even lower. Labs can simulate about every imaginable primordial environment but nothing comes close to demonstrating chemical evolution.
Oftentimes the more we learn, the more we discover we don’t know. Would we even know this simple fact if we quit because a Bible thumper told us he has all the answers?
Means you can't hide behind, ’we don't know everything’, or ’we are still learning’. It is so embarrassing that evolutionists pretend it is not part of their theory.
If you don’t know, you don’t know. What do you want them to say?
A scientist entertaining possibility of iPhones existing anywhere else in this universe other than here in earth is mad. We need not tear the universe apart before concluding that iPhones exist only on earth. Understanding how iPhones got here is all we need to rule out their existence elsewhere.
Change that from an iPhone to a generic communication device and it does not sound so mad anymore.
-
Here is a more comprehensive response. I was in the gym on a phone, so I couldn’t handle all the nested posts.
It is not ’best information’ it is the best baseless guess ASSUMING no creator.
I think you make a fundamental mistake by assuming science seeks to replace religions and God(or whatever deity one may subscribe to). It doesn’t.
It would only do that if it tried to answer “why” as opposed to “how” the universe functions. If I were religious, that is how I would accommodate it. Put another way, religion stands no chance in the domain of science and vice versa.
If it makes you feel better, the scientific method is here in no small part thanks to a Roman Catholic friar.
15 billion years ago we had nothing but hydrogen, time and energy.
10 billion years later hydrogen had formed all other elements and we had hydrogen, ammonia, oxygen, water
Out of these, organic molecules which are necessary for life emerged. Amino acids, sugars, nucleotides. These formed longer chains or polymers. Sugars formed starch, amino acids formed proteins, nucleotides firmed DNA.
Then magically, these three formed living cells. This is pure conjecture. Probability of such just can't be computed. It's too small.
I am not familiar with abiogenesis in any detail beyond general knowledge. That some initial conditions on earth led to the development of living things. Obviously you are more familiar with it.
But if your point is, if we don’t know how life formed, then we don’t know how it behaves(evolution), that is just ridiculous. As bad as saying we cannot understand digestion, if we don’t know how the gut was formed.
Dark matter is an attempt to explain phenomena that seemingly defies predictions of scientific theories. So there is a distinct possibility of its existence
There are good reasons to believe it exists. But there are equally valid reasons to question our understanding of gravity and hence question it’s existence.
Either way, it’s a good demonstration of the limitations of science. And also why science cannot claim to have the facts nailed down. It’s the best we have, but the best we have can be pretty close to nothing.
, but chemical evolution is increasingly discredited by what we know. Every day we are learning of just how complex the simplest cells is, and this pushes probability of chemical evolution even lower. Labs can simulate about every imaginable primordial environment but nothing comes close to demonstrating chemical evolution.
Oftentimes the more we learn, the more we discover we don’t know. Would we even know this simple fact if we quit because a Bible thumper told us he has all the answers?
Means you can't hide behind, ’we don't know everything’, or ’we are still learning’. It is so embarrassing that evolutionists pretend it is not part of their theory.
If you don’t know, you don’t know. What do you want them to say?
A scientist entertaining possibility of iPhones existing anywhere else in this universe other than here in earth is mad. We need not tear the universe apart before concluding that iPhones exist only on earth. Understanding how iPhones got here is all we need to rule out their existence elsewhere.
Change that from an iPhone to a generic communication device and it does not sound so mad anymore.
I said iPhone not ’generic communication device’ who h could be anything including smoke signals. Do you see how you don't need to know ’everything’ to rule out some claims as impossible?
-
If your point is there are no earthlings outside earth, then I can almost see the relevance of this analogy. It’s irrelevant if you are looking for analogues.
-
If your point is there are no earthlings outside earth, then I can almost see the relevance of this analogy. It’s irrelevant if you are looking for analogues.
The laws of science that operate on earth operate in the entire universe. It is out of these laws that life allegedly accidentally emerged. Claiming that they similarly operated and generated life elsewhere is fantasy
-
If your point is there are no earthlings outside earth, then I can almost see the relevance of this analogy. It’s irrelevant if you are looking for analogues.
The laws of science that operate on earth operate in the entire universe. It is out of these laws that life allegedly accidentally emerged. Claiming that they similarly operated and generated life elsewhere is fantasy
"Laws of science" is an ongoing fluid enterprise. The search for scientific knowledge does not stop. 100 years from now what we know might turn out to be just as ridiculous as the creationist story.
We don't know if they generated life elsewhere. That is why there is research on the subject.