A Bio Genesis

@sonhouse said
In other words there is no defense to my argument.

There's no defense to "God did it", either. All of you are full of... well, it's spread so thin it isn't even good enough for manure.

@shallow-blue said
There's no defense to "God did it", either. All of you are full of... well, it's spread so thin it isn't even good enough for manure.

So did your god do it or not? You know my stance. What is yours?

@sonhouse said
You already admitted both you and your two science mavens believe GODIDIT. Nothing further need to be breached.
I NEVER said we can prove life started naturally with no god needed. I did say I think we have the technology and the genius of scientists to suss it out.
Of course then you move the goalpost and say that means I have religious 'faith'.
The difference is your f ...[text shortened]... hat with 'that just proves our god wrote all that out' which is just as bad, a myth and a myth only.

If you could limit your discussion to the lecture, the "Maillard reaction" what was your reaction to what he said?

@sonhouse said
You already admitted both you and your two science mavens believe GODIDIT. Nothing further need to be breached.
I NEVER said we can prove life started naturally with no god needed. I did say I think we have the technology and the genius of scientists to suss it out.
Of course then you move the goalpost and say that means I have religious 'faith'.
The difference is your f ...[text shortened]... hat with 'that just proves our god wrote all that out' which is just as bad, a myth and a myth only.

I just reviewed that discussion and now I do not believe you did watch it, because he did bring up the light beams. For crying out loud, you have to misrepresent watching a video to make your self-righteous stand, how sad is that!

@kellyjay said
I just reviewed that discussion and now I do not believe you did watch it, because he did bring up the light beams. For crying out loud, you have to misrepresent watching a video to make your self-righteous stand, how sad is that!

Light beams? What has that to do with organic laden nebula clouds hitting the solar system? In one post I said Elon Musk wants to send microsats to Alpha Centauri powered by lasers but that is a bit different than interstellar clouds hitting the solar system.

The Maillard reaction is just carmelized cooking and I did not go into the lectures deep enough to see that mentioned, I assume he would say that lowers the complexity of organics thus leading to a break on the chemical evolution of prebiotic material leading to life.

Maybe you can see watching hours of such video's but I have problems at home, wife near invalid, knee replacement needing replacement, trying to expand my compositions I put up on Soundcloud and financial difficulties, right now having problems with broken stuff at our house, latest is a bad dishwasher which I had to take a long time troubleshooting till I understood exactly what was wrong which was a bad control board and now working to get another one and having plumbing problems in one bathroom. Then driving to work deep in NJ, 80 miles one way.
One issue I have with those video's is the conclusion. I guess that is the biggest one. The other is no mention of introduction of prebiotic organic material from asteroids, meteorites, interstellar clouds and such. We know meteorites from Mars have hit Earth and if there was organics on those meteorites it would jump start the not enough time argument also.

@sonhouse said
Light beams? What has that to do with organic laden nebula clouds hitting the solar system? In one post I said Elon Musk wants to send microsats to Alpha Centauri powered by lasers but that is a bit different than interstellar clouds hitting the solar system.

The Maillard reaction is just carmelized cooking and I did not go into the lectures deep enough to see that mentio ...[text shortened]... and if there was organics on those meteorites it would jump start the not enough time argument also.

I'm betting you didn't go into the lecture hardly at all, I gave you credit for it, but you are no different than wildgrass, both of you were acting like you watched it. So much for an honest discussion, do you behave that way with your science too, you think people should report things honestly or just pretend?

@kellyjay said
I'm betting you didn't go into the lecture hardly at all, I gave you credit for it, but you are no different than wildgrass, both of you were acting like you watched it. So much for an honest discussion, do you behave that way with your science too, you think people should report things honestly or just pretend?

So you think those dudes were being HONEST? When they knew from the outset they were trying to prove men cannot figure it out therefore GODIDIT?
Do you seriously think they were talking about science and nothing else? If so you are naive. Or just as duped as they are in their certainty humans can't figure it out.

@sonhouse said
So you think those dudes were being HONEST? When they knew from the outset they were trying to prove men cannot figure it out therefore GODIDIT?
Do you seriously think they were talking about science and nothing else? If so you are naive. Or just as duped as they are in their certainty humans can't figure it out.

What is dishonest about discussing chemical reactions? You think those who are Atheist don't push their world views? You have been pushing your views, speaking out against those things you disagree with. You have been attempting to use 'science' to promote your world views. That is the very thing you have accused this guy of doing!

Chemist speaking about chemical reactions because they believe in God doesn't void the science they are displaying in their conversation. They way you frame it no one can talk about anything with a belief in God in them, they conspire if they do! Your issue is it isn't truth you care about, its your world view, protecting it at all cost against anyone who disagree. I'd prefer anyone I talk to if they have bias say so up front, your bias is very hateful when it is displayed.

@kellyjay said
What is dishonest about discussing chemical reactions?

Nothing.
But implying Goddidit and then make out your not implying Goddidit to hide your true non-scientific religious motives for your non-scientific rhetorics that you pretend to be science when its not science but just religious propaganda is dishonest.

@humy said
Nothing.
But implying Goddidit and then make out your not implying Goddidit to hide your true non-scientific religious motives for your non-scientific rhetorics that you pretend to be science when its not science but just religious propaganda is dishonest.

What are you using to justify any accusations that you have made? You are just assuming or have you watched it? I am betting you have not watched it, have no plans to watch it, but you feel justified in smearing that guy any way. Because you are just so special you don’t need to see to accuse!

@humy said
Nothing.
But implying Goddidit and then make out your not implying Goddidit to hide your true non-scientific religious motives for your non-scientific rhetorics that you pretend to be science when its not science but just religious propaganda is dishonest.

I am not the one giving the lecture, not that it matters to you.

@kellyjay said
Well, they are some of the many points science cannot explain. It cannot explain where everything came from, it cannot explain how life got started and so on. Yet you think time will tell, that is your equivalent to "God did it", you have FAITH believing these issues will be explained in time.

Of the two I am thinking the life issue is the hardest, even though the ...[text shortened]... k to the science if you can, Chemist should know a little about their field in science do you think?

So his bottom line is the need to identify examples of 'intelligent design'. Then goes on to say "WHEN" we have evidence of that then we go on from there, something like that. So the whole bottom line of his presentation is to inspire folks to look for evidence of 'intelligent design', NOO we are not talking about god here....Right.
The maillard reaction is his main thesis a cell can never be formed because sugars and amino acids have to be kept separate and that is impossible according to him.
He presents no counter arguments to that thesis and let me remind you, it only takes the production of one cell to start the whole thing off, then there it is a revolution of complexity. Also about that Maillard reaction (from 1912) I gargled it and could find zero to do with origin of life, it was 100% about cooking and health. So it looks like he is the only one bringing this up as THE main objection to the idea that life could ever have formed without a deity. As far as I can tell, he is the only one with this thesis. At least I could not find a single thing online as of yet. I think he is maybe right but there are conditions that could have happened, where the sugars and amino's WERE kept separate but he pointedly does not bring up that subject, like a bit of clay holding the two apart or some such. I just find that argument a bit on the weak side. And his foray into intelligent design was proof what his agenda is, it still boils down to him thinking GODIDIT. Even though he is still looking for evidence of ID which he has never found to this date. So he is just throwing out unproven hypotheses.

And your other buddy at the end goes on to directly quote the bible, the idea there being don't trust science. But hey, there was zero religious bias, right?

I did find a paper on the Maillard reaction in relation to origins and here is one paragraph from it, the bottom line:

"We were not able to assign the carbon peaks of the initial products with the serine, glycine, and lysine, other than
to suggest that they are probably the compounds related to the cyclic aminals (glycosyl amines) rather than the openchain
Shiff bases, due to the lack of a peak at 163 ppm for the C=N. The reaction was faster when the samples were
heated, and the fastest when the solid state mixtures were heated. An important conclusion of our solution studies is that
the Maillard reaction is not favored in the aqueous solution, as compared to the solid state studies. This means that in
the primordial oceans the sugars and amino acids would not rapidly consume each other to yield the Maillard products.
The fortunate fact is that the first step, the formation of the Shiff base is the rate-determining step, and not the second
step, the Amadori rearrangement, which then leads to the further steps of the Maillard reaction 34. On the meteorites,
the solid-state Maillard reaction would be of interest. In that respect, the most interesting part of our study would then
be the analysis of the melanoidin part of the Maillard reaction, and a comparison with the insoluble organic carbon on
the meteorites."

Get the part where it said the Maillard reaction would not occur so much in a solid state compared to being in liquid water. So why didn't your dude bring THAT up?
As a scientist I am quite sure he knew all about that study:
Full article here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vera_Kolb2/publication/252466549_Prebiotic_significance_of_the_Maillard_reaction/links/56928f3608aee91f69a7023f/Prebiotic-significance-of-the-Maillard-reaction.pdf

@sonhouse said
So his bottom line is the need to identify examples of 'intelligent design'. Then goes on to say "WHEN" we have evidence of that then we go on from there, something like that. So the whole bottom line of his presentation is to inspire folks to look for evidence of 'intelligent design', NOO we are not talking about god here....Right.
The maillard reaction is his main thesis ...[text shortened]... Maillard_reaction/links/56928f3608aee91f69a7023f/Prebiotic-significance-of-the-Maillard-reaction.pdf

You can quit your bitching about what he brought up, since you didn't watch the whole thing you don't have a clue what he brought up. Your spew isn't based upon the video, but your assumptions, and if that is all you use to define reality, good luck with that!

@kellyjay said
You can quit your bitching about what he brought up, since you didn't watch the whole thing you don't have a clue what he brought up. Your spew isn't based upon the video, but your assumptions, and if that is all you use to define reality, good luck with that!

I watched a lot of it and the major thesis is the Maillard reaction. That is what he hangs his whole tale on. The first dude is what I am talking about.

@sonhouse said
I watched a lot of it and the major thesis is the Maillard reaction. That is what he hangs his whole tale on. The first dude is what I am talking about.

Okay and? If you don’t watch the whole thing you don’t know what was brought up!