A Bio Genesis

@humy said
Ever heard of the "big bang" or "abiogenesis"?

Yes, and you have ignored the topic of abiogenesis here with a passion due to bias concerns over of all things, chemistry. Chemistry is the least of the all things where false pronouncements can be made about the past, chemicals don’t behave differently now than at any other time. Anything that suggested that may have happen can be tested now in a lab, or some other controlled environment. The rules don’t change over time, yet you think bias can occur there.

The Big Bang does not address the beginning's cause, it only confirms there was one, it also doesn’t address why the universal properties allow for life here either. You cannot connect abiogenesis to evolution, because you have no idea if abiogenesis started life or not. Suggesting it began and the other started afterwards is pure blind faith, you’ve nothing to connect the possibility of one to the other.

@kellyjay said
Yes, and you have ignored the topic of abiogenesis here with a passion due to bias concerns over of all things, chemistry. Chemistry is the least of the all things where false pronouncements can be made about the past, chemicals don’t behave differently now than at any other time. Anything that suggested that may have happen can be tested now in a lab, or some other controll ...[text shortened]... arted afterwards is pure blind faith, you’ve nothing to connect the possibility of one to the other.

Evolution science could care less about just how life started on Earth. They ONLY deal with the changes we chart in what we see here.
You know that full well. Yet you persist in conflating OOL with evolution while scientists tell you they are two separate disciplines.
Do you expect OOL scientists to be worried about evolution? No, since what they study are the prebiotic molecules and how they relate to our ongoing studies of OOL.
Sure, feel free to dis all of those sciences while you can.
I see work done on both ends of the spectrum and am quite certain our knowledge will continue increasing in both areas. Whether OOL will ever be figured out beyond a reasonable doubt is open to question and so far the answer is we can't connect the dots yet.
But like JFK said, we do this not be cause it is easy but because it is hard.
That was said for Apollo but it works well with OOL also.
Evolution is already proven and now we are haggling over details like when did the first dinosaurs appear and how long did the big extinction even last that was I think 400 odd million years ago which cost Earth 90% of it's early life forms.
After that extinction event however, life diversity exploded so it was probably the extinction that allowed new forms to come on the stage.
Just like when humans go extinct and they will, how many millions of years will go by before intelligence of our level will show up? It might take 100 million years, who knows, just speculation for sure.
In the meantime, continue to have your laugh taunting OOL science since you claim you KNOW the truth. Good luck with that.

@sonhouse said
Evolution science could care less about just how life started on Earth. They ONLY deal with the changes we chart in what we see here.
You know that full well. Yet you persist in conflating OOL with evolution while scientists tell you they are two separate disciplines.
Do you expect OOL scientists to be worried about evolution? No, since what they study are the prebiotic m ...[text shortened]... nue to have your laugh taunting OOL science since you claim you KNOW the truth. Good luck with that.

You should read everyone's posts not just mind, I think some of what you have said is misplaced.

@kellyjay said
You should read everyone's posts not just mind, I think some of what you have said is misplaced.

As far as I can see, you are one of the ones conflating OOL with evolution, that is, demanding we know OOL BEFORE we can even discuss evolution.
That may be the lay view but the science view is what really matters to us techie folks. And that is, OOL and evolution are and will be always two separate science disciplines.
And it doesn't matter if it takes a thousand years of scientific growth to show the answer, or that perhaps we never know but regardless, OOL and evolution are and will remain two separate disciplines.
Is that what you think I misplaced?

@sonhouse said
As far as I can see, you are one of the ones conflating OOL with evolution, that is, demanding we know OOL BEFORE we can even discuss evolution.
That may be the lay view but the science view is what really matters to us techie folks. And that is, OOL and evolution are and will be always two separate science disciplines.
And it doesn't matter if it takes a thousand years of ...[text shortened]... OL and evolution are and will remain two separate disciplines.
Is that what you think I misplaced?

You have to hope a miracle took place so you can jump from no life, to life and that evolving!

Attempting to segregate abiogenesis and evolution simply shows that natural processes manipulating the material world is inadequate for doing several things all at once at the beginning of life. These would be creating a cell, having it reproduce, eating, thriving to survive, and remaining in a hospitable environment where all needs could be met for millions of years, all the while avoiding hostile environments where no needs are met, nothing can happen to end life immediately or slowly over time.. A non-stop string of miracles occurring millions of years in a row for all of this to continue.

You have a hope, abiogenesis will be figured out by someone, and if anyone reminds you it isn't that easy, well they are bias, ignore them! No one can be taken seriously if they don't have share your beliefs about the distant past and life. What those fossils/rocks were millions of years ago is so clear anyone not buying in with your beliefs cannot be trusted.

Personally, I find your unwillingness to tolerate views that don't line up with yours shows a great lack of faith on your part for your views. If you really believed what you claimed, you would welcome disagreements, the truth will always win the day. What you do instead is start your opposition research on the speaker to find bias, and you attack when your views are challenged, instead of showing flaws in the argument, you look for flaws in people. Your own bias is the only thing welcomed in your world view.

@kellyjay said
You have to hope a miracle took place so you can jump from no life, to life and that evolving!

Attempting to segregate abiogenesis and evolution simply shows that natural processes manipulating the material world is inadequate for doing several things all at once at the beginning of life. These would be creating a cell, having it reproduce, eating, thriving to survive, an ...[text shortened]... argument, you look for flaws in people. Your own bias is the only thing welcomed in your world view.

Disagreement is what makes humans thrive. You can believe your creation story all you want but that doesn't change the truth. It is only truth as you see it. You, another human being. So you are just going along with the stories written by men in the bible. We in science want the REAL truth, not words written by men who knew nothing of the truth of the world thousands of years ago.
Show me science that happened BECAUSE of religion.
Then I will show you science that happened DESPITE religion.

@sonhouse said
Disagreement is what makes humans thrive. You can believe your creation story all you want but that doesn't change the truth. It is only truth as you see it. You, another human being. So you are just going along with the stories written by men in the bible. We in science want the REAL truth, not words written by men who knew nothing of the truth of the world thousands of ye ...[text shortened]... nce that happened BECAUSE of religion.
Then I will show you science that happened DESPITE religion.

The difference between us should not matter! If we are really looking at reality for truth, what that is should never be rejected, or accepted due to the bias each of us has.

So dismissing out of hand test results because of who is presenting them is not wise! If the tests were done properly the data should speak for itself, and if there are different opinions on what the data means or says, that should be examined to see which is closer to reality without contradicting itself.

Quickly identifying someone’s point of view doesn’t matter and has no bearing on truth. If the conclusions are sound, worse case our opinions need to be reviewed.

You to me attempt to look at the person before looking at anything else.

@kellyjay said
The difference between us should not matter! If we are really looking at reality for truth, what that is should never be rejected, or accepted due to the bias each of us has.

So dismissing out of hand test results because of who is presenting them is not wise! If the tests were done properly the data should speak for itself, and if there are different opinions on what th ...[text shortened]... ons need to be reviewed.

You to me attempt to look at the person before looking at anything else.

That was the thing. I DID look at them and found they were biased against OOL science. All three of your buddies had that bias. And you know it but are ok with it since you are in the same camp. So may the best deal win 😉

@sonhouse said
That was the thing. I DID look at them and found they were biased against OOL science. All three of your buddies had that bias. And you know it but are ok with it since you are in the same camp. So may the best deal win 😉

Was there anything they showed or declared that was false outside of not agreeing with what you think is true with OOL?

@kellyjay said
Was there anything they showed or declared that was false outside of not agreeing with what you think is true with OOL?

Yeah, what rang untrue was the implication humans were too stupid to ever figure out a natural way for life to form on Earth and the deliberate refusal to use data such scientists would have fully known about was revealing. Thumb on the scale is what that is called. Don't present all the evidence we KNOW about, just cherry pick the hard parts and show humans will never figure it out.
Just like crooked prosecutors who are known to have withheld evidence crucial for a defense and there have been cases exactly like that where crucial defense details were deliberately kept out of defense lawyers hands so those prosecutors would have yet another win to bolster their chances to become Attorney General or Governor or some such.
So, leave out some work, some discovery that can scuttle their case in the OOL sciences, make it LOOK like humans will never figure it out, THEREFORE, there is only one other conclusion......
Specifically, the data showing the solar system was SHOWERED with organic prebiotic material very early on by clouds of nearby novae, when those stars blow up, there are many molecular combinations that happen because of the temperature of the molecules as they leave the exploding star and some of that material ends up being organics, prebiotic molecules that spice up our atmosphere and a steady rain of a very dilute level of such material comes to Earth and THAT short circuits the 'Earth had only a few million years to generate prebiotic stuff' argument.
That is a HUGE omission and I am sure QUITE deliberate.
Not many lay people would know there were interstellar clouds of complex gasses blown out by nearby novae now would they?
So the omission would not even be noticed by the target audience.

Besides that, they can't know for certain the timing was no good, saying Earth had only a few million years to develop the prebiotic stuff life forms would need to make working bacteria and such.

Just making an assertion doesn't make it true.

You HAVE to deny the validity of ALL other creation stories in order for you to keep your faith but there are literally thousands of creation story and for YOUR myth to be true, it has to be THE ONE LOTTERY winner out of all those thousands, something YOU would have no trouble with. I HAVE trouble with that just based on the statistics.
And you HAVE to accept the literal truth of those really STUPID tales like the WW flood where a god with infinite power wouldn't just go FFT, bad guys disappear, NOOO, the story has this incredibly gracious and loving god (just ask it) and it destroys all land animals to get to those bad humans?
How can you in your right mind accept such nonsense as real?
The answer is you HAVE to, you are FORCED to accept such BS as real or else you would begin to question the validity of the whole kit and kabbodle. and you can't EVER have that, now can you?
I just saw one thing pointed out: What did the bees eat for over a month on the Ark? Just another hole in the outrageous plot cooked up by men wanting to scare their congregation.
But of course to you, here we are literally thousands of years later when we should know better, still trapped in the same old ancient BULLSHYTE stories you MUST believe or it puts holes in your whole belief system.
And that goes for billions of other folk too.
IMO ALL religions are strictly man made and the condition Earth is flying into created by mankind's greed seems to me more proof there is no 'loving god' coming down to fix all our boo boo's.
But you MUST see the alleged works of your god or else all is lost for you.

@sonhouse said
Yeah, what rang untrue was the implication humans were too stupid to ever figure out a natural way for life to form on Earth and the deliberate refusal to use data such scientists would have fully known about was revealing. Thumb on the scale is what that is called. Don't present all the evidence we KNOW about, just cherry pick the hard parts and show humans will never figur ...[text shortened]... fix all our boo boo's.
But you MUST see the alleged works of your god or else all is lost for you.

LOL, it couldn't be that it is impossible except for someone who could mold the universe to suit them, and no one else?

@sonhouse said
Yeah, what rang untrue was the implication humans were too stupid to ever figure out a natural way for life to form on Earth and the deliberate refusal to use data such scientists would have fully known about was revealing. Thumb on the scale is what that is called. Don't present all the evidence we KNOW about, just cherry pick the hard parts and show humans will never figur ...[text shortened]... fix all our boo boo's.
But you MUST see the alleged works of your god or else all is lost for you.

With respect to bee's, exactly why would bees be the only one's who would die if there were no food for them? You think if God was arranging that, He would know the needs before hand, or an all knowing God would go, shoot I forgot?

@kellyjay said
With respect to bee's, exactly why would bees be the only one's who would die if there were no food for them? You think if God was arranging that, He would know the needs before hand, or an all knowing God would go, shoot I forgot?

In other words, you fell for that ridiculous story hook line and sinker, as you are talking about it as if it were a real event.
Guess what, the right wing religious set trying to prove it real puts out arguments like, look at the top of Mt Everest. SEASHELLS. That PROVES water went up to the top of Everest.
Of course ignoring the fact the mountain was flat as a pancake millions of years before because of the crashing of the plates, going into the past they would uncrash and the mountains there would naturally be lower and were under an ocean several hundred million years ago.
But that doesn't stop any of them 'proving' the WW flood tale to be true, now does it.
You seem to think because it is written in the bible it MUST be true. My take is there were a LOT of biblical stories NOT put in the bible in the council of Nicea in the 300's and a lot that were, ALL selected by MEN. And of course all written by men and some women. There was, for instance, a recent discovery of a much different version of the Judas tale where Jesus told Judas he HAD to make it seem like he was outing him but of course that tale didn't jive with what the elders wanted so OUT with that version, in with Judas was a turncoat....

@sonhouse said
In other words, you fell for that ridiculous story hook line and sinker, as you are talking about it as if it were a real event.
Guess what, the right wing religious set trying to prove it real puts out arguments like, look at the top of Mt Everest. SEASHELLS. That PROVES water went up to the top of Everest.
Of course ignoring the fact the mountain was flat as a pancake m ...[text shortened]... e didn't jive with what the elders wanted so OUT with that version, in with Judas was a turncoat....

You got pictures showing the earth was as flat as a pancake millions of years ago? That another factual truth of yours that must be taken on faith? I heard a talk today where the speaker (Charles Spurgeon) said something in passing that made me think of you. I cannot quote it exactly, but it went along the lines that some people simply hate the idea of a fixed truth. Do absolutes bother you, if there are laws/reactions in chemistry that remain fixed that wouldn't allow somethings to occur, like the formation of a cell without purposeful manipulation, would that cause you grief? Would the truth then become a problem for you?

@kellyjay said
You got pictures showing the earth was as flat as a pancake millions of years ago? That another factual truth of yours that must be taken on faith? I heard a talk today where the speaker (Charles Spurgeon) said something in passing that made me think of you. I cannot quote it exactly, but it went along the lines that some people simply hate the idea of a fixed truth. Do abso ...[text shortened]... purposeful manipulation, would that cause you grief? Would the truth then become a problem for you?

The whole field of quantum physics shows there is no such thing as absolutes.
You can't figure out a moving particle, both mass/energy and position exactly at the same time. This is the truth of the universe.
The universe doesn't let anyone, either here or on some other planet with beings 10,000 years more advanced scientifically, you can't say the energy and the position of a particle at the same time with the same accuracy.
And now we know the same particle can be in two places, or 4 or more, places at once, it's called superposition and is another fundamental tenet of modern physics.
That also says there are no absolutes.
If your alleged deity wants to come to MY house and say, DON, this is how it is:
Till then, sorry, humans don't have the story right, not even close, the proof of that is the thousands of separate religions some of them at each others throats literally.
That is not god in action. You are not the only one of your religion thinking your religion is THE true religion, your god is the TRUE god and all those others are fake and they will all go to hell.
Funny thing is, those other religions think the same of you and yours.
I'll take that to mean NOBODY has a handle on the god thing.
Till one comes by and plants it's rod in the ground shaking up the planet and telling us he is REALLY PISSSED OFF AT THE WAY WE ARE TREATING THE PLANET, That would ge my attention. Humans saying that, sorry, no dice.