The Secret of Life May Be As Simple As What Happens Between the Sheets -- Mica Sheets

Aug 06, 2010
Diagram of biomolecules between sheets of mica in a primitive ocean. The green lines depict mica sheets and the grey structures depict various ancient biological molecules and fatty vesicles. In the 'between the sheets' mica hypothesis, water may have moved in and out of the spaces between stacks of sheets, thereby forcing the sheets to move up and down. This kind of energy may have ultimately pushed biological molecules and/or fatty acids together to form cells. Credit: Helen Greenwood Hansma, University of California, Santa Barbara

(PhysOrg.com) -- That age-old question, "where did life on Earth start?" now has a new answer. If the life between the mica sheets hypothesis is correct, life would have originated between sheets of mica that were layered like the pages in a book.

The so-called "life between the sheets" mica was developed by Helen Hansma of the University of California, Santa Barbara, with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF). This hypothesis was originally introduced by Hansma at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology, and is now fully described by Hansma in the September 7, 2010 issue of .

According to the "life between the sheets" mica hypothesis, structured compartments that commonly form between layers of mica--a common mineral that cleaves into smooth sheets--may have sheltered molecules that were the progenitors to cells. Provided with the right physical and chemical environment in the structured compartments to survive and evolve, the molecules eventually reorganized into cells, while still sheltered between mica sheets.

Mica chunks embedded in rocks could have provided the right physical and chemical environment for pre-life molecules and developing cells because:

1. Mica compartments could have held, protected and sheltered molecules, and thereby promoted their survival.  Also, mica could have provided enough isolation for molecules to evolve without being disturbed and still allow molecules to migrate towards one another and eventually bond together to form large . And mica compartments may have provided something akin to a template for the production of a life form composed of compartments, which are now known as cells.

2. Mica sheets are held together by potassium. If high levels of potassium were donated by mica sheets to developing cells, the high levels of potassium found in mica sheets could account for the high levels of currently found in .

3. Mica chunks embedded in rocks that were sitting in an early ocean would have received an endless supply of energy from waves, the sun, and the occasional sloshing of water into the spaces between the mica sheets. This energy could have pushed the mica sheets into up-and-down motions that could have pushed together molecules sitting between mica sheets, thereby enabling them to bond together.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Helen Hansma of the University at Santa Barbara discusses why the origin of life is an important topic and her new hypothesis that life started between mica sheets that were embedded in rocks that were sitting in an early ocean. Credit: University of California, Santa Barbara/National Science Foundation

Because mica surfaces are hospitable to living cells and to all the major classes of large biological molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and fats, the "between the sheets" mica hypothesis is consistent with other well-known hypotheses that propose that life originated as RNA, fatty vesicles or primitive metabolisms. Hansma says a "mica world" might have sheltered all the ancient metabolic and fat-vesicle and RNA "worlds."

Hansma also says that mica would provide a better substrate for developing cells than other minerals that have been considered for that role. Why? Because most other minerals would probably have tended to intermittently become either too wet or too dry to support life. By contrast, the spaces between mica sheets would probably have undergone more limited wet/dry cycles that would support life without reaching killing extremes. In addition, many clays that have been considered as potential surfaces for life's origins respond to exposure to water by swelling. By contrast, mica resists swelling and would therefore provide a relatively stable environment for developing cells and biological molecules, even when it did get wet.

Hansma sums up her hypothesis by observing that "mica would provide enough structure and shelter for molecules to evolve but also accommodate the dynamic, ever-changing nature of life."

What's more, Hansma says that "mica is old." Some micas are estimated to be over 4 billion years old. And micas such as biotite have been found in regions containing evidence of the earliest life-forms, which are believed to have existed about 3.8 million years ago.

Hansma's passion for mica evolved gradually--starting when she began conducting pioneering, NSF-funded research in former husband Paul K. Hansma's AFM lab to develop techniques for imaging DNA and other biological molecules in the atomic force microscope (AFM)--a high-resolution imaging technique that allows researchers to observe and manipulate molecular and atomic level features.

Says Helen Hansma, "Mica sheets are atomically flat, so we can see DNA molecules on the mica surface without having to cover the DNA with something that makes it look bigger and easier to see. Sometimes we can even see DNA molecules swimming on the surface of mica, under water, in the AFM. Mica sheets are so thin (one nanometer) that there are a million of them in a millimeter-thick piece of mica."

Hansma's "life between the sheets" hypothesis first struck her a few years ago, after she and family members had collected some mica from a Connecticut mine. When she put water on a piece of the mica under her dissecting microscope, she noticed a greenish organic 'crud' at some step edges in the mica. "It occurred to me that this might be a good place for the origins of life--sheltered within these stacks of sheets that can move up and down in response to flowing water, which could have provided the mechanical energy for making and breaking chemical bonds," says Hansma.

Hansma says that recent advancements in imaging techniques, including the AFM, made possible her recent research, leading to her "between mica sheets" hypothesis. She adds that direct support for her hypothesis might be obtained from additional studies involving mica sheets in an AFM, being subjected its push-and-pull forces while sitting in liquids resembling an early ocean.

Explore further: Bioengineering study finds two-cell mouse embryos already talking about their future

Related Stories

Researchers discover Maya mask splendor

Jan 23, 2008

Ancient Mayan temple builders discovered and used lustrous pigments to make their buildings dazzle in the daylight, a Queensland University of Technology researcher has discovered.

Jade sheds light on Guatemala's geologic history

Jul 27, 2009

The shifting of tectonic plates in Central America has been poorly understood -- until now. New research on jade found along fault lines in Guatemala is helping geologists piece the puzzle of the past 130 million years.

Recommended for you

Cataloguing 10 million human gut microbial genes

22 hours ago

Over the past several years, research on bacteria in the digestive tract (gut microbiome) has confirmed the major role they play in our health. An international consortium, in which INRA participates, has developed the most ...

User comments : 265

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

iknow
3.6 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
hmmm, I need to look into this closer. So far every theory can be discarded as just that.
Jacobrude
Aug 06, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Kedas
2.8 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2010
I don't think it is that important to know which combination of events resulted in a self-sustaining form. It would be interesting though just to know.
I think statistically it would happen anyway there is probably more than one possible process.
kevinrtrs
Aug 06, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 06, 2010
Mica sheets...really? Pfffft.

I read that entire article and didn't see one convincing argument as to the simple presence of molecules and mica somehow gets you a self replicating molecule MUCH LESS a fully functioning single cell...

go fish.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (25) Aug 06, 2010
Alas, it's doomed to the same failure as all the others - it cannot explain the chirality,
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/37532/home?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Chirality is a molecular discipline and doesn't have a bearing on evolution persay.
the controlled phosphate group
Archaic life doesn't share this group. It is a product of evolution.
controlled building of proteins
Enzymatic mRNA explains this.
lastly the DNA information content that drives acquisition, utilisation and controlled deployment of chemicals for life-activities
Natural chemical affinity.
And that's just for starters.
Pretty sorry start, kev.
Good luck to all the over-eager followers who jump on this band wagon.
Luck has no bearing in reality, but information does.

The fact you don't even begin to look past your mythology and proselytize creationism shows that you don't actually believe what you're telling us. If your faith is so easily shaken, you never had faith at all
marjon
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2010
How did the 'power switch' get turned on?
ShotmanMaslo
4.4 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2010
"God made us. Plain and simple. We did not spontaneously spring out of nothing and then evolve from one single cell to what we are today. That nonsense is only of interest if you absolutely refuse to believe in God the creator. Then you have to resort to "molecules to man". Have fun."

Yeah, funny that you mention it, because most of Christians, and most of believers, support evolution, and even abiogenesis is widely supported. It is a tool of God, they say. I come from a Christan background, and I have never met one creationist in person.
Donutz
5 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2010
It is a tool of God, they say. I come from a Christan background, and I have never met one creationist in person.


Then you are one lucky SOB. They are quite as obnoxious in person as they are on the net.

And yes, fundamentalists are very much a minority in christiandom. Not so much in the US, more everywhere else (not surprising since that's where fundamentalism originated). The trouble is they've hung their hats on a point of dogma that isn't even central to the faith. The fact that the majority of christians can be quite comfortable with not believing in literal creation proves it.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 06, 2010
The fact that the majority of christians can be quite comfortable with not believing in literal creation proves it.

That's not the impression I get from many of the atheists who post.
If you are an atheist, you are the first.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2010
The fact that the majority of christians can be quite comfortable with not believing in literal creation proves it.

That's not the impression I get from many of the atheists who post.
If you are an atheist, you are the first.

No Marjon, you're jsut far too busy quote mining and ignoring the massive amount of people who confront your Biblical literalism.

I have a feeling that you read each post, then stop and repeat memes to yourself, then read the next post forgetting about the first, and so on.
Phideaux
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2010
John Allen Paulos in his book, "Irreligion: a Mathematician Explains Why the Argumants for God Just Don't Add Up", gives the best critique I've ever read of the argument from complexity. It's one chapter in this ecxellent book.
Jigga
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 06, 2010
.water may have moved in and out of the spaces between stacks of sheets, thereby forcing the sheets to move up and down..
Before some time I got similar idea with my model of life formation in coacervate droplets at coastal area in tidal waves. I've few arguments for my hypothesis though: 1) the size/energy density scale of such droplets is more close to wavelength of CMB and boundary between relativity and quantum mechanics, where universe gets highest degree of complexity 2) the liquid-solid-gas interface is the most complex one and the probability of spontaneous formation of simple living forms from inorganic complexity is most probable there. 3) Oil droplets are rather advanced model of physical organism by itself and they exhibit a rudimentary intelligence.

http://focus.aps..../v15/st7

http://news.scien...-04.html
Jigga
1 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2010
.Mica compartments could have held, protected and sheltered molecules, and thereby promoted their survival...
In my model this would be rather disadvantage, as the systems protected from environmental changes (like the deep ocean sharks) tend to evolve slowly. In my model just the repetitive breaking, splitting and merging of protein droplets enables the natural selection of those most "vital" fast.

I presume, pure physical evolution of living organism from inorganic systems is possible, but it still requires as many attempts and mutations, as possible (i.e. very fast paced generation cycle).
zevkirsh
4.5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2010
origin of life research is only interesting in so far as it produces an understanding of self replication. it also cannot prove that life didn't start through a multitude of different phenomena in different places, powered by different energy sources, at the same time. could life not have started simultaneously at sub surface hydrothermal vents as well as at the surface of the ocean in collecting pools independently? could life not have started been destroyed and then started again? could the remains of one startup form of life, having decayed and been destroyed provided the right 'soup' for a new form of life that came along much later?

gaiah research can never answer that. it delves too deeply into the past with no certain focus on a narrow question. it's messy business this research. and sometimes it resembles speculation and random hypothesizing more than it does research.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2010
origin of life research is only interesting in so far as it produces an understanding of self replication.

Zev, you're aware that life didn't have a single start on Earth, right?

We're aware of two forms of DNA, different enough to have possibly been a second tree of life that was dominated by our multicellular tree of life.

In reality, life consists of nothing more than multiple complex chemical reactions, life is entirely constructed from non-life.

This brings the question to bear. What is life? Answer, we don't know.
Donutz
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
The fact that the majority of christians can be quite comfortable with not believing in literal creation proves it.

That's not the impression I get from many of the atheists who post.
If you are an atheist, you are the first.


Say what? Did you quote the right post? What do atheist postings have to do with non-fndamentalist christians?

Donutz
5 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2010
This brings the question to bear. What is life? Answer, we don't know.


I don't want to start a fight with you since we're generally on the same side, but this is kind of like asking "what is blue". "Life" is an english word and means whatever we want it to mean. Yes, our definition of life is kind of shakey, and may or may not include virii and such, but so what? When we (all of us in this discussion) talk about life we all (even the theists) are comfortable thinking multicellular carbon-based organisms. The important point is that there is nothing but chemistry involved. No vitalism, no kirlian energy field, no soul. Theists keep advancing the argument "god exists because you can't explain x", then a few years later we explain x. The "god of the gaps" is getting smaller and pettier and less relevant every day.

Donutz
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2010
it's messy business this research. and sometimes it resembles speculation and random hypothesizing more than it does research.


Most accepted theories started out that way. You speculate, then you hypothesize, then you do a little research, then you advance a theory (maybe), then you and a bunch of competitors test the theory. Most theories get shot down. Those that don't, become the incumbent and get attacked more. That's why it's so funny when theists use the phrase "just a theory". Here's the hierarchy of reality (imo):
Superstition
Religion
Fantasy
Common wisdom
Speculation
Hypothesis
Theory
Fact.

There are very few facts, btw.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2010
When we (all of us in this discussion) talk about life we all (even the theists) are comfortable thinking multicellular carbon-based organisms.
For me, this description is too narrow, too anthropocentric.
Why carbon-based? Just because we don't know anything different? Why multicellular? A biological cell is not the most general possible component of a living "organism".

A very interesting question is on what time scales phenomena have to happen in order to be acknowledged as phenomena of life. Can we exclude timescales of life too small or too large to be detected by us?
beefchop
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
So, I guess the Bible stories are wrong... the first man's real name was probably Mica(h).

(sorry, couldn't resist)
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2010
This brings the question to bear. What is life? Answer, we don't know.


I don't want to start a fight with you since we're generally on the same side, but this is kind of like asking "what is blue". "Life" is an english word and means whatever we want it to mean. Yes, our definition of life is kind of shakey, and may or may not include virii and such, but so what? When we (all of us in this discussion) talk about life we all (even the theists) are comfortable thinking multicellular carbon-based organisms. The important point is that there is nothing but chemistry involved. No vitalism, no kirlian energy field, no soul. Theists keep advancing the argument "god exists because you can't explain x", then a few years later we explain x. The "god of the gaps" is getting smaller and pettier and less relevant every day.


Yes but your definition excludes the majority of life on Earth, bacteria. Is fire alive? Are virii alive? All good questions.
otto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2010
God made us. Plain and simple.
I have to agree. God made you plain and simple. Minded.
I read that entire article and didn't see one convincing argument as to the simple presence of molecules and mica somehow gets you a self replicating molecule MUCH LESS a fully functioning single cell...

go fish.
Did you follow the link at the end for more info? Did you do a search? You REALLY think that the info in the article is ALL they came up with??!? Are you really that fu-

Jesus.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 06, 2010
Did you follow the link at the end for more info? Did you do a search? You REALLY think that the info in the article is ALL they came up with??!? Are you really that fu-

Jesus.


Hell no, just like I wouldn't bother to follow up on an article that said babies really come from the stork, or that there is now a theory that the Earth really was created in six days. It's just to fu$%(&g asinine an argument to be taken seriously.

You mean you actually DID follow up??!! Pray tell us then how you get a fully functioning single cell from proteins and mica. I'm all ears...but not holding my breath.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2010
it's messy business this research. and sometimes it resembles speculation and random hypothesizing more than it does research.

(...)
Here's the hierarchy of reality (imo):
Superstition
Religion
Fantasy
Common wisdom
Speculation
Hypothesis
Theory
Fact.

@Donutz,

Agreed- in broad terms. However, gotta point out that the levels of said heirarchy tend to be somewhat permeable -even discontinuous.

There are very few facts, btw.

Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2010
You mean you actually DID follow up??!! Pray tell us then how you get a fully functioning single cell from proteins and mica. I'm all ears...but not holding my breath.


@ModernMystic,

I'll invert the usual meaning of that old nugget:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2010
You mean you actually DID follow up??!! Pray tell us then how you get a fully functioning single cell from proteins and mica. I'm all ears...but not holding my breath.


@ModernMystic,

I'll invert the usual meaning of that old nugget:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Hell I'm not even ASKING for evidence, just a coherent THEORY...
david13579
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2010
"God made us. Plain and simple. We did not spontaneously spring out of nothing and then evolve from one single cell to what we are today. That nonsense is only of interest if you absolutely refuse to believe in God the creator. Then you have to resort to "molecules to man". Have fun."

Since complex structures cannot spring out of nothing then something must have made God too. And something else made that and it was made too and so on.

Don't use god to refute something that came out of nothing when God came out of nothing too.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2010
The new answer looks very promising for evolutionists
Interesting anyway. There are already good concepts for how life may have evolved.
Alas, it's doomed to the same failure as all the others - it cannot explain the chirality
How do you know? And chirality is overrated, intentionally, by Creationists. It is NOT needed to get a self-reproducing molecule.
the controlled phosphate group
Uneeded.
controlled building of proteins
Uneeded.
lastly the DNA information content that drives acquisition
Uneeded and just plain false in any case.
utilisation and controlled deployment of chemicals
More nonsense. None of that is needed to get life started. ALL that is needed is a self or co reproducing molecule that makes some mistakes now and then. It can be short, or protein, or RNA or a combination of the two. It can levo or dextro rotary or even switch back and forth.

All that is needed is the reproduction bit. All the rest can evolve after that.

More to annoy
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2010
One day when people start to take seriously the incredibly complex operations going on in the cell
I already do that. Indeed I have posted links several times to long and complex discussions. Where the Creationists were far tougher than you. They didn't run till beaten soundly. You post rubbish and then run. Even after I point it out that you do so.
God made us.
Which god? Some Elder God from the mind of a psychotic?
Plain and simple.
Simple minded anyway.

How about you answer a few of these questions? And STAY to discuss it instead of running of out fear of learning something.

When was the Great Flood?

Why is there NO evidence for it?

Claims of stories of floods is not evidence as all cultures have experienced frightening LOCAL floods. Physical evidence. And not evidence for an ancient world like fossils at the tops of mountains as that disproves your belief that the world is young.

Why does the Bible have plants growing without a Sun?

More to enlighten
Ethelred
4 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2010
There are lots more but those are enough for a good discussion. I won't even, during further discussions, go into the ethics of a god that drowns innocents. That is going on the reasonable idea that young children are innocent since they haven't had the opportunity to do seriously wrong.
We did not spontaneously spring out of nothing and then evolve from one single cell to what we are today.
Well the evidence for that is pretty strong.
That nonsense is only of interest if you absolutely refuse to believe in God the creator.
Why should I believe a book written long ago by men that were so clearly wrong about so very much?
Then you have to resort to "molecules to man".
Its not resorting. Its going on the evidence and reason instead of ignorance and superstition.

And I am having fun. You are the one that runs. Not me.

Creationists are such chickens on this site.

Now I have to go disagree with some of the rational people here.

Ethelred
Kedas
5 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
The only reason we need the word 'life' is because we like to have a clear cut to apply our laws on.

I'm sure that there is no such clear cut between life or dead. There is only an increasing amount of complex self sustaining structures (based on the previous building blocks.)

So don't wait for a final definition for life because there will never be one, in best case human existence (life) will be defined as an analogue number or numbers.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2010
Zev, you're aware that life didn't have a single start on Earth, right?
I'm not. All life is either based on DNA or RNA which strongly implies a single ancestor for all of life.
We're aware of two forms of DNA
There is only one. The others you mention are the same chemicals with what appears to be slightly distorted structure. No sign of coming from a different source.
What is life? Answer, we don't know
I have guts I will try a vague definition.

Life is any self centered system, could be chemical but it doesn't have to be just because we only know chemical systems, that is self sustaining through self reproduction or reproduction by means of using tools from self-reproducing systems that have occasional variation that can be inherited by the successor forms. Without variation you just have a crystal. With variation that is not inherited you have a sloppy crystal. It needs to be self centered or it wouldn't be able to reproduce. I think it couldn't anyway.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2010
Can we exclude timescales of life too small or too large to be detected by us?


It is hard to discuss things that are hypothetical. I don't thing anything can be too small to be detected as I don't life is at all likely at the subatomic level. To long a scale I can see happening but it still might possible to detect a structure that implies replication over time. Too large seems unlikely except by starting on a planet and then moving off it. Even that could be detected under the right conditions.

Ethelred
Husky
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2010
i would think mica sheets could aid in the process of forming precursors, but I would see these precursors finally form into more complex shapes in a more dynamic, energy gradient driven system, such the ocean black smokers, where a lot of energy for chemosynthese exists, but also some destructive zones, wich not only could provide a basic engine, but also a basic selection process for the evolution of this chemosynthesis, because the chemicals deposit on the black smoker itself, altering its shape and the dynamics of the feedback loop, imho not surprising one of the earliest higher lifeforms are those giant tubeworms, wich look like the black smokers and its dynamics themselves!
One could even argue that to some extend the black smoker is a living system
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2010
Hell I'm not even ASKING for evidence, just a coherent THEORY...

http://www.youtub...YDdgP9eg

Give it a watch. Description of the theory starts at 2:44.
tkjtkj
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2010
Isn't it time for Atheist Christians to finally take a stand?

As for me and fellow 'Pure Atheists', we've taken ours. ;)

Steven_Hales
3 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2010
What I love besides all these troll inspired discussions :) are the google ads that track my wife's purchases like "Find the Lowest Prices on Sferra. Plus Free Shipping on all Orders!" Just a little creepy like our trolling friend. But since the ad was for sheets I guess the google ad bot looked at the title to the article and assumed we'd all be interested in some new bed linens. At least the bot isn't metaphor aware or we'd get another class of ad.
DaffyDuck
5 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2010
"it cannot explain the chirality"

I like how you assume it doesn't attempt to answer these questions without (apparently) reading the paper.

This is quoted from the Chirality section of her paper:

"Confinement between mica sheets might be the way in which life evolved with chiral polymers. Adjacent mica sheets impose steric and chemical constraints on the molecules between them. These constraints might bias monomer packing such that monomers of the same handedness would pack closer on mica sheets than their mirror–image enantiomers, thus facilitating bond formation between same-handed monomers."

Happy now? Of course not. People like you will just keep shifting goalposts.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
And micas such as biotite have been found in regions containing evidence of the earliest life-forms, which are believed to have existed about 3.8 million years ago.

I believe that should have been "3.8 BILLION years ago.".
CSharpner
5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
"That nonsense is only of interest if you absolutely refuse to believe in God the creator."

COMPLETELY NOT TRUE!!!! Ignoring that you're calling it "nonsense", I was raised a Christian in the buckle of the Bible belt, and I never believed anything other than evolution (except, when I was a very small child and not developed enough to understand anything more basic that the story of creation in Genesis).

Even as a small kid, I had inklings that maybe this is just a story. As I learned about evolution... I guess around age 6 or 7, it made perfect sense and I did NOT reject belief in God or anything about Christianity. I started questioning ALL religions (my own, included, to be fair) at 13 and evolution was NOT part of why I started questioning it.

The claim that only those who reject a belief in a God are the only ones that accept evolution is a complete and total falsehood and you and others need to adhere to your Christian values stop spreading that lie NOW!!!
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2010
Evolution and bio-genesis are to different things folks.
marjon
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
The claim that only those who reject a belief in a God are the only ones that accept evolution is a complete and total falsehood and you and others need to adhere to your Christian values stop spreading that lie NOW!!!

But there are those who support the theory of evolution and attack Christians regardless of what they think of evolution.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
But there are those who support the theory of evolution and attack Christians regardless of what they think of evolution.
No, they only attack creationists, the majority of which are Christian or Muslim. Not all creationists are religious, but all abrahamic creationists are reality deniers.
Sharpner is 100% accurate when he states
The claim that only those who reject a belief in a God are the only ones that accept evolution is a complete and total falsehood and you and others need to adhere to your Christian values stop spreading that lie NOW!
The only mistake made is in assuming all creationists are Christian, however I don't think that is his view.
Stupid isn't the sole domain of religion, a great many non-religious are brazenly stupid as well, however you're a prime example of being both in denial of reality, and rather stupid.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
But there are those who support the theory of evolution and attack Christians regardless of what they think of evolution.

That's true, but it's still untrue that only those that reject God will accept evolution. Two different points.

1. Some people are just mean.
2. Plenty of Christians accept evolution.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2010
Well I for one am Christian, and I accept evolution.

I don't necessarily accept "naturalistic bio-genesis" however. Even if I did it wouldn't have the slightest effect on my faith. I could spend ten posts telling you why but won't bore you.

Give me a good enough argument and I'll consider mica sheets and proteins or whatever the current theory of the week is...frankly I just haven't heard one that was little more than a dressed up version of creationism.

It's VERY unlikely that life "just started", anyone who has looked at it close enough realizes just how unlikely it is. The fact that it happened on the planet basically as soon as it possibly could have is even more unlikely. All that just points me in a different direction.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
It's VERY unlikely that life "just started", anyone who has looked at it close enough realizes just how unlikely it is.
How is it unlikely as opposed to an invisible or intangible conciousness "wishing" us into existence with magic. The problem with saying that life can't self-arise is in determining the first cause. If God did it, from whence did it come. If another being did it, from whence did it come? At some point in time all arguments must break down to self composition either directly or as a cause of the first cause.
Secondly, there is no manner in which to apply any probability to life arising from abiogenic procresses. You only have one sample solar system to work with. If life is present in our solar system, and it is, your only measurement is a 100% probability that life can arise within a solar system/galaxy/universe/multiverse. We're fairly sure that multicellular life didn't arise on other planets in our solar system, so at worst the probability is 12.5%, 1/8
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
So the truth is there is no method of probability that is even reasonable to consider as we have no idea, and have barely sampled the universe.

It was best put to me by my father when I was young and we were preparing to go fishing. "You take a shovel full of dirt from a field and find no worms. Does that mean that there are no worms in the entire field? Of course that would be silly because the field is large and a worm is small."

Life very well could be caused by the confluence of the forces of nature, abiotically arising due to only the prevailing laws of nature. To make an assumption of a creator without evidence, and to consider the most unnatural cause of life to be the cause for origin is very odd. It's even more odd to imply that it is the most logical course of action.
DaffyDuck
5 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
"It's VERY unlikely that life "just started""

It's even more unlikely that an omnipotent being just appeared from nothing. Why is that easier for people to accept?
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2010
It simply boils down to a matter of worldview and perspective.

You don't believe so for you it's less likely. I do believe therefore, for me, it's a "no brainer". Just as I'm sure for you the opposite holds true, why wouldn't it.

Moreover, God didn't "come to exist", he's always existed. There is no infinite regress there. Infinite regress is a problem with naturalistic philosophy, not supernatural philosophy. I'm sure that sounds like a cop out...it certainly would to me were I on the other side, but there you have it.

I have good REASONS that I believe in God, I have FAITH in my Christianity. I can pull out my soap box and roll up my sleeves and we can discuss it...if you really want to.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2010
Moreover, God didn't "come to exist", he's always existed. There is no infinite regress there.

Then you must accept the same for nature.

If that concept is acceptable for one, then it must be for the other.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2010
Evolution and bio-genesis are to different things folks.


Yes. This article is about bio-genesis AND how the early evolution of replicating molecules might have been affected by mica sheets.

Mica SheetsTM slicker than silk sheets. Perfect for TumpurpedicTM beds AND brothels.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
But there are those who support the theory of evolution and attack Christians regardless of what they think of evolution.


So then you ARE someone that understands that evolution is real?

How about the Great Flood, do you believe in that?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2010
It's VERY unlikely that life "just started", anyone who has looked at it close enough realizes just how unlikely it is.


And you base that on what? I have looked at it as close as can be done. I don't find it at all unlikely. The Earth is a big place in comparison to a test tube. And the Universe is a VERY big place and life will notice that it exists ONLY on the planets that support life.

The fact that it happened on the planet basically as soon as it possibly could have is even more unlikely.


It is NOT this planet that counts. ANY planet that can support life is what counts. This planet just happens to be the life supporting world we live one. It could have been a different world.

And I find the early onset of life to be an indicator that it is likely to occur on any world that can support life. This is the difference between trying to understand how things actually happen and trying to fit things into a religion.

Ethelred
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
I have good REASONS that I believe in God, I have FAITH in my Christianity.
Let me guess... a great Miracle happened in YOUR life that YOU cannot explain except by invoking a god who loves YOU and the people YOU care about, and to whom YOU wish to offer praise forevermore for existing in YOUR life to make things better for YOU. Because it all makes YOU feel so good.

Close?
otto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
"He is lucky, and does not rejoice: He is unlucky, and does not weep. …" - BHAGAVAD-GITA
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2010
Moreover, God didn't "come to exist", he's always existed. There is no infinite regress there.

Then you must accept the same for nature.

If that concept is acceptable for one, then it must be for the other.


No, the big bang happened a finite time in the past...existence as you see it hasn't always existed.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2010
I have good REASONS that I believe in God, I have FAITH in my Christianity.
Let me guess... a great Miracle happened in YOUR life that YOU cannot explain except by invoking a god who loves YOU and the people YOU care about, and to whom YOU wish to offer praise forevermore for existing in YOUR life to make things better for YOU. Because it all makes YOU feel so good.

Close?


Not even close...not even in the ballpark...
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2010
No, the big bang happened a finite time in the past...existence as you see it hasn't always existed.


Clearly you don't know how I see it. The existence of logical relationships does not depend on the existence of OUR universe.

And claiming a god always existed doesn't answer anything because a god is NOT a logical relationship and thus, at least to me, needs a source for existence every bit as much as any universe. That is ANY universe not just ours.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2010
Ethelred,

Irreducible complexity is what it basically boils down to. Your side has yet to show how by simple successive modifications a fully functioning single cell came to exist. Tell me EXACTLY how this happened and you win...

It works for evolution, but it does NOT work for bio-genesis. This happens a lot in science, you get a good theory (evolution), and you see it as a good tool. Let's call it a hammer. It works so well for pounding in nails, suddenly everything starts looking like a nail...this isn't a nail we're talking about.

Where is your evidence that life can..no actually according to your argument WILL exist on any planet that can support it? You simply don't have it so you're arguing from faith not facts. Moreover even if we do find life out there (which I'm pretty sure we will at some point) you're still left with the problem of bio-genesis and irreducible complexity.

This is the problem with trying to make every scientific question fit a single theory
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2010
No, the big bang happened a finite time in the past...existence as you see it hasn't always existed.


Clearly you don't know how I see it. The existence of logical relationships does not depend on the existence of OUR universe.

And claiming a god always existed doesn't answer anything because a god is NOT a logical relationship and thus, at least to me, needs a source for existence every bit as much as any universe. That is ANY universe not just ours.

Ethelred


Indeed you don't see it how I see it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

When people start talking about "our" universe implying that there are others, which they haven't the slightest shred of evidence for and dismiss the concept of God as illogical in the same breath stretches the concept of intellectual honesty well past the breaking point.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2010
But there are those who support the theory of evolution and attack Christians regardless of what they think of evolution.


So then you ARE someone that understands that evolution is real?

How about the Great Flood, do you believe in that?

Ethelred


Can't speak for everyone here but think of me as someone who takes the bible for what it is...a spiritual text. It's not a science textbook. If you can't see the difference then...well I don't see the point in debating with you.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2010
MM
I generally wouldn't weigh in on this debate, for precisely the reason that it goes nowhere.

But, as Ethelred sort of pointed out, you're using a single argument, in essence, to support your faith, and at the same time partially refute (factually, at least) established science.

There are some gaps in the particulars of biogenesis, and they may not ever be filled in -at least here on Earth- but there is more than enough evidence to provide considerable confidence in a "connect the dots" theory.

You call this "faith", but it isn't- it is a theory that is supported remarkably well by observation.

I have it in mind that you aren't of the creationist bent, so I don't quite understand your resistance to biogenisis theory being -of necessity- interpolated with well-reasoned, evidence-guided speculation, just where we must EXPECT gaps to arise, because of the functioning of well-understood natural(not supernatural) processes.

Are you as doubtful of General Relativity?
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
Caliban,

I guess my resistance to "evolutionary" bio-genesis is very similar to my resistance to the notion that matter/energy can be infinitely reduced to smaller and smaller levels. At some point you hit an irreducible fundamental particle (plank length etc.)

I see a single cell in much the same way (at the moment). I see structures that simply have no function outside said cell and couldn't have arisen/replicated outside the cell. You hit a point where you simply can't explain how these things came to be by EVOLUTION...they are irreducible within that theoretical framework.

Darwin had an excuse, he didn't have the tools to see this in his time. He thought single cells were very simple, we know better now. We no longer have that excuse, we need another theory...or we need to accept that the information came from somewhere else. Did God do it? I certainly will never have proof of that, but that's what I'm going with for now.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
Oh and btw yes I'm doubtful of General Relativity in the sense that it's not the end all be all of physics. We'll get a better theory someday, just as we very well may get a theory that explains natural bio-genesis...but I'd bet all I have it won't be evolution.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
Moreover, God didn't "come to exist", he's always existed. There is no infinite regress there.
Then you must accept the same for nature.
If that concept is acceptable for one, then it must be for the other.
No, the big bang happened a finite time in the past...existence as you see it hasn't always existed.
5 points although I don't agree. For superior consistency of conclusion.

The weak point in the chain of conclusions here is the wrong assumption "IF god is without time THEN nature has to be without time". Because someone who believes in a supernatural being may very well believe that nature is NOT supernatural.
And of course, the BigBang modell is a feast for every (Abrahamic) believer.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
Moreover even if we do find life out there (which I'm pretty sure we will at some point) you're still left with the problem of bio-genesis and irreducible complexity.
I don't believe in "irreducible complexity" (outside of mathematics). Because emergent phenomena are everywhere around us. Colour is an emergent phenomenon of chemistry and physics. Multicellular animals are an emergent phenomenon of single cells. Life is an emergent phenomenon of complex chemical and physical gradients and their development over stretches of some 100 million years.

This development from simple atoms and molecules to life on this planet took more than 100 million years and we don't really know the initial conditions very well. Thus, we need some more time of research to find out all the essential details how the phenomenon "life" emerged after the planet was formed.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
When people start talking about "our" universe implying that there are others, which they haven't the slightest shred of evidence for and dismiss the concept of God as illogical in the same breath stretches the concept of intellectual honesty well past the breaking point.
A great point as far as proponents of the multiverse interpretation of QM are concerned.
Unfortunately wrapped in ad-hominem terminology ("intellectual honesty"). And yes, both parties can't refrain from applying bad rhetorics.
Therefore no voting points.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
rreducible complexity is what it basically boils down to.
Never have seen anything that fits that. And I read Dr. Behe's book and Dembski's original paper. I only read part of Behe's book because it was repetitive and each chapter I read or even glanced at had the same mistakes.
Your side has yet to show how by simple successive modifications a fully functioning single cell came to exist.
Done it. I will post a link if I can find the discusion. It was years ago and the sequence was a bit involved. At which point the guy I was arguing with added new demands for things like histones and got sullen.

Its a lot of work to do again and I can't remember it all.
Tell me EXACTLY how this happened and you win
Can't be done as the evidence is not around to find since it was just small molecules to start with. Now can you can tell us if you believe in the Great Flood and if not why do you believe any of it?

This is going to be a bit long OK a lot
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
It works for evolution, but it does NOT work for bio-genesis.
What doesn't? Chemistry works. We can guess at ways but we will never know the actual events.
Let's call it a hammer.
Lets not for the simple reason that your basis for doing so was bogus. It is evolution AFTER we get a simple self or co replicating molecule that occasionally makes a mistake. Evolution can cover everything after that. The only real questions are how small can a self replicating molecule be, I suspect it was co-replicating, and whether cells came first or second.

Cells can be simple lipid envelopes and wave action forms such things all the time. Or a molecule could have had fats stick to it and then the fat was filled with water. Any number of ways that could have happened. No miracles are needed.

Oh Nos it is posting again
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
no actually according to your argument WILL exist on any planet that can support it?
Where is the difficulty of it occurring on any planet that should be able to support it? We already have an example with the Earth. In the future better evidence can be obtained even without a star drive. Soon we should have a space based telescope, or even an Earth based one, that will be able to detect oxygen in extra solar planets if there is one close enough. It is VERY likely that it will be able to detect planets in the liquid water zone within its range considering how many planets have been found. We may have an answer in this century.
You simply don't have it so you're arguing from faith not facts.
From evidence and reason. Not faith. Faith is something I don't go on and your need for it has blinded you to that.

Calling reason, faith, is something that seems kind of desperate to me. Creationists started that crap.

I have not yet begun to post. No wait a minute I have
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
You don't believe so for you it's less likely. I do believe therefore, for me, it's a "no brainer". Just as I'm sure for you the opposite holds true, why wouldn't it.
To me, in a casual universe, saying there is a causeless creator means that I can simply do without the creator and say existence is causeless.

QM tells me otherwise. Current physics, primarily M theory shows us that existence is born of non-existence, and within existence, pockets of non-existence will form giving rise to new existence.
Moreover, God didn't "come to exist", he's always existed. There is no infinite regress there. Infinite regress is a problem with naturalistic philosophy, not supernatural philosophy. I'm sure that sounds like a cop out...
Only because you won't give a creatorless existence the same ability that you prescribe to a God.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
Moreover even if we do find life out there (which I'm pretty sure we will at some point) you're still left with the problem of bio-genesis and irreducible complexity.
Bio-genesis is really not that much of a problem though it is an interesting area and there simply is no irreducible problem. So far every claim has been found to be false given a few years or even days of looking, heck seconds in some of Behe's chapters. That is the reason Behe looked so bad at the Dover trial. His ideas had been disproved and he was so busy avoiding reality he never noticed till he was confronted on the stand.
This is the problem with trying to make every scientific question fit a single theory
Since I don't do that you should try not pretending that I do. It looks silly.
we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You can continue to disagree with evidence and reason and I will indeed continue to go them.

I forsee more posts
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
People keep tossing our irreducable complexity as an argument against evolution. Please try not to listen to "Way of the Master" stars Kirk Cameron and Ray "Banana Man" Comfort.

Irreducable complexity is not only allowed for but predicted by evolution. If we found no instances of irreducable complexity, it would be a blow against evolution, not for creationism.
Ethelred
3.1 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
When people start talking about "our" universe implying that there are others,
A completely reasonable assumption. At one time it was a mere assumption that there were other worlds and then other solar systems and other galaxies. All have been found. I doubt that other universes can be found but that does not mean that they don't exist. If nothing else the Big Bang plus Inflation STRONGLY implies that are places beyond what we can see and there is no reason that they must obey the same rules as symmetry breaking is believed to have come after inflation. Yes that is several assumptions. It is NOT faith, it is a reasonable guess at how things might be.

You seem to mistake reasoned speculation for faith.

I have faith that there will be one more post
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
I'm not arguing that irreducible complexity somehow refutes evolution. Behe did that. I'm arguing that it refutes a naturalistic explanation for bio-genesis.

Evolution is about the origin of species, not life itself.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
d dismiss the concept of God as illogical in the same breath
False. I have NEVER claimed that there cannot be a god. I have said I see no need for one which is not the same thing. I have also said that I have disproved the god of Genesis which is easy as that book describes a world we do not live in. YOU have said things which make it fairly clear that you don't really believe Genesis either.

If it is just a bunch of stories that you pick and choose from why do you believe in any of them. That is the stories that describe a different world. Which ones do you believe? Which story, if disproved, would change your mind?

I know that there are people that only believe for sure in the idea of Jesus as a god that rose from the dead. The god part is non-biblical and appears to have arisen long after his execution. In any case I know I can't disprove that sort of belief. Not even the part about the Trinity.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
If we found no instances of irreducable complexity, it would be a blow against evolution, not for creationism.


Not as they define it. They claim that if something is NOW irreducibly complex than it never could have evolved. No one working in biology, besides ID proponents and Creationists has ever made such a claim.

For instance it is claimed by Dr. Behe that the clotting cascade is irreducibly complex. In humans if you are missing part of the 7 step cascade you have a serious problem. However the cascade is NOT all needed as some whales only have SIX of the steps. One the things Behe didn't know at the trial. Most of his claims are based on NOT WANTING an answer.

And of course it could have evolved. Early on animals didn't need much blood and could live even if they lost all of it as they were small and thin. Blood allowed animals to evolve greater thickness. It did not have to all come at once. Behe plain did not want to see this obvious problem with his thinking.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
I'm arguing that it refutes a naturalistic explanation for bio-genesis.
But it doesn't. The claim you are making is based on an insistence that life must have ALL the parts that you think are a minimum.

All that is needed is a self or co reproducing molecule.

There is no need for a cell.

No need for DNA or RNA or proteins. Though I do think that RNA and maybe proteins were involved.

NO need for the chemicals to be levorotary. Or dexter.

Or a hundreds of units long.

All of those claims are chosen to make it look impossible. NONE are based on any other need.

Ethelred
Wadsworth
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
"God made us. Plain and simple. We did not spontaneously spring out of nothing and then evolve from one single cell to what we are today. That nonsense is only of interest if you absolutely refuse to believe in God the creator. Then you have to resort to "molecules to man". Have fun."

Seeing that you know so much about God, please tell us exactly how "God made us", using the biomolecules from which we are constructed. Have fun.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
I'm arguing that it refutes a naturalistic explanation for bio-genesis.
But it doesn't. The claim you are making is based on an insistence that life must have ALL the parts that you think are a minimum.

All that is needed is a self or co reproducing molecule.

There is no need for a cell.

No need for DNA or RNA or proteins. Though I do think that RNA and maybe proteins were involved.

NO need for the chemicals to be levorotary. Or dexter.

Or a hundreds of units long.

All of those claims are chosen to make it look impossible. NONE are based on any other need.

Ethelred


You stamping your feet and claiming it doesn't simply doesn't make it so Eth.

So far you haven't taken up my challenge to explain exactly how a single cell can arise from simple modifications of chemical processes. Until you do this is all just hot air and blown smoke.

To put it bluntly, and honestly no offense meant, put up or shut up. No time to debate the color of the sky here...
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
"God made us. Plain and simple. We did not spontaneously spring out of nothing and then evolve from one single cell to what we are today. That nonsense is only of interest if you absolutely refuse to believe in God the creator. Then you have to resort to "molecules to man". Have fun."

Seeing that you know so much about God, please tell us exactly how "God made us", using the biomolecules from which we are constructed. Have fun.


Magic :-)
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
I'm not arguing that irreducible complexity somehow refutes evolution. Behe did that. I'm arguing that it refutes a naturalistic explanation for bio-genesis.
Depends on whether you mean biogenesis as life created by existing life, or if you actually mean abiogenesis, life from non-life. Abiogenesis and irreducable complexity are thusly two ships sailing at night, and never the two shall meet as they deal with entirely different phenomina. Abiogensis is the self construction of life through chemistry, irreducable complexity is the inability to maintain function when a component is missing. Early life was not irreducably complex.

Evolution is about the origin of species, not life itself.
Non-sequitor.
Magic :-)
That is what all religions believe happened.
otto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
Not even close...not even in the ballpark...
According to YOU...
When people start talking about "our" universe implying that there are others, which they haven't the slightest shred of evidence for and dismiss the concept of God as illogical in the same breath stretches the concept of intellectual honesty well past the breaking point.
So AGAIN, a religionist sees a lack of evidence and concludes the existence of god. You know how COMMON this misconception is amongst the faithful? Are you all so bloody impatient? Or just so desperate to dismiss reality and embrace the Answer to Everything?

We have no evidence YET but 'we' continue to look. And by the way YOUR conclusion is certainly not original although it probably FEELS like it is.

Egocentricity- it may explain the entire religionist phenomenon. A believer wakes up, sees the sun, and thinks it's his own personal revelation.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
So far you haven't taken up my challenge to explain exactly how a single cell can arise from simple modifications of chemical processes. Until you do this is all just hot air and blown smoke.
Ok Modern, it's time to educate again. I've posted this before, and I know you've seen it. Better acknowledge it going forward.

How non-life could have become life: the Szostak hypothesis-

Lipid vesicles form naturally and have a natural self-affinity. Unlike modern phosolipids these are permeable to monomers.

Monomers will associate under differing temperatures creating polymers. These polymers are too large to penetrate a lipid bilayer.

So we have lipid vesicles roaming around, some of which have a polymer chain within them. These polymer chains exert thermodynamic pressure on the lipid bilayer walls, vesicles in turn eat each other. The higher pressure bilayers exerting greater natural affinity. In short, bigger eats smaller. CONT.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
So now we have a protocell, with a non-coding polymer inside, that eats other protocells depending on internal pressure determined by the size of the contained polymer. This is the beginning of evolution. Polymer chains that replicate faster, create monomers from existing chemicals, create secondary structures that do not prevent replication, and synthesize lipids will be selected for through predation.

Now that handles eating and predation, allowing for evolution, however, evolution requires generational interaction.

Well these lipid vesicles increase their lipid bilayer faster than they increase their polymer content and create secondary cellular structures that appear like little hairs. When the vesicle is divided mechanically, by things like shaking the jar they're in or wave action upon rocks, they break off, maintaining their contents.

Tadaa, reproduction.

All the prereqs for life, and a genesis process, lain out plainly.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
And before you say "that's a fairytale"

We proved this in Szostak's lab in 09.

http://www.youtub...YDdgP9eg
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
You stamping your feet and claiming it doesn't simply doesn't make it so Eth.
Didn't do that. Just pointed out a few realities.
So far you haven't taken up my challenge to explain exactly how a single cell can arise from simple modifications of chemical processes.
Ludicrous challenge. As ludicrous as a Kevin Hind challenge. Except that the Hind challenges had to stack the deck. You just needed to pick out one where the evidence has been eaten.
Until you do this is all just hot air and blown smoke.
Horse manure. Its reason based on what evidence we do have. Just because YOU are limited to hot air it doesn't mean that I am.
To put it bluntly, and honestly no offense meant, put up or shut up
Where did YOU answer MY questions? I answered yours you just didn't like the answers.

Ethelred
otto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
-I watched that video SH and it does seem plausible although he doesn't cite much evidence for it. But whether it in fact proves to be the case or not, doesn't excuse this ignorance:
So far you haven't taken up my challenge to explain exactly how a single cell can arise from simple modifications of chemical processes. Until you do this is all just hot air and blown smoke.
You want a definitive answer to this question of yours NOW. And if it doesn't yet exist you feel it is safe to conclude that this proves god is real. And you do not realize how lame this reasoning is because you and other religionists will repeat it ad infinitum despite repeated attempts to correct you.

Why do you think this is?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
-I watched that video SH and it does seem plausible although he doesn't cite much evidence for it. But whether it in fact proves to be the case or not, doesn't excuse this ignorance:
There are about 45 peer reviewed papers that the video was compiled from. Simply look up Szostak's work and the multiple offshoots for the theory.
Including the often quoted and rarely understood by fundamentalists, article in New Science Magazine.

I think Mabarker jsut misquoted it today as a matter of fact.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2010
As far as the origin of existence goes my thoughts run like this.

This universe can't create or destroy matter or energy. This universe came to existence at some finite point in the past. Something other than our outside this universe created it...and it wasn't "nothing". Moreover the universe can't have always existed or it would have died of heat death an infinite number of years ago.

Nothing, as Aristotle said it is what stones dream of...it's just nothing...
otto1923
4.3 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
This universe can't create or destroy matter or energy. This universe came to existence at some finite point in the past. Something other than our outside this universe created it...and it wasn't "nothing". Moreover the universe can't have always existed or it would have died of heat death an infinite number of years ago.
Ergo, god exists. YOU can't compile the list because YOU don't know enough to do so. And YOU certainly aren't qualified to be drawing conclusions from it.
otto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
Ahem. The items on your list are not dead ends, they are things yet to be resolved. The fact that they are not yet resolved does not mean they are unresolvable, nor that they require a supernatural explanation as a result.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2010
Wow otto you're really good at putting words in my mouth, and deducing my thoughts and motivations. So good in fact I think I'll just let you continue debating me without any further input on my part.

If you're actually interested in an honest debate at some point just let me know.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
Moreover the universe can't have always existed or it would have died of heat death an infinite number of years ago.

Existence arises from non-existence and vice versa.
http://www.youtub...Kfv0KKQA
Wadsworth
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
"The fact that the majority of christians can be quite comfortable with not believing in literal creation proves it. "

Not in my experience. I live in supposedly civilised Jersey (the real one, near France).
At a recent service at the local zoo, of all places, the vicar gave an anti-evolutionary speech, and all the hymns were about how "God made their tiny wings", and it" could not have been by chance". I am an atheist by the way.
Evolution is never mentioned, it is swept under the carpet.
Wadsworth
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
"Isn't it time for Atheist Christians to finally take a stand?"

Are these the same as Christian atheists? --or perhaps believing unbelievers?
Wadsworth
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
"The claim that only those who reject a belief in a God are the only ones that accept evolution is a complete and total falsehood and you and others need to adhere to your Christian values stop spreading that lie NOW!!!"

Oh please just go off an join a bible group somewhere.
otto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
Wow otto you're really good at putting words in my mouth, and deducing my thoughts and motivations. So good in fact I think I'll just let you continue debating me without any further input on my part.

If you're actually interested in an honest debate at some point just let me know.
Honest debate? That implies a willingness to concede which I've never seen in a religionist. When cornered they just proclaim 'well I guess we'll just have to disagree' and invoke 'faith'.
Wow otto you're really good at putting words in my mouth
-Said without actually disputing them, right? More evasion.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
"The fact that the majority of christians can be quite comfortable with not believing in literal creation proves it. "

Not in my experience. I live in supposedly civilised Jersey (the real one, near France).
At a recent service at the local zoo, of all places, the vicar gave an anti-evolutionary speech, and all the hymns were about how "God made their tiny wings", and it" could not have been by chance". I am an atheist by the way.
Evolution is never mentioned, it is swept under the carpet.

And what did you do to teach that vicar what his faith actually holds true today?

If the Pope can admit it, you were jsut letting him be ignorant.
Wadsworth
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
"And what did you do to teach that vicar what his faith actually holds true today?"

I sent him a stiffly-worded letter registering my disapproval. He is away for 2 days, so I have a reprieve bfore he burns me at the stake.
Anyway the Pope only admits to a twisted version of Evolution that sticks God in at the beginning and "ensoulment" somewhere along the way in human evolution. Otherwise they also sweep it under the carpet.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2010
Honest debate? That implies a willingness to concede which I've never seen in a religionist. When cornered they just proclaim 'well I guess we'll just have to disagree' and invoke 'faith'.


I already said I'd concede the point without it having the slightest effect on my religious views...I simply haven't been given a REASON to. Try actually reading posts instead of reading what you THINK someone else is writing or what you expect them to...or don't and continue knock down strawmen I could care less.

Wow otto you're really good at putting words in my mouth
-Said without actually disputing them, right? More evasion.


Why should I dispute something I agree with? You simply haven't taken the time to ASK me what my stance is on this or that subject, you always ASSume it and argue with yourself from there. I guess it's sort of amusing in a way...unless you're over 25, in which case it's kinda sad.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
I sent him a stiffly-worded letter registering my disapproval. He is away for 2 days, so I have a reprieve bfore he burns me at the stake.
Anyway the Pope only admits to a twisted version of Evolution that sticks God in at the beginning and "ensoulment" somewhere along the way in human evolution. Otherwise they also sweep it under the carpet.
As soon as the facade of the dam cracks, a total collapse is on the way.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 10, 2010
Skeptic,

If you have an argument to present that existence can arise from nothing then present it. I generally don't follow outside links. I'm not debating a youtube video, I'm in a conversation with you...that's how I roll.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2010
Current physics, primarily M theory shows us that existence is born of non-existence, and within existence, pockets of non-existence will form giving rise to new existence.
I don't understand. Where and when is there a non-existence of what?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
If you have an argument to present that existence can arise from nothing then present it. I generally don't follow outside links. I'm not debating a youtube video, I'm in a conversation with you...that's how I roll.
I'm not asking you to debate a vid, I'm using it to exemplify the point in a simple and visual manner. Some people appreciate it and it helps with the character limit crap.

I don't understand. Where and when is there a non-existence of what?


Non-existance would be the void, or the presence of nothing, or vaccuum. Current observations and QM lead us to a conclusion that vaccuum (the presence of nothing) spontaneously generates energy.

As a universe would die of heat death due to inflation, the lack of energy in pockets of this universe would form large pockets of vaccuum. The collection of vaccuum, if symetry breaking is proved, will give rise to "energy from nothing". Enough energy caused by enough nothing would give rise to a Universe.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
The above is purely hypothetical, and is actually the area of research I'm currently working in. The LISA data will assist with further solidifying or completely invalidating this hypothesis. If LISA returns data that agrees with this hypothesis, and the LHC determines the reasoning behind symmetry breaking, the next step would be an incredibly high energy version of the LHC, and when I say high energy, we're talking perhaps hundreds of times more powerful in order to probe beyond the theoretical limit of the LHC and the resulting "particle soup" of the standard model.
otto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
Wow otto you're really good at putting words in my mouth
-You already said what you believe:
Moreover, God didn't "come to exist", he's always existed
So I think it's safe to conclude that god is your alpha and omega, that he is the source of YOUR everything, and that no amount of evidence would convince you otherwise.
I already said I'd concede the point without it having the slightest effect on my religious views...I simply haven't been given a REASON to.
You're asking for evidence you know does not yet exist, just so you can proclaim your faith is genuine. It's not, and you're being deceptive in asking. Further, you seem to be saying you'll accept science as long as it doesn't affect your religion. True or what?
frajo
5 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
So far you haven't taken up my challenge to explain exactly how a single cell can arise from simple modifications of chemical processes. Until you do this is all just hot air and blown smoke.
That's not fair. A relative simple statement like Fermat's Last Theorem (formerly: Fermat's conjecture) took nearly 350 years to be proven.
Thus we'll simply have to be a bit patient. Let's talk again in 1000 years from now.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2010


Non-existance would be the void, or the presence of nothing, or vaccuum. Current observations and QM lead us to a conclusion vaccuum (the presence of nothing) spontaneously generates energy.



A vacuum is something. I know about virtual particles etc. But even in a vacuum (which is something, it's the presence of space) there is no evidence that I know of that allows for the creation of matter/energy.

I'm talking about getting something from nothing. There was no vacuum prior to the big bang as I understand the theory. It created space as well as everything else.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2010
So far you haven't taken up my challenge to explain exactly how a single cell can arise from simple modifications of chemical processes. Until you do this is all just hot air and blown smoke.
That's not fair. A relative simple statement like Fermat's Last Theorem (formerly: Fermat's conjecture) took nearly 350 years to be proven.
Thus we'll simply have to be a bit patient. Let's talk again in 1000 years from now.


Fair enough, let's also not pretend we have an answer, or it's a settled matter when we don't and it isn't...
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
You're asking for evidence you know does not yet exist, just so you can proclaim your faith is genuine. It's not, and you're being deceptive in asking. Further, you seem to be saying you'll accept science as long as it doesn't affect your religion. True or what?


How is this different from relying on evidence that doesn't exist to support your worldview? You know it doesn't exist either and you're just assuming we'll find it. I'd guess that no amount of reasoned debate will dissuade you from this position either, but then I'd be putting words in your mouth, wouldn't I?

So I think it's safe to conclude that god is your alpha and omega, that he is the source of YOUR everything, and that no amount of evidence would convince you otherwise.


Why is it so important to you to convince me otherwise? Do you need me to agree with you to validate your own beliefs?
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2010
FTR:

I didn't used to believe in the theory evolution, the evidence and reasoned debate convinced me otherwise.

I didn't used to accept the Big Bang theory, the evidence convinced me otherwise.

I used to think that communism/socialism was the end all be all of politics. Blaring evidence and some harsh debate convinced me otherwise.

I've had my worldview changed significantly more than one time on very deeply held issues in my life. I'm not sure that anyone here hasn't at one time or another. I could be wrong.

I do know this, all it would take to convince me of natural bio-genesis would be filling in some big holes with some logic and some more evidence. It would take a hell of a lot less than it did to change my beliefs on evolution.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
MMs answer to frajos post:
Fair enough, let's also not pretend we have an answer, or it's a settled matter when we don't and it isn't...
But in the very next post he seems to take issue with my objection to his demands for evidence:
How is this different from relying on evidence that doesn't exist to support your worldview?
Although MMs meaning is far from clear. I conclude obfuscation.

MM declares knowledge of ottos worldview and claims it is based on lack of evidence also:
You know it doesn't exist either and you're just assuming we'll find it.
I have to assume that MM is talking about my antireligionism.

My position on religion is clear and based on an overabundance of evidence; religion is ruining the world. It is based on nothing more than selfish desires and fears. These were exploited originally for constructive purposes but their utility is past. Religion is now a scourge and a threat to the survival.

Is that the worldview you are referring to?
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
Why is it so important to you to convince me otherwise? Do you need me to agree with you to validate your own beliefs?
-This is one reason:
Can't speak for everyone here but think of me as someone who takes the bible for what it is...a spiritual text. It's not a science textbook. If you can't see the difference then...well I don't see the point in debating with you.
The bible claims that what is in it is all literally true. It is most obviously lying in that respect. You receive spiritual guidance from a book full of lies.

-This is another reason:
When people start talking about "our" universe implying that there are others, which they haven't the slightest shred of evidence for and dismiss the concept of God as illogical in the same breath stretches the concept of intellectual honesty well past the breaking point.
In other words, theories which disregard the existance of god can be discarded without further discussion.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
Cont.
-And heres a big one:
I read that entire article and didn't see one convincing argument as to the simple presence of molecules and mica somehow gets you a self replicating molecule MUCH LESS a fully functioning single cell...
-A total disregard for the amount of time and effort it takes to develop a theory like this, and the education needed to understand it.

Religionists want simple answers and they will have the audacity to extract them from the most complex theories. Their arguments usually boil down to 'Well, it doesnt SEEM right, so it cant be god-derived.'

Like I say, YOUR god is your answer for everything. You look for him in everything you see. And you will simply refuse to see that he is not there.

I repeat: religion is a dire threat to the world. One cannot exist without enabling any and all to exist. Therefore ALL must be resisted, rejected, and expunged.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
The fact that it happened on the planet basically as soon as it possibly could have is even more unlikely.

The sooner it happening implies it being MORE likely, not less. If it took significantly longer, then we'd assume there's much less independent beginnings of life elsewhere. The fact that it happened so early is good news for ET hunters.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
A vacuum is something. I know about virtual particles etc. But even in a vacuum (which is something, it's the presence of space)
And that's the wrong idea of what vaccuum is. Vaccuum is nothing. All of our current space is not a vaccuum. There are always electromagnetic waves traveling in every part of space, which is simply the light bouncing from one thing to another. It's always there, and always permeates space. This is why you need 11 dimensions for the hypothesis to work.
there is no evidence that I know of that allows for the creation of matter/energy.
That's why this is a hypothesis, it lacks observational evidence allowing for falsification, however, the term vaccuum energy refers to the spontaneous generation of a particle/antiparticle pair that annihilate one another.
I'm talking about getting something from nothing.
Well that's 11 dimensional space. D11 is the void, the "nothing" that "everything" is expanding into.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
Did God do it? I certainly will never have proof of that, but that's what I'm going with for now

Your reasoning seems to be, "If I don't understand an explanation of how something got to where it is no, then it must be magic."

Why automatically default to magic? Why not default to "perhaps I just don't understand it, but whatever it is, it must have worked within the laws of physics"?
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
So far you haven't taken up my challenge to explain exactly how a single cell can arise from simple modifications of chemical processes. Until you do this is all just hot air and blown smoke.

He did a few posts above where you said that.
Jigga
Aug 10, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
"The claim that only those who reject a belief in a God are the only ones that accept evolution is a complete and total falsehood and you and others need to adhere to your Christian values stop spreading that lie NOW!!!"

Oh please just go off an join a bible group somewhere.

LMAO! You must be new here!!! Or you've not read many of my posts. Looks like you've been here since at least 9/2009, so I'm assuming you just don't know me.

I'll let it slide... THIS TIME! :)

(When the time comes, back me up Skeptic, if you don't mind).
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
I generally don't follow outside links. I'm not debating a youtube video, I'm in a conversation with you...that's how I roll.

If someone gives you an outside link, you should reciprocate their generosity of doing the research or external posting and watch and/or read it. These physorg limits are too much of a constraint. An external link should be considered the argument the other party is making. Don't make them copy and paste the entire thing here. Just watch or read it and learn (or debate). It's the polite thing to do. And, for the record, I'm not accusing you of being rude. You're quite respectful for the most part. I can say that even though I disagree with most of the points you're making.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
We cannot observe things both from inside, both from outside at the same moment.
Actually, yes you can. Classical mechanics, and QM when applied to the surface of a blackhole under the information paradigm state explicitly that if you could "view" the information at the surface of a black hole, you would logically be able to determine all of it's contents. Effectively, you can see both the inside, and the surface through examining the surface. Suskind's solution to the Black Hole Information Paradox.
(When the time comes, back me up Skeptic, if you don't mind).
Gladly.
Jigga
Aug 10, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
Until these events cannot be excluded reliably, we should still consider all scientific arguments of creationists as an evidence against evolutionary theory.
Could you explain to me why an opposing ideologly that is in stark contrast to observational evidence should stand as evidence itself against a theory that has NO contradictory observations? I mean really, you can't dispose of a theory based on whether someone else doesn't believe it or not. That's just utterly stupid.
Jigga
1 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
Actually, yes you can

You didn't read me thoroughly enough.

The trap is in my condition "at the same moment". After while we can consider, Universe expands a bit, so our perspective geometry becomes fuzzy enough for observation of the subtle effects, connected with dispersion of light by vacuum. But from strictly local perspective the Lorentz symmetry cannot be violated even in aether theory.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
You didn't read me thoroughly enough.

The trap is in my condition "at the same moment".
No, I read it. Examination of the surface would provide the information on the surface and in the interior simultaneously. You're dealing with a hard boundary condition so the HUP doesn't apply. There's no Lorentz violation encountered whatsoever.
Jigga
1 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
I mean really, you can't dispose of a theory based on whether someone else doesn't believe it or not
I don't want to dispose evolutionary theory, I just don't want to overlook various indicia, the evolutionary process on Earth was interrupted/accelerated many times with processes, which cannot be explained by gradualistic evolution.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
I don't want to dispose evolutionary theory, I just don't want to overlook various indicia, the evolutionary process on Earth was interrupted/accelerated many times with processes, which cannot be explained by gradualistic evolution.
What do you mean by gradualistic evolution? We've proven through models that very complex lifeforms can diverge and develop new features even more complex than the human eye over a mere 70 generations. We're dealing with BILLIONS of years here.

If you look at the various evolutionary "explosions" they all have a massive die off associated with them or a major breakthrough like conquering land. The only limiting factor appears to be the environmental niches available.
Jigga
1 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2010
Examination of the surface would provide the information on the surface and in the interior simultaneously
This is simply singular view in contemporary geometry.

For example, you cannot apply continuous differential geometry to the space-time description at the case of two or more simultaneous values of its curvature.

Actually this is just the problem with reconcilliation of relativity and quantum mechanics regarding the cosmological constant observed. From perspective of relativity our space-time is nearly flat, whereas from perspective of quantum mechanics is curved heavilly.

Which value should I use in subsequent derivations, after then?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
For example, you cannot apply continuous differential geometry to the space-time description at the case of two or more simultaneous values of its curvature.
Why not? It's a basic function of integral calculus.
From perspective of relativity our space-time is nearly flat, whereas from perspective of quantum mechanics is curved heavilly.
No, QM doesn't make a statement as to the shape of the Universe and relativity predicts a few shapes, most often the toroid or a hyper-sphere.
Jigga
1 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2010
We've proven through models that very complex lifeforms can diverge and develop new features even more complex than the human eye over a mere 70 generations. We're dealing with BILLIONS of years here.
Actually you can never prove evolutionary theory, just because it describes the situation in the past. What we can do is only to collect evidences for and against this model. As you probably know, aether theory is pluralistic by its very geometric nature and it considers, every paradigm may be violated in less or more subtle way - so I'm still opened to all possible perspectives. For example, we have many evidences of extraterrestrial intelligent visitors in the past.

We just don't know, what it all means by now. This is simply what the scientific method means: the negation of hypothesis is another hypothesis, which should be considered with caution. It's not self-evident truth.
CSharpner
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2010
I'm guessing Jigga (and all his/her other carnations) is writing in a language other than English and using Google translator to convert to English, then using it again to convert the responses back to his/her native tongue.

Did I guess right Jigga? Don't worry. I won't be offended if I'm wrong. It just looks like Google translations I've seen myself when trying to convert foreign language sites.

OK, carry on...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
Actually you can never prove evolutionary theory, just because it describes the situation in the past.
False, evolution is ongoing, which means we can watch it happening now. Beyond that, we've seen it happen in a lab and in nature. Re

Pull out the pictures of your family members going back as far as possible. When I look at the pictures of my great grandfather, and grandfather, and father there are changes between each one. Some traits survive in the family line, some do not. That is a microscopic picture of evolution.
This is simply what the scientific method means: the negation of hypothesis is another hypothesis, which should be considered with caution.
No it's not. The scietific process is one of observation, examination, formulation of hypothesis, testing hypothesis against all known observations, ratification.

You don't know your science, but you know how philosophy works. You need to understand the difference, it's a major one and very important.
Jigga
1 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2010
QM doesn't make a statement as to the shape of the Universe and relativity predicts a few shapes, most often the toroid or a hyper-sphere.
This is why I'm not talking about shape, but about curvature. Can you distinguish it? Actually I'm quite exact with my logics - you just cannot recognize it with your fuzzy thinking.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
This is why I'm not talking about shape, but about curvature. Can you distinguish it? Actually I'm quite exact with my logics - you just cannot recognize it with your fuzzy thinking.
Curvature is shape, you are not specific as you never state exactly what you're talking about.

Who's logic is fuzzy? I tried to have a level conversation with you and it didn't work out. That was your last chance.
Jigga
1 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
evolution is ongoing, which means we can watch it happening now
Which means, evolution by now is violated only by human activity and genetic manipulations. It doesn't imply anything about evolution in past.

Why proclamative proponents of so-called scientific method are violating most often, when it comes to their pet theories? You should know, no theory about past can be ever proven right. We aren't even sure by origin of September 11 events - not saying about distant past of life evolution.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2010
religion is ruining the world. It is based on nothing more than selfish desires and fears. These were exploited originally for constructive purposes but their utility is past. Religion is now a scourge and a threat to the survival.

There's a lot of truth to that otto. Of course, this neither proves nor disproves religion, but definitely shows how humans behave badly in the name of religion at times.

One of the U.S. founding fathers made a good point though, and I don't recall the exact quote, so I'll paraphrase: A populace that believes in an all-knowing and punishing God helps society police themselves.

I think the type of religion comes into play too. If a religious nut thinks it's God's will to kill everyone that doesn't subscribe to their own pet religion, that's not so good for society. One that promotes acceptance of other religions and promotes the "golden rule" helps, even if their religion is totally fake. As long as they believe they'll be punished for...
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
..Curvature is shape... Who's logic is fuzzy?
Stop trolling and twisting the meaning of well established denominations - it's not so difficult to recognize an obstinate negativism in your stance.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2010
...continued...
(sorry, I already posted this, but it disappeared immediately... I think I someone deleted it... if it shows up twice, please forgive me)...

As long as they believe they'll be punished for hurting others, there's a societal benefit. Yes, there are known minuses as otto rightfully pointed out too.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
Stop trolling and twisting the meaning of well established denominations - it's not so difficult to recognize an obstinate negativism in your stance.

Ah HA! Jigga DOES know English as his/her first language as THIS post is as clear as I've ever seen. I'm guessing it wasn't passed through Google translator a couple of times? Strange though, no mention of dense foam eather theory? Maybe Jigga's account was hacked?
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2010
religion is ruining the world. It is based on nothing more than selfish desires and fears

I agree, but it's quite easy to demonstrate, the approach of mainstream science has become nearly as religious, authoritative and ignorant, like the stance of mainstream opponents in the past.

The problem exists even at the side of layman society - as I explained already, the contemporary wave of religiousness is just a consequence of fast increasing amount of informations - we are forced to believe increasing number of informations without thorough understanding and or individual experience.

I'm facing often the situation, people even get upset, when somebody is trying to explain them some stuff in more illustrative way, thAn contemporary science provides - they just want to keep their religious approach as long, as possible, in fact. Actually whole human society must change its attitude - and it must change it fast, or it will hurt many people.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2010
This universe can't create or destroy matter or energy.

Do you know this for a fact, or do you think you know this based on the fact that it has never been observed?
This universe came to existence at some finite point in the past.

What do you mean "this universe"?

When I use the word universe I am referring to everything... there is by definition alone nothing outside of the universe, it is reality all inclusive.

And who says it has an origin? Are you assuming this?
Moreover the universe can't have always existed or it would have died of heat death an infinite number of years ago.

Again, you are assuming this based on current knowledge. It is fine to base theory on current knowledge, but do not confuse it for fact.

You would be the person who says "The earth is flat because I have no evidence to the contrary", instead of "The earth may be flat, based on current evidence." There is a HUGE difference between them.
Jigga
1 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2010
This universe can't create or destroy matter or energy

Actually this recent SciAm article just disputes this stance...

http://www.scient...g-energy
otto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
Stop trolling and twisting the meaning of well established denominations - it's not so difficult to recognize an obstinate negativism in your stance.

Ah HA! Jigga DOES know English as his/her first language as THIS post is as clear as I've ever seen. I'm guessing it wasn't passed through Google translator a couple of times? Strange though, no mention of dense foam eather theory? Maybe Jigga's account was hacked?
Like I say, trolls only get better with practice while those who respond to them get nowhere.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2010
A populace that believes in an all-knowing and punishing God helps society police themselves.
Back then the public profession of faith was the norm and essential in politics.
I think the type of religion comes into play too. If a religious nut thinks it's God's will to kill everyone that doesn't subscribe to their own pet religion, that's not so good for society
ALL religions have the propensity for this. It is written into their holy books. And NONE have failed to act upon it when conditions were right. All will lie, cheat, steal, persecute, and murder to protect their own particular interpretation of the best and only way into gods heart; none are benign. It's a matter not of wrong or right but of the survival of their SOULS.
Wadsworth
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
"CSharpner - 9 hours ago Rank: 5 / 5 (1) "The claim that only those who reject a belief in a God are the only ones that accept evolution is a complete and total falsehood and you and others need to adhere to your Christian values stop spreading that lie NOW!!!"

Oh please just go off an join a bible group somewhere.

LMAO! You must be new here!!! Or you've not read many of my posts."

Yes I may have misinterpreted you. With the exhortation to have "Christian values", and the confusing quotes within quotes, I mislabelled you as an anti-scientific religious bigot.

Sorry.

Wadsworth
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2010
"Hell I'm not even ASKING for evidence, just a coherent THEORY..."

Didn't you read the main article on Mica sheets?
That is the theory,-or at least a rational hypothesis, and one that is in keeping with previous theories which cite different substrates eg clay, for biochemical processes to get a grip. The main theory is actually a fact;-"life" consists of macrobiomolecules; these are all derived from smaller organic molecules which are derived from simpler inorganic molecules; there is a logical rational chemistry which underlies living biochemistry; understand?
CSharpner
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2010
I think part of the problem is our antiquainted concept of the word "life", which was conceived of loooong before people knew much of anything about physics.  If we could hit reset on our idea of "life" and start with what we know about physics now, I think we wouldn't have the word "live" added to our vocabulary.  We would see atoms interacting with each other in simple ways, leading to more complex reactions, filtered within the environment in which they exist, with emergent properties forming and becoming more complex during replication with the only limits in available resources and time to their complexity.  The concept of "dead" would not exist either.. only the idea of one macro grouping of complex reactions being interfered with in a way as to prevent further chain reactions, like water on a fire.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2010
...continued...
When you think about the act of dying, most people tend to think one moment you're alive, the next you're dead.  In reality, that's not true.  Say you have a heart attack.  You stop breathing and your heart isn't beating.  Are you dead?  Not yet.  The majority of your cells are still functining and those that aren't, are suspended.  Someone can still come along and "save" you.  If they don't and your body doesn't reboot by itself, your cells slowly consume the remaining oxygen in you blood.  they then cease functioning (but aren't "dead" yet).  Over more time connections between brain cells begin to disconnect (brain damage).  After a certain amount of brain damage sets in, your consious functioning of your brain cannot be recovered, but your body could be put on life support (coma).  If not, your cells eventually start to break down internally.  Different cell types at different rates.  This takes hours.
...continued...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
...continued...
At any point along that process, some or most all of the cells can be refreshed and the macro object (the "person") can continue to function as before. Or, in the case of just refreshing SOME of the cells, those cells can continue to function, say, in a lab in a petre (?sp?) Dish.

At what point along that long process would you say that "person" is "dead"? At what point does the "soul" leave the body? What's the physical mechanism for detaching the "soul"? When you ponder these questions, the concepts of "life" and "death" become not so clear cut... not to mention the concepts of souls and afterlifes. The only thing we can say with certainty is there are trillions of chemical, chain reactions. Some continue. Some stop. Sometimes they all slowly cease functioning.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2010
So, how did "life" begin? It's a meaningless question because we can't give a straight answer to what "life" is (or "death").

I like to ponder these questions instead:
- how did the first self replicating molecule begin?
- how many times did this type of process take place independantly on Earth?
- is it still taking place today?
- how likely is it to happen in ideal environments?
- how much has it happened elsewhere in the universe?
- if it HAS happened elsewhere, has it lasted long enough for the emergence of inteligence?
- has that intelligence become complex enough to develop technology?
- how many technological civilizations have emerged?
- how many are around now, if any?
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 11, 2010
Skeptic,

I think our disagreement is basically over the meaning of what nothing is. If something has a property, like 11 dimensions and the ability to create energy/matter then it is something, nothing has no properties it is simply nothing.

It's important to note that this is not merely a philosophical disagreement, but it has real world implications. Basically if you can ascribe properties that imply existence to something that you then later claim as non-existence then it's a no starter.

It's either something that can be described and ascribed properties and even some predictability, or it is the a fore mentioned nothing...again what rocks dream about. They don't dream about 11 dimensional vacuums that create universes, they don't dream about anything at all.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2010

Do you know this for a fact, or do you think you know this based on the fact that it has never been observed?


Have you observed it? No one ever has despite looking really hard for ways to make it happen. It does seem to be a pretty solid property of the universe. If you have evidence to the contrary present it. Otherwise I'm going to ignore any further argument on the matter.

And who says it has an origin? Are you assuming this?


No the big bang has ample evidence to support it, and it says the universe had an origin about 13-14 billion years ago.

Again, you are assuming this based on current knowledge. It is fine to base theory on current knowledge, but do not confuse it for fact.


Yes this is a fact, when we run out of hydrogen it will die a heat death. Fact.

Wadsworth
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2010
"Again, you are assuming this based on current knowledge. It is fine to base theory on current knowledge, but do not confuse it for fact. "

1. What then is a "fact", if not a conclusion based on past and current knowledge?

2. Can "nothing" exist? That would be absurd,-how can nothing have the property of existing? Kant said "Existence" is not a predicate,-so to say that "nothing" exists, is superfluous. One should just say "nothing",-without further qualification.
But even that implies that "nothing" is "something", because we can make it a concept.

Conclusion: There is no such thing as "Nothing"; therefore "something" has to exist logically; and that "something" is the eternal Universe (or megaverse). Therefore there was no creation, by God or anything else.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2010
the big bang has ample evidence to support it, and it says the universe had an origin about 13-14 billion years ago.
I prefer to see "the BigBang" as a consequence (induced, not deduced) of the currently dominant cosmology, the (cosmological) standard model.
Yes this is a fact, when we run out of hydrogen it will die a heat death. Fact.
Again, a (induced, not deduced) consequence of the (cosmological) standard model.

This standard model explains more observations than any competing cosmological model. But it doesn't explain all observations. Some of its building blocks may be wrong. There are competing models in the works.
Thus, one future day the current cosmological standard model my be replaced by another one which doesn't know heat death and which doesn't need a "BigBang".
See the Ekpyrotic/Cyclic model of Steinhardt & Turok.

Induction: Method to find general principles from particular facts.
Deduction: Method to find particular results from general principles.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2010
"Hell I'm not even ASKING for evidence, just a coherent THEORY..."

Didn't you read the main article on Mica sheets?
That is the theory,-or at least a rational hypothesis, and one that is in keeping with previous theories which cite different substrates eg clay, for biochemical processes to get a grip. The main theory is actually a fact;-"life" consists of macrobiomolecules; these are all derived from smaller organic molecules which are derived from simpler inorganic molecules; there is a logical rational chemistry which underlies living biochemistry; understand?


Yes I understand the theory, and I disagree. I don't agree that it's as simple as you posit. I don't think the fact that we have a good theory for biochemistry is sufficient to explain bio-genesis. Understand?
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
Yes I understand the theory, and I disagree. I don't agree that it's as simple as you posit.
No, you think its as simple as YOU posit.
I don't think the fact that we have a good theory for biochemistry is sufficient to explain bio-genesis
How would you know? If you were to be honest with yourself you would conclude that you dont have the education or the experience to decide. The fact that you are trying to, means that you think you already have the answer, and further, that it is only as complex as it needs to be for you to understand and thus accept it. Understand?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2010
Skeptic,
I think our disagreement is basically over the meaning of what nothing is. If something has a property, like 11 dimensions and the ability to create energy/matter then it is something, nothing has no properties it is simply nothing.
No, that's not an accurate depiction of what I said. Current theory is that the 11th dimension itself is the void. It is nothing.
It's important to note that this is not merely a philosophical disagreement, but it has real world implications. Basically if you can ascribe properties that imply existence to something that you then later claim as non-existence then it's a no starter.
Again, not what I said.
They don't dream about 11 dimensional vacuums that create universes, they don't dream about anything at all.

Irrelevant. Nothing is a lack of energy, existence is the presence of energy. That clear enough for you?
CHollman82
2.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2010
I think our disagreement is basically over the meaning of what nothing is.


The concept of "nothing" is meaningless to begin with.

When you answer a question, such as your question about what rocks dream about, with "nothing" what that really means is that the question made no sense.

The answer is not "nothing"... because the concept of nothing implies something. No, there is no answer because the question was meaningless.

Far too many people assume that the questions they ask are meaningful. I think that many of the "big" questions about the nature of reality are actually meaningless questions. When one asks "what is the origin of the universe" they assume the questions is meaningful because from our limited perspective we think things have origins. In reality they do not.
Constructs have origins, but constructs are arbitrary ideas, that which composes those constructs has never been observed to originate.
Wadsworth
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2010
"Yes I understand the theory, and I disagree. I don't agree that it's as simple as you posit. I don't think the fact that we have a good theory for biochemistry is sufficient to explain bio-genesis. Understand?"

Obviously my reply was an extremely skeletal summary for the sake of brevity. I cannot do the work for you; you can track down the information for yourself. Trouble is, creationists don't believe in hard scientific graft, just easy "revelations".
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2010
No, that's not an accurate depiction of what I said. Current theory is that the 11th dimension itself is the void. It is nothing.


Apologies if I misrepresented your argument. However I believe my point still stand as the 11th dimension, whatever else it may be, is something.


Irrelevant. Nothing is a lack of energy, existence is the presence of energy. That clear enough for you?


I see it differently. I see a lack of energy simply as a lack of energy. I see existence as the presence of anything at all. And yes your clarification was very helpful thank you.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2010

Obviously my reply was an extremely skeletal summary for the sake of brevity. I cannot do the work for you; you can track down the information for yourself. Trouble is, creationists don't believe in hard scientific graft, just easy "revelations".


I guess if I were a creationist that would apply to me? Even if I were a creationist it doesn't change the fact that there is no hard evidence for naturalistic bio-genesis, as has been mentioned several times on this very thread by people who even except the premise.

Just because I'm more of a skeptic than some here does not mean I'm a creationist...
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2010
The concept of "nothing" is meaningless to begin with.


Nothing is not an axiom of something. In fact I'd argue the opposite in that existence goes to a hell of a lot of bother by existing in the first place. Existence implies a whole lot of things, nothing neither implies or requires anything...much less a human philosophical concept.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2010
The concept of "nothing" is meaningless to begin with.


Nothing is not an axiom of something. In fact I'd argue the opposite in that existence goes to a hell of a lot of bother by existing in the first place. Existence implies a whole lot of things, nothing neither implies or requires anything...much less a human philosophical concept.


Nothing requires the absence of something, and in that has attribute.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2010
The concept of "nothing" is meaningless to begin with.


Nothing is not an axiom of something. In fact I'd argue the opposite in that existence goes to a hell of a lot of bother by existing in the first place. Existence implies a whole lot of things, nothing neither implies or requires anything...much less a human philosophical concept.


Nothing requires the absence of something, and in that has attribute.


That's the absence of an attribute...
otto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2010
I see it differently. I see a lack of energy simply as a lack of energy. I see existence as the presence of anything at all.
Again, youre making decisions about something you are not equipped to understand. If you wanted to understand you would be asking questions, not attempting to answer them.

Youre discussing physics with the arrogance of willful ignorance. Its the same way you conclude god exists, by redefining whatever concepts you stumble over to justify it.
That's the absence of an attribute...
You have no idea what 'attribute', 'nothing', or even 'absense' mean in the realm of physics, and you have no way of understanding them without an education.
I believe my point still stand as the 11th dimension, whatever else it may be, is something.
How could you possibly KNOW? You have no idea what it IS.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2010
Otto I'm not really going to do a whole lot of replying to your posts, since it's obvious to you that I'm woefully uneducated and unequipped to do so.

However, in this one case I will do something you seem to want me to do and ask a question.

What the hell is absense? Is that a lack of "sense", if so I'm sure that's an area that you are far more knowledgeable about than I am.
Bob_B
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2010
As a referee, I see apples and oranges.
Of course 'nothing' is inclusive as it actually refers to all things, or no one thing but everything.
But sometimes Much Ado About Nothing is all it is.
Occasionally noting else matters and you're in Dire Straits then "Money for Nothing" is nothing to sneeze at!

Good Luck all!
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
What the hell is absense? Is that a lack of "sense", if so I'm sure that's an area that you are far more knowledgeable about than I am.
As a physics concept I suppose it would best be described mathematically. But I don't know- I'm no scientist.

But, see, I know I don't know and will readily admit it. You seem compelled to wrestle with these concepts, I assume because you want to reconcile them with your belief system- and that's just not going to happen.

It's like Plato and his idea of forms, and his belief that he could explain everything without leaving his own mind. Aristotle said no, that's not possible, you've got to discover what the world is really like before you try to explain it.

This process has become very complicated, and takes a lot of time and skill to master. As your god exists only in the minds of believers like yourself, it can never be used to understand or explain real-world physical realities.
Wadsworth
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
"Just because I'm more of a skeptic than some here does not mean I'm a creationist..."

OK so you are not a creationist; eventually I will get acquainted with who is what. Natural abiogenesis is the accepted rational norm among scientists who have accumulated knowledge over the past 300 years or so. So surely the burden of proof is upon you to prove otherwise, and posit an alternative theory which is testable. Denying naturalism is not sufficient. Even if Nature was unnatural!!--that would still not mean the supernatural was natural,--ie it is the normal state of affairs. If it exists, the supernatural can only be supernatural, and therefore has no place in the natural world.
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
Modernmystic
As you may have heard, Craig Venter has recently created a new synthetic organism by inserting synthetically prepared DNA,presumably out of jars on his shelf labelled Guanine, thymine, Cystosine, adenine. Therefore he has created a simple-life form, naturally out of natural materials. The same process has occurred naturally in Nature. Natural abiogenesis and synthetic abiogenesis are the same process, and they bith exist and have been shown to happen.
What more can one say?
Tahoma
1 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2010
.. Craig Venter has recently created a new synthetic organism by inserting synthetically prepared DNA,presumably out of jars on his shelf labelled Guanine, thymine, Cystosine, adenine. Therefore he has created a simple-life form...
Is this meant as an argument for creation or evolution?
Tahoma
Aug 12, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tahoma
1 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2010
Randomness is not completely chaotic. For example, random system behaves reversibly: every fluctuation is compensated with another ones in less or more distant perspective. If we place sufficient source of energy in random environment and we allow to spread through it, most of energy will be dispersed fast. But the subtle portion of energy will pass through it in transverse waves and it will allow formation of organized structures in it. Of course, these structures will be quite diluted, but there is another trick: in large cyclic systems, like the planetary systems the subtle flow of energy will be reversed many times at place. In such way, the casual portion of energy will still travel along long path - but it will remain at place, thus enabling the concentration of its causality, i.e. intelligence. Of course, such process is extremely improbable - but we are forming only tiny portion of mass of universe. It just requires sufficiently large Universe.
Tahoma
1 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2010
As a model example can serve the spreading of photons of cosmic gamma rays through fluctuations of cosmic microwave background. Most of photons will be dispersed, but some of them will survive, so they can be detected at Earth even after travel across whole Universe. These photons will not arrive randomly though. They will organize spontaneously into clusters, where larger photons encircling these heavier ones, thus forming sort of planetary systems. This keeps the cluster of photons nondispersive and stable as a whole. We can say, these photons are formed primitive colony or civilization.

You can think, the planetary systems were formed in the same way, after all in the same way like atoms and more fundamental particles - they're representing most organized portion of omnipresent chaos, preselected with traveling along long path through noisy environment.

http://en.wikiped...volution
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
"Is this meant as an argument for creation or evolution?"

Both: it demonstrates that a living organism can be "created", ie synthesised from scratch by intelligent human beings. This is a "guided" speeded-up version of what has happened in Nature (because organisms actually exist),and possibly still does happen. (see artificial Selection, or selective breeding), or just read Darwin's "Origin of Species" chapters on the subject of Pigeon breeding..
"Evolution" as defined,is artificially separated from "abiogenesis", as defined,-but it is logical to see it as all one process of chemical to biochemical to species evolution.
The fact that Man created an organism means that a God is superfluous for explaning the origin of life, therefore an explanation of "Creation" (by God) is also superfluous. In fact "creation" is a very unfortunate word and should be scrapped. There is no evidence that anything was created out of "Nothing" (see my article above), neither the Cosmos, nor life.
Tahoma
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2010
it demonstrates that a living organism can be "created", ie synthesised from scratch by intelligent human beings..
It just demonstrates, the genome of one living organism can be manipulated by another living organism(s) and inserted into third living organism, while maintaining its survival. This is what the C. Venter's experiments were actually about.
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
Tahoma

True, but it is a significant start in what should be a logical progression. Have faith!
It still begs the question of what Life is and where does it start? Is the inserted DNA alive, dead, or non-living chemical compounds? Was the recipient cytoplasm still alive after having its own genome removed?-, or just a bag of chemicals? If so, how could it show any further signs of being alive if it is without an organising nucleus which directs further protein synthesis, metabolism, and sexual or asexual reproduction?
Life has to be considered as an emergent property of all these processes.
What else was Craig Venters experiment for other than to demonstrate the possibility of synthetic life-forms. Not was not mere twiddling with bits of tissue.
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
Tahoma
"These photons will not arrive randomly though. They will organize spontaneously into clusters, where larger photons encircling these heavier ones, thus forming sort of planetary systems."

Although an amateur, this is not my understanding of quantum mechanics, and "size" as applied to photons is misleading; "quantum state" rather than physical size is a more appropriate description, and not really comparable with macroscopic arrangements like planetary systems.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2010
I'm not arguing that irreducible complexity somehow refutes evolution. Behe did that.
Wrong. Behe has never tried to refute evolution. He knows that it happens. Just tries to pretend to himself and others that SOME things that exist couldn't have evolved.
m arguing that it refutes a naturalistic explanation for bio-genesis.
Which it doesn't. Not unless you can show SOMETHING about the beginning of life that could not have taken place. Kind of hard to without knowing how life did get started. All that can be done is to make reasoned guess about how things could have happened. It is hard to prove such a think can't be done. Especially since reasoned guesses have been done.
I do know this, all it would take to convince me of natural bio-genesis would be filling in some big holes with some logic and some more evidence.
Hard to deal with the alleged holes when you don't say what you think they are.

Be specific. What things do you think could not have occurred.

Ethered
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2010
- how did the first self replicating molecule begin?
No one knows. Might not be possible to ever know.
- how many times did this type of process take place independantly on Earth?
Unless it is VERY easy for many different kinds of molecules to self-reproduce then it probably only happened once.
- is it still taking place today?
No. For the reason that covers the previous post as well. The conditions that existed changed with the beginning of life. That is a self-replicating molecule would most likely used up the needed resources thus the first such molecule to exist would also be the last as it would rapidly use the needed chemicals.

Yet another multi part post
Tahoma
1 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2010
Have faith!
I'm just saying, these experiments are irrelevant with respect to explanation of life formation in both spontaneous, both artificial way. They're interesting, but have nothing to do in the discussion about mechanism of chemical evolution.
..although an amateur, this is not my understanding of quantum mechanics
I'm not describing quantum mechanics, but clustering of gamma ray photons (and possibly every higher particles from atoms to galaxies) as a sort of evolutionary process. These particles are facing the fluctuations of environment (a "mutations") and their mutual collisions. Only the most successful ones will survive their future generations.

My view of evolution is, even most elementary particles are behaving like primitive life forms (they follow gradients of vacuum density like bacteria the path of sugar concentration, they're merging, splitting dividing during this, etc) - in so called living organism these emergent properties are just concentrated.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
- how likely is it to happen in ideal environments?
I suspect that is very likely but there is no way to tell. It likely would be a low odds event in small volumes. The environment would have to a tad larger than a test tube. Maybe even larger than a few miles of coastline and a few years. My guess is thousands of miles of coastline and thousands of years.

Yes, I suspect that tidal areas were where life started.
- how much has it happened elsewhere in the universe?
Hard to say. However IF a planet would need a moon a lot like ours then there won't be many.
- if it HAS happened elsewhere, has it lasted long enough for the emergence of inteligence?
I suspect that it is rare even by the standard of worlds with life. It took a long time for multi-cellular organism to evolve.

More to come
Tahoma
1 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2010
For example, the oil droplets described in these experiments are still pure physical system, but they exhibit many (if not all) signs of living system.

http://focus.aps..../v15/st7
http://news.scien...-04.html

These droplets are actively moving, collecting food, they're following the gradients of food concentration, they're diving and merging, while exchanging their information collected at the surface membrane.
Tahoma
1 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2010
how likely is it to happen in ideal environments?
For example the Titan moon of Saturn can serve as a model of primordial Earth conditions, which were conserved by freezing. This moon is virtually full of (frozen) water and hydrocarbon oil droplets, waiting for their evolution. If we would move it more close to Sun, the spontaneous evolution would probably start there fast in anaerobic environment.

http://www.newsci...ory.html
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2010
- has that intelligence become complex enough to develop technology?


IF a world has developed life that is intelligent then it should develop some sort of technology. However hominids developed basic technology at least a million years before getting creative. Creativity seems to have been moderately hard to evolve.Moderate in comparison to multi-celled life.

- how many technological civilizations have emerged?


Not a lot. Even in the whole universe.

- how many are around now, if any?


Less then the number that evolved. Even we may not last long. There are a lot of wack jobs out there and nanotech may prove to be even more dangerous than the Bomb.

-----------------

Has anyone else noticed that Alizee/Zephir has TWO new accounts. Tahoma is clearly the same as can be seen in the post right above and Xaero seems to exist only to uprank the Multinamed Crank.

So he really does refuse to behave.

Ethelred
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2010
Tahoma
Well I still think the experiments will give us an understanding of what life is and how it emerges as an evolutionary process, and how cellular biochemistry works at a basic level.
I agree with your overall concept of Cosmic Evolution, and that the behaviour of elementary particles might be the precursor of a sort of Life-process,- though the label "Life" is more usually confined to biological cells and beyond. Again, it is all a matter of arbitrary definition.
I can't really see fluctuating quantum fields, or the wave-particle duality of elementary matter as miniature versions of solar systems. I suppose it depends partly on how you look at it.
.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2010
Yes this is a fact, when we run out of hydrogen it will die a heat death. Fact.


Not actually a fact. A reasonable inference if you ignore several ideas. Some mentioned by others.

Ethelred
Tahoma
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2010
..I still think the experiments will give us an understanding of what life is and how it emerges as an evolutionary process...
Of course, but these experiments can be done already. For example, we could shake hydrocarbon emulsions under conditions, which are changing periodically in accordance to generation life of droplets in hydrocarbon emulsions.

The Szostak's theory presented by Skeptic_Heretic appears quite feasible for me, because bottom of first oceans was probably full of hydrothermal vents due the strong geothermal activity in these times. Now we should just try to simulate it at lab.

http://www.youtub...YDdgP9eg

From my perspective the repeated heating and cooling corresponds the repeated travel of object along time dimension at place, which is required for formation of time condensate in the form of living organisms.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2010
Conclusion: There is no such thing as "Nothing"; therefore "something" has to exist logically; and that "something" is the eternal Universe (or megaverse). Therefore there was no creation, by God or anything else.
I think that counts as sophistry. And bad logic.

However LOGIC exists. Or at least logical relationships exist even if nothing material does. My way of thinking on this is that IF something logically CAN exist than it does, somewhere at sometime. I suspect that an all powerful god doesn't qualify as a logical possibility.

And I thank Alizee/Zephir for his confirmation of my conjecture. He gave me a one instead saying the Tahoma wasn't part of the MultiNamed Hydra. Which is a typical Alizee response. Even more clear than the use of the 'vacuum density gradients'. Which is a nonsense phrase.

Ethelred
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2010
We can only await what the future holds, and gradually progress in our knowledge.
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
"I think that counts as sophistry. And bad logic."

Seems reasonable to me. Even sophistry can be a good argument,-just not the desired one.

Maybe you are right and Nothing (p), does not imply "not-P", but only "not(not P)" which equals the orignal P.
So "Nothing" only implies "Nothing"; just as a Rose only implies a Rose, and does not imply God, creation, or a not-Rose.
That then leaves us with the problem of where "Something" came from, if it is not the logical counterpart of "Nothing" or created out of it.
So is "Something" still eternal?
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2010
As a physics concept I suppose it would best be described mathematically. But I don't know- I'm no scientist.

But, see, I know I don't know and will readily admit it. You seem compelled to wrestle with these concepts, I assume because you want to reconcile them with your belief system- and that's just not going to happen.

It's like Plato and his idea of forms, and his belief that he could explain everything without leaving his own mind. Aristotle said no, that's not possible, you've got to discover what the world is really like before you try to explain it.

This process has become very complicated, and takes a lot of time and skill to master. As your god exists only in the minds of believers like yourself, it can never be used to understand or explain real-world physical realities.


You did know that I was just making fun of you for misspelling something you had just accused me of not understanding...right? It's absence...not absense.
otto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2010
You did know that I was just making fun of you for misspelling something you had just accused me of not understanding...right? It's absence...not
And you do know that Otto will exploit any chance to make a point and also denigrate the scourge that is religion? Danke sehr-
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2010
"And bad logic".

Of course, Nothing being Nothing cannot imply Something or Anything; silly me.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2010
You did know that I was just making fun of you for misspelling something you had just accused me of not understanding...right? It's absence...not
And you do know that Otto will exploit any chance to make a point and also denigrate the scourge that is religion? Danke sehr-


LOL it's your story big guy...sell it how you want to. Personally I just think you were too stupid to get the joke...
otto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2010
You did know that I was just making fun of you for misspelling something you had just accused me of not understanding...right? It's absence...not
And you do know that Otto will exploit any chance to make a point and also denigrate the scourge that is religion? Danke sehr-


LOL it's your story big guy...sell it how you want to. Personally I just think you were too stupid to get the joke...
Sounds like I hit a nerve-

Perhaps you dont know how to tell jokes...? Ive noticed that intense religionists seem to lack a proper sense of comedy. Its always defensive; like they think the world is already laughing at them, and so use humor as an attack, a retaliation.

They dont understand self-deprecation at all, which is the source of all real humor. Laughing at our mistakes instead of looking for someone to blame them on, you know?

'I'm right because god says so!' Cries the religionist. Not funny.
Tahoma
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2010
Amoeaba like motion of an oil droplet on an aqueous phase. The volume of oil droplet is 1 ml.

http://rheo.t.u-t...dex.html
Wadsworth
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2010
Tahoma, re Amoebae

Yes this is very interesting, the way the droplet puts out protrusions just like the pseudopodia of an Amoeba.
Tahoma
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2010
Actually, the descendants of these primitive organisms were found already at the bottom of oceans. I'm using them as another evidence of my approach to evolution.

http://www.newsci...ine-news

I presume, the first organisms were relatively large - actually the size of most organized structures in our Universe should always correspond the wavelength of cosmic microwave background, because at just above this size the gravity force adds additional complexity into physical system. We should model the life formation by as most complex physical system, as we could consider naturally.
ArcainOne
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2010
Again this idea of "God did it plan and simple", I absolutely hate that phrase. Every time I hear that I just want to pat the person on the head and and say "Good boy, now go and play while the grown ups are talking". If that is enough of an explanation for you that is fine. Stay in your happy world of ignorance and go away. For the record yes I believe in god but I also don't believe god to be an idiot. More like a great clockmaker who set forth rules and boundaries, setting up the necessary components of our universe/multiverse to kickoff this wonderous and beautiful machine to which you will never fully appreciate, because you're just happy with "God did it..."
otto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
For the record yes I believe in god but I also don't believe god to be an idiot. More like a great clockmaker who set forth rules and boundaries, setting up the necessary components of our universe/multiverse to kickoff this wonderous and beautiful machine to which you will never fully appreciate, because you're just happy with "God did it..."
So why believe in it at all? You understand that even this tacit acceptance of god the concept enables extremists to hold onto their ruinous beliefs?

It's only a short step from the blind watchmaker to the idea of a chosen people with a direct hotline, which he might just answer if they beseech him hard enough. The only reason to hold on to the deception is if you're hoping heaven is real; and it's not.

A disconnected god is no god. He is irrelevant. Therefore he does not exist. Cast him off.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2010
~otto1923

To answer that question do not just ask yourself why we are here, but ask your self why is the universe here. What it boils down to is there is no need for the universe, no purpose in the grand scheme of things. Take it away and there is nothing... (as far as we understand it), yet our universe expanded into "something", something that also has no need to exist... and yet... it all does. Here I am, talking to you in a universe that has no need to exist, sitting in "something" that also has no need to exist and yet they do.

You see god as a old man in the sky, "Cast him off". And while I can't answer the question "How do I see him then" What is important is what you believe, and that you are not trying to force your ideology on others, but allow them to come to their own conclusions through introspection and not brain washing.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2010
Youre drawing premature conclusions. We answer these questions, if they are answerable, by looking.
something that also has no need to exist... and yet... it all does.
We can only know if thats true when we find out, not by conjuring up some explanation because we cant wait.
What is important is what you believe
I believe we will find all the answers we can find, when we find them. Human impatience and fear of the unknown gives rise to all sorts of abuses, usually from people who claim to offer answers in return for service.
You see god as a old man in the sky
I see god as a lie and an extreme danger to the world.

We need no other explanations than those we already have and those that await us. There is no need to conjure something up now just to make yourself feel good.
I can't answer the question
No you cant. So stop trying.
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2010
and that you are not trying to force your ideology on others, but allow them to come to their own conclusions through introspection and not brain washing.
Religionism starts with someone like you who says 'there has got to be something more than this!' -and inevitably ends with somebody wanting to brainwash or force somebody else to conform.

Belief in things that arent real is not natural. Your propensity to accept these concepts is the result of brainwashing. Youve been bribed into accepting the concept of life after death, whether you realize it or not, which in turn enables all those organizations which thrive on it to flourish.

As rational adults we must fervently reject these unhealthy tendencies, and admonish all those who do not. Religionism is every bit as damaging to the world as fascism or racism and we cannot tolerate any of them if our civilization is to survive.

Give it up.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
No you cant. So stop trying.


Wow, that was taken out of context. And neither can you so you stop trying.

You are no better than the creationists and religious zealots you hate so much. You lack wisdom and incite, unable to break down complex statements with multiple implications than the single view or idea you already possess. Thats why they are dangerous, and thats why people like you are also dangerous. You lack the ability to truely "think and analyze".
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
Religionism starts with someone like you who says 'there has got to be something more than this!' -and inevitably ends with somebody wanting to brainwash or force somebody else to conform.

Belief in things that arent real is not natural. Your propensity to accept these concepts is the result of brainwashing. Youve been bribed into accepting the concept of life after death, whether you realize it or not, which in turn enables all those organizations which thrive on it to flourish.

As rational adults we must fervently reject these unhealthy tendencies, and admonish all those who do not. Religionism is every bit as damaging to the world as fascism or racism and we cannot tolerate any of them if our civilization is to survive.

Give it up.


You combat this with anger and mater of factly statments that are suposed to make it appear your way is better... just like them.

You will never win that way...
Give it up
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2010
Religionism starts with someone like you who says 'there has got to be something more than this!' -and inevitably ends with somebody wanting to brainwash or force somebody else to conform.


By the way I simply want to point out the irony of this statement... After all here you are trying to do the exact same thing... going back to my statement "you lack the ability think and analyze"
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2010
(Imagin this in an crazy evangelical void)

Ma good peoples! As rational adults, we MUST fervently reject these unhealthy tendencies, and admonish all those who do not! RELIGIONISM is Just as damaging to the world as FASCISM! Or RACISM! We can NOT tolerate any of them if our CIVILIZATION... is to survive. Praise Science!

I know... I am being a jerk right now.. but I believe I have made my point....
otto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
Wow, that was taken out of context. And neither can you so you stop trying.
No it wasnt. I dont think you realize the danger inherent in entertaining 'harmless' flights of fantasy.
You combat this with anger and mater of factly statments that are suposed to make it appear your way is better... just like them.
You mistake stern resolve for anger. Although I think religionist activities such as this would make anyone angry:
http://www.dw-wor...,00.html
By the way I simply want to point out the irony of this statement... After all here you are trying to do the exact same thing... going back to my statement "you lack the ability think and analyze"
All religions lead sooner or later to abuse. None are dependably benign. All teach separatism and exclusion as all insist they are the only source of salvation.

Allowing one is enabling them all. Do you see any fault at all with this reasoning?
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2010
(Imagin this in an crazy evangelical void)

Ma good peoples! As rational adults, we MUST fervently reject these unhealthy tendencies, and admonish all those who do not! RELIGIONISM is Just as damaging to the world as FASCISM! Or RACISM! We can NOT tolerate any of them if our CIVILIZATION... is to survive. Praise Science!

I know... I am being a jerk right now.. but I believe I have made my point....
Youre being kind of incoherent right now. Recitation of the lords prayer in german, using the proper intonation (and gestures) can sound just like a hitler speech.

You deliver my words against religionism, fascism, and racism as a rant? Does that change what they are or what theyve done to the world? No.

NO ONE has the right to foster beliefs which oppress. ALL have the right and the duty to oppose them.
... just like them.
I oppose what religionists think is their right to oppress. No religion can exist without the ability to do so.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
Okay, I'll admit it, I read "admonish" as "Abolish" so at the time it appeared like you where calling for the extermination of anyone who believes a god.

Otto you are no longer arguing with me over the existence of god(s), you are now trying to argue that religions are bad.

Religions are the creation of man, trust me I took many classes and read many books on the negative consequences of religion... as well as the few positive ones...

What is important is what you believe, and that you are not trying to force your ideology on others, but allow them to come to their own conclusions through introspection and not brain washing.


introspection - Contemplation of one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations; self-examination.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
No where in that statement did I say after wards you HAD to believe in god. But you should have people who do committed to a crazy house just because they do, that is discrimination.
ArcainOne
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2010
All religions lead sooner or later to abuse. None are dependably benign. All teach separatism and exclusion as all insist they are the only source of salvation.


That is actually not true, I've studied many tribes whose religion welcomes strangers into their homes, provides them food and shelters them for a night or as long as they need to say. Hindu believe all paths lead to god which is why you will see a little statue of Jesus next to Vishnu or one of their other gods where Christian Missionaries have attempted to convert them. Then there was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who sought to oppose oppression through peaceful civil disobedience.

Allowing one is enabling them all. Do you see any fault at all with this reasoning?


Yeah... it sounds a lot like extremism... Your mind is too clouded by anger and hate to realize that.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
actually you know what...

Avoid political and religious discussions: Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, political and religious discussions are not allowed.


BAMB comment guidelines win.

I tell you what, in 150 years from now once we are both dead we can meet up and talk about his again.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2010
Religions are the creation of man
SO is GOD.
That is actually not true, I've studied many tribes whose religion welcomes strangers into their homes, provides them food and shelters them for a night or as long as they need to say.
When times are good and food is plentiful. When ones children are starving, religions point out just whos fault it is and why you deserve their food. This is easily exploited by religions to deal with any enemies they or the govt which sanctions them percieve as a danger... any time, anywhere.
http://news.bbc.c...4053.stm
http://www.time.c...,00.html
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
SO is GOD.

That wasn't predictable.
Let me rephrase that then, Religions are the creation of man, the universe is not.

You cannot argue god does not exist, nor can you argue god does exist. And you are STILL trying to argue with me about religion not god. You are the very thing you hate, a religious zealot and a fascist. Everyone must see it your way or be 'educated', which in true religious fashion will end with someone wanting irradiating every one who doesn't believe in the same thing you do.
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2010
BAMB comment guidelines win.
Yeah so... why did you bring it up?? Why does phizzork like to bait us with religion articles? And why do religionists show up here unprovoked thinking they have the god-given right to explain science phenomena in religionist terms, leaving otto and others no choice but to respond?? Why Why Why?
Yeah... it sounds a lot like extremism... Your mind is too clouded by anger and hate to realize that.
Extremism in the destruction of religionism is no vice... Although even Arkanum who finds so much peace and serenity in his introspection of the wonderous, must get a little ticked off when he reads stuff like this:
http://www.haaret...1.304101
How do we end this? We reject all the worthless, bankrupt metaphysical crap that produces it. We let people know how we feel, in no uncertain terms. We fight injustice. Godders do it all the time, but they are deluded. We are not.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
You cannot argue god does not exist, nor can you argue god does exist.
So? Either way, who needs it? The only people who need god are those who exploit the concept. Anyone else who indulges in the concept are (1)Hoping that unseen forces will make life better for them, or (2)Are hoping to circumvent death. These irresistable concepts are promoted by religions for their own nefarious ends. We indulge, they win.

Agnostics are hopeless indulgers. Active rejection of the 'god' concept, just like the 'master race' concept or the 'might makes right' concept, is the only responsible alternative.

Do it on principle. Do it as an example to others. Do it because it is the only rational and reasonable thing to do. There is no god. Say it like you mean it.
ArcainOne
4 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2010
I originally brought it up because I repeatedly see people stating "God did it" pretty much implying "Why do we need to know more"... remember. And after a while it really starts to irritate you... I said "I believe in god and called them children for not wanting to know more" and you asked "Why beleive in god at all"... Which really was not needed...

We all want others to confirm our own ideologies, but you just have to let that go...
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
I said "I believe in god and called them children for not wanting to know more" and you asked "Why beleive in god at all"... Which really was not needed...
Tell me something... Did you follow the links I posted? Are you willing to let things like that go? What if they were to occur in your own country?

I have family members engaged in fighting Islamist insurgents right now. I had friends in the WTC when it was hit. Should I accept that or do what I can to oppose the thinking which causes it? Have any answer to these questions?

As you say, god belief causes people to close their minds to further exploration. Is that why you cannot see the connection between harboring a belief in god in any form whatsoever, and the inevitable suffering caused by extremists in the defense of those same kinds pf beliefs?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2010
Extremism in the destruction of religionism is no vice... Although even Arkanum who finds so much peace and serenity in his introspection of the wonderous, must get a little ticked off when he reads stuff like this:
http://www.haaret...1.304101
How do we end this? We reject all the worthless, bankrupt metaphysical crap that produces it. We let people know how we feel, in no uncertain terms. We fight injustice. Godders do it all the time, but they are deluded. We are not.

In being the great hero, extra caution is required to prevent becomming a greater villain.
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2010
I want religions to end because they endanger the world, my relatives, and extremely tall buildings. I express this and state exactly why I do. How does this make me a dangerous hero?

People in these threads oppose capitalism, socialism, fascism, bigotry, multinational corporations, using the exact same tone as I do when I condemn religion. Why is Otto the dangerous hero and they are not? Is it because opposing religion automatically make a person a 'hater'? Since when does strong opposition to something make one dangerous?

Religionism is as dangerous and ruinous as any of them. Religion is the SAME as them. Should we tolerate some benign form of bigotry? We do, but we express our displeasure, and let the costume Nazis march through Skokie. Should we let islamists beat their wives or cut off the hands of thieves?
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2010
Yes, I rail against capitalism, free markets, socialism, fascism, bigotry, and multinational corporations... I have also learned a lot of things by doing so. But I always stressed that for every thing in this world there will always be the exception. There are after all 6.5+ billion people on this planet. I will be one of the first people come to your aid against large Organized Religions as a whole... however I will never attack someone for practicing their own beliefs as long as that person is not in return attacking, oppressing, or discriminating others.

Trust me I know where you are coming from. And guess what I also have family and Friends fighting in Irac. Muslim Extremists are not the only enemy, ALL extremists are the enemy.
Wadsworth
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2010
"That is actually not true, I've studied many tribes whose religion welcomes strangers into their homes, provides them food and shelters them for a night or as long as they need to say."

I suggest that these religions are just a rationalisation of the basic laws of hospitality which are common among tribal peoples living "on the edge", (ie close to Darwinian Natural Selection pressures). They are therefore utilitarian and an example of reciprocal altruism for the sake of mutual aid in times of trouble.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2010
People in these threads oppose capitalism, socialism, fascism, bigotry, multinational corporations, using the exact same tone as I do when I condemn religion. Why is Otto the dangerous hero and they are not? Is it because opposing religion automatically make a person a 'hater'? Since when does strong opposition to something make one dangerous?

Religionism is as dangerous and ruinous as any of them. Religion is the SAME as them. Should we tolerate some benign form of bigotry? We do, but we express our displeasure, and let the costume Nazis march through Skokie. Should we let islamists beat their wives or cut off the hands of thieves?


So you're saying your AGAINST bigotry? I'm confused...because I rarely get "treated" to such a blatant example of such as your post.

Let me ask you an honest question and hopefully I'll get an HONEST answer. What's your solution to "Religionism"?
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2010
Let me ask you an honest question and hopefully I'll get an HONEST answer. What's your solution to "Religionism"?
The problem is not mine to solve, certainly, other to add my voice to the chorus of millions worldwide who are sick and tired of reading about things like this:
http://www.csmoni...hundreds
-which is the inevitable result when people believe their religion is better than the next. And they ALL do, and it ALWAYS leads to this. 

I do imagine a Solution is in the works, something akin to the way German nationalism was finally and thoroughly exposed for the virus that it was, and then destroyed.
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2010
Right now strict religionist pops have grown far beyond the point of stability in the middle east. Both sides possess weapons which promise to lead the world into another great war, this time over the cause of religion.

The suffering that a war such as this will create, can and will cause the people who survive it to finally throw off the evil god belief system which will obviously be the cause of it. Religionism, like Nazism, will self destruct and the world will finally be rid of it.

It appears that this is the Only Way this might be accomplished.�And as the conflict appears to be an Inevitable one, and that the end of religionism would be the result of greatest benefit to the world, we might assume that conditions have been meticulously Planned and Scheduled worldwide to accomplish this.

You shall have your Four Horsemen on the Megiddo plain sir. But god won't be returning to save us. He will finally be departing to leave us in peace.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2010
Well I do believe that was a pretty honest answer, and that's exactly why "poor otto" is perceived as dangerous. You have proved your detractors point very eloquently.

As someone who obviously thinks they're in tune with humanity I think there is one painfully obvious thing your overlooking. All those "isms" are just symptoms of a much deeper problem...tribalism. We are ALL tribalists to one degree or another, yes even you otto.

If we got rid of religion, or fascism, or racism, or whatever particular bugbear you care to mention we would not suddenly clasp hands warmly then sing and dance around the pretty daffodils growing on the good Earth. We, as a species, are hard wired to make war, murder, and do all manner of generally unpleasant things to each other. All those things are simply different sides of the exact same coin.

The best we can do is attempt to not succumb to those urges to dehumanize others for their differences. You for one have some work to do in that area IMO.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2010
We, as a species, are hard wired to make war, murder, and do all manner of generally unpleasant things to each other.
And that is your excuse to pray for god to save us from ourselves. You seem to think we are born fallen.

Humans can generally be respectful and cooperative, and eager to share resources and knowledge of the world as it is mutually beneficial. But When our children are starving and our backs are against the wall we can be expected to fight like hell.

Religions mandate overgrowth because it is how they survive. Overgrowth of populations is the cause of all the strife in the world todsy, and religion is the cause of it. Without religion there would be no pop pressure and hence nothing to fight over.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2010
The most significant result of the world wars was the destruction of those obsolete religionist cultures which would have prevented the massive family planning programs, including the 1 BILLION abortions, which were to follow.

Those cultures no longer exist throughout eurasia, and those are the regions which have been peaceful as a result. Elsewhere where pops are still in the grip of religionism there is unremittant misery.

Your beliefs are the cause of this and it is the responsibility of all to resist them wherever and whenever they appear.

Your Day of Judgement approaches:
http://www.newyor...ran.html
-And when it is over, you will be the enemy, as you always have been. By Design. Repent your sins.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2010
In since the a little before the end of the last century it has been those societies which are decidedly AGAINST religion which have been the most aggressive, dangerous, and evil. I believe this is simply because there were no such societies prior to recent times. Hence this is not an argument FOR religion, rather it's objective evidence that the absence of religion doesn't solve the problems of war, genocide, murder, etc.

Atheistic societies have no better track record than those who allow for religion, or indeed are Theocracies. People will use any belief system which is handy to propagate evil upon their fellow human beings.

And no, my belief that human beings are hardwired to be tribalistic doesn't rely on my religious convictions.

http://en.wikiped...volution
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2010
In since the a little before the end of the last century it has been those societies which are decidedly AGAINST religion which have been the most aggressive, dangerous, and evil.
This is the same tired old religionist LIE which continues to surface despite the many times it has conclusively been proven false.

Religions demand large families and this is the cause of conflict. Religions demand that adherents reject education by others which would help them live within their means.
Atheistic societies have no better track record than those who allow for religion, or indeed are Theocracies.
More lies from the willfully blind godlover. You are woefully deluded.
And no, my belief that human beings are hardwired to be tribalistic doesn't rely on my religious convictions.
Like I said, tribalism doesnt exert itself until pops grow to the point where conflict over resources ensues. People will cooperate until forced to compete. It is ONLY religions which make this INEVITABLE.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2010
Communist societies have killed more people than all the people who died in WW II. You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. It was an Atheistic society which started WW II.

Tribalism exerts itself whenever there are a sufficient number of people in one place living in one place at one time. All aspects of tribalism are present, the good and the bad. Tribes can be just as evil to themselves as they are to other tribes.

Technology has the potential to solve some of our biggest inherent problems as people, but your crusade against one aspect of human nature isn't going to bring about a utopia, sorry to burst your fanatical bubble. Reality and human civilization is just a titch more complex than your narrow minded fanatical delusion allows for.

And yes in my opinion you are a fanatic, you are a very scary person otto. You exhibit the worst traits you rail against in others consistently and without the slightest hint of introspection and self honesty.
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2010
Keep in mind sir, that any religionist-inspired extremist states you wish to instantiate will be virulently anti-god, save for the one which sanctions them.

And tribalism, being a 'natural' phenomenon, has no need to exert itself beyond resolving local conflict over resources. Religions, being unnatural, will compel adherents to force themselves and their beliefs over much larger areas and peoples. Which is what these sociopolitical Constructs were Designed to do.
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2010
Communist societies have killed more people than all the people who died in WW II. You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. It was an Atheistic society which started WW II.
Youve been around here long enough to have read all the arguments presenting incontrovertable evidence that this is simply not true, and yet you repeat it. Which makes you a liar.
And yes in my opinion you are a fanatic, you are a very scary person otto. You exhibit the worst traits you rail against in others consistently
I would say the same thing of you- liar, deniar of reality, etc.
and without the slightest hint of introspection and self honesty.
I dont believe in things which are not real and I dont try to delude others about such things. I feel pretty good about that.

How about you? Your religion stole a system of morality, claimed it invented it, which then allowed people like you to hide behind it while you spread your deceit and treachery. You feel good about that?
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2010
I've seen no such convincing arguments or facts against my assertions about communism or the fact that Germany started WW II.

Tribalism is about a hell of a lot more than resolving local conflict over resources.

And there is no point, as you've amply demonstrated, in debating a fanatic. Good luck with that otto.

“There is nobody as enslaved as the fanatic, the person in whom one impulse, one value, has assumed ascendancy over all others.”
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2010
the fact that Germany started WW II.
Nazis were not godless. The SS swore an oath to hitler on authority of god. Gott mit Uns on all das Heer belt buckles. This has all been discussed before. Do some research.
"There is nobody as enslaved as the fanatic, the person in whom one impulse, one value, has assumed ascendancy over all others."
Why, this describes the religionist! Read it again while looking in the mirror. Religionists are by definition FANATICS. Your one impulse, one value, one ascendant priority is jesus. Youre so deluded you dont even realize this.

One tactic of a fanatic is to vilify any and all earnest detractors, which you are certainly doing here. Fanatics will support their beliefs despite the fact that they always result in violence such as this:
http://en.wikiped...can_Army
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2010
Tribalism is about a hell of a lot more than resolving local conflict over resources.
No its not. The natural tendency is often exploited for political purposes. The most effective way of extending tribalism beyond the tribe is to employ a well-designed belief system that demands service and justifies punishment. Religion exploits natural human behaviors to further itself and extend its reach.

Nationalism, the ultimate extension of the tribe, always employs a religious component, the myth of the 'Chosen people', to unite disparate groups across a region who would normally be at each others throats.
ArcainOne
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2010
Fanatics are also blind to their own fanaticism. You are a fanatic, a monster, same as religious fanatics you hate so much. You attack blindly and unwisely, lacking incite and understanding of others. A child. Your actions, should they gather support, would lead to the same destructive behaviors as any religion and every religion you have posted links to. It is this kind of thinking that is destroying the world, oppressing people, and yet you seem to not realize this. You cannot fight hate with hate, Extremism with Extremism, that is how conflicts, war, and opression begin.
Ethelred
3.1 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2010
Well I see that another thread turned to shit due to the usual crap.

OTTO you are part of the problem. You are NOT a solution.
act that Germany started WW II.
True. So what? I mean in regards to religion as you are full of it every time you claim Nazi Germany was Atheist.
Communist societies have killed more people than all the people who died in WW II.
Many of those that died in WWII were killed by Communists under the color of war. However Communist nations have both a religion and a religious belief.

The religion is Communism and the religious belief is that there is no god as that is not provable.
Atheistic societies have no better track record than those who allow for religion, or indeed are Theocracies. People will use any belief system which is handy to propagate evil upon their fellow human beings.
NOW that one is true without any need for caveats.You should otherwise ignore that.

A reasoned response follows
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2010
The US is a secular nation. With at least a bit too much religion sneaking around trying to undermine the secular nature of the government. Which I suspect is one reason some Atheist have become so active.

Atheist and us Agnostics have gotten rather tired of being pushed around and told that we are persecuting Christians when we remind people that religion is NOT the business of the government and therefor should not be part of schools, parks or the judicial system. And certainly on our coins.

In god I do not trust. Especially not that child killing psycho Jehovah you religious types claim exists. Do keep in mind that I am not the claiming Jehovah killed all those people as I know that it never happened. I am just pointing out what the Bible has Jehovah doing and what it would be called if it was a human. Say one named Stalin or Hitler. That is your problem and not mine. However no that worships that god can have a legitimate claim of moral superiority.

More
Xaero
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2010
..I see that another thread turned to shit due to the usual crap. OTTO you are part of the problem. You are NOT a solution.
..and usual crap about WWWII, communism and Bible continues.... :-)
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2010
The point is that secular democratic state don't go around declaring war on each other these days. Last one I know of was the War of 1812 between the US and the British and the British government was not yet fully secular nor fully democratic.

So if Otto would please act like he was rational instead of an irationaly hater he would begin to notice that secular democratic states are not out the get him. Or me. Of course that could change. Especially in the US were the RightWingNuts are getting rather out of hand where the Bill of Rights are concerned.

And yes in my opinion you are a fanatic, you are a very scary person otto.


No more scary than Mabarker and Kevin are. Haven't decided about Marjon yet. He is pretty wacked out.

Mostly Otto seems to be laboring under the delusion that ranting is going to change people's minds. It doesn't. It just annoys people.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2010
The point is that secular democratic state don't go around declaring war on each other these days.
Except under the pretense of religion. ie: the Gulf war "crusades" as Bush called them.

It's frightening that these people who would wish to see the world end so Revelation may come also have control of nuclear weapons. I'm not just talking Pakistan or Iran, I'm also talking about the US, Israel, etc.

No more scary than Mabarker and Kevin are. Haven't decided about Marjon yet. He is pretty wacked out.
The former two are also quite scary. Not due to their own actions, as loud firebrands are the last to cause harm, but because their rhetoric fuels others who may be less scrupulous.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2010
Appears you disagree Xaero.

Let me make it clear, in no way should these entities be censored from speaking, there simply must be someone there to state the opposing viewpoint to prevent potential tragedy.
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2010
So if Otto would please act like he was rational instead of an irationaly hater
You got a specific instance where Otto speaks not to your liking, and not just responding in kind to ignorant godder insults?
In god I do not trust. Especially not that child killing psycho Jehovah you religious types claim exists.
-which is any different in tone or manner from this? Or ranting and mouth-foaming like this:
Well I see that another thread turned to shit due to the usual crap.
Eth reads only recent posts and does not understand the context of rants at the end which resemble his own heated maunderings, which makes me think the pedant just doesn't like to share. Should Otto start pointing this out to eth?
Mostly Otto seems to be laboring under the delusion that ranting is going to change people's minds. It doesn't. It just annoys people.
So does whining.
Xaero
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2010
in no way should these entities be censored from speaking
This way is defined in PO forum comment policy

http://www.physor...omments/
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
Especially in the US were the RightWingNuts are getting rather out of hand where the Bill of Rights are concerned.
Americas a big place. Religionists are active in areas which still require some 'filling up' which leads me to believe they are being promoted in those areas for demographic reasons.

LDS, traditionally a rural sect, is the fastest growing religion in the US. It was originally Designed to quickly populate a region full of essential resources. Miners were enticed by the prospect of 4 young wives.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2010
Except under the pretense of religion. ie: the Gulf war "crusades" as Bush called them.


Irag is NOT a democracy. Not even now. When Dumbass invaded it wasn't even close.

It's frightening that these people who would wish to see the world end so Revelation may come also have control of nuclear weapons. I'm not just talking Pakistan or Iran, I'm also talking about the US, Israel, etc.


Pakistan, Iran and Israel have one thing in common. NONE of the give a rats ass about what is in Revelations. Israel seems to be capable of behaving themselves with nuclear weapons as they have had them a long time and been under quite a bit of stress without ever using them.

Ethelred
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2010
When Dumbass invaded it wasn't even close.

I'm sorry but I find this irationaly hater rhetoric offensive and highly, uh, deconstructionist.
Pakistan, Iran and Israel have one thing in common. NONE of the give a rats ass about what is in Revelations
Apparently you're unaware that Islam does recognize the bible as sacred (most of it) and Jesus as a first class prophet.
frajo
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2010
Israel seems to be capable of behaving themselves with nuclear weapons as they have had them a long time and been under quite a bit of stress without ever using them.
They don't behave on their own. They are dependent on the US.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2010
When Dumbass invaded it wasn't even close.

I'm sorry but I find this irationaly hater rhetoric offensive and highly, uh, deconstructionist.
Pakistan, Iran and Israel have one thing in common. NONE of the give a rats ass about what is in Revelations
Apparently you're unaware that Islam does recognize the bible as sacred (most of it) and Jesus as a first class prophet.


Otto,
This'll take your mind off of all this irationaly hater rhetoric:

http://www.youtub...e=search

Good fun!
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2010
Wow- 1971 Swiss proto-stoner. Talk about esoteric. Very contemporary-sounding though. Good stuff.

Now for more irationaly hater rhetoric:
http://www.youtub...a_player
-Your namesake. Eclectic death metal, too compromised for my taste, but very EMOTIONAL.
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Too operatic, and not NEARLY heavy enough to do justice to the name... but, otherwise perfectly good hammer 'n' tongs. They're certainly no Gaahl...
So here's an example of over-the-top axegrinding from the altshuhl:

http://www.youtub...e=search

Seems imminently appropriate.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
I'm sorry but I find this irationaly hater
Tough, he is one of the worst Presidents the US has ever had. Even many Orange County Republicans have managed to figure this out.
Apparently you're unaware that Islam
They still don't care about Revelations. Neither do most of the Catholics I have known. I can't recall much if any harping about Biblical Prophecy either. Until a friend did too bloody much LSD mixed with speed and went off the deep end and managed to become one of the few Fundamentalists Catholics I have met. It became impossible to talk to him anymore.

"Jesus saves and I rolled a saving throw because I am in with Jesus." Or something to that effect. Try playing war games with dice with someone like that.

Toad huh. Sounds like Jimmy Hendrix light. For a bit. It is getting kind of repetitive as it goes. I see 1972. No wonder it sounds like something from the Hendrix period. Somehow I don't remember hearing this back then.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Night Sun - Got a Bone of My Own


That video is from Steven Spielberg's TV movie Duel. What that has to do with German rock I can't quite figure out.

As for the death metal.

Ethelred
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Night Sun - Got a Bone of My Own


That video is from Steven Spielberg's TV movie Duel. What that has to do with German rock I can't quite figure out.

As for the death metal.

Ethelred


Just tryin' to keep the rocker nerve supple.
Not everyone's cup of tea, to be sure.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2010
Years ago I watched a lot of MTV partly in an attempt to avoid becoming the sort of person that only listened to Frank Sinatra or Elvis. Then MTV became something that made network TV look positively brilliant. Lately I have been listening to some stuff that I never listened when it was new. This for instance.

http://www.youtub...p;fmt=34

I blame that on Quentin Tarentino. WHY?

http://www.youtub...p;fmt=34

I found out that Dick Dale is pretty good. Still doing the same stuff but its still pretty good.

http://www.youtub...p;fmt=34

But the sound isn't so good.

This one reminds me of the music for Doom. I like it quite a bit.

http://www.youtub...p;fmt=34

Aparently he plays the guitar upside down. Right handed strings but left handed.

Oh mostly I listen to classical and film scores.
http://www.youtub...h?v=qX4l

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Iraq is NOT a democracy. Not even now. When Dumbass invaded it wasn't even close.
That may be true, but at least the ethnic cleansing of Kurds has stopped and now they have a voice within their government. It wasn't all bad.
NONE of the give a rats ass about what is in Revelations.
Oh this is incredibly inaccurate. The ruling parties in Iran and Israel both with to see the 12th Imam and their Messiah come to the planet to herald the end of days. Iran's radical government does it through funding "martyrs" as through martyrdom comes the 12th and the Israelis do it by re-establishing the lands of Judea for Jews. Radicals are radicals and that area is teeming with them. The area is a powderkeg, we all know it, and we all hope that moderation wins the day. Most of the residents of the area are moderate, but those who hold the power are not.
ArcainOne
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
well would you look at that... music really does bring world peice :)
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
well would you look at that... music really does bring world peice :)

Marley was right when it came to his viral theory of music.
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
@Caliban
Funny movie. Music genre I was not aware of, kool
@Eth
Dick Dale and the Origin of flutter picking! The fender performance was very entertaining

'Make a joyful noise unto the lord, all ye lands!!'

Mtv- Remember these guys- the original jesus band?
http://www.youtub...801mtiwQ
-Heehee
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2010
@Caliban
Funny movie. Music genre I was not aware of, kool
@Eth
Dick Dale and the Origin of flutter picking! The fender performance was very entertaining

'Make a joyful noise unto the lord, all ye lands!!'

Mtv- Remember these guys- the original jesus band?
http://www.youtub...801mtiwQ
-Heehee

Otto,
Movie was Spielberg's "Maximum Overdrive", the original road rage film. Piece of crap, but it had its moments. I've no idea why the poster used it for the Night Sun song, though.
Stryper!?! Pathetic milksops hoping to buttrock their way into heaven, and maybe get some of that xian maiden action along the way. They sucked so hard---they blew!
Ethelred,
Dick Dale is, was, and always will be the Biggest Kahuna of all. I had a copy of that same CD, and you're right, the sound quality -bleh. However, there was a big anthology multi-disc set released in the mid-to-late 90s, by Rhino Records, all digital remasters, still available. Recommended. Surf's up!
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
but at least the ethnic cleansing of Kurds has stopped and now they have a voice within their government. It wasn't all bad.


True, it got a lot of Americans killed just to make the REST of the world a more dangerous place. So far anyway. I understand why we, the US, went into Afghanistan. Al Queda was based there. Unfortunately Afghanistan has never a good place for ANYONE to go to. It is a place fit only for getting out of. Even for the Afghans.
Oh this is incredibly inaccurate.
It MAY be partially inaccurate but not in regards to the Jews. Revulsions is in the NEW Testament and not in the Torah.

If the Moslems have any truck with Revulsions then they are even more foolish than I already thought. And I don't see anything in your post showing that Islam has anything to do with Revulsions. Insanity is not the exclusive province of that book.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Mtv- Remember these guys- the original jesus band


Ample evidence that HeadBanging really does cause brain damage.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Movie was Spielberg's "Maximum Overdrive",


Uhggh, NO. DUEL. Maximum Overdrive was directed by Emilio Estavez(written before checking) oops. Emilio was IN it but Stephen King directed it himself. This is why I often check even when I am sure.

Link to MO
http://www.imdb.c...0091499/

Link to Duel which I saw in on TV when it was first shown.
http://www.imdb.c...0067023/

That one I got right the first time. Except for messing up the Quote Marking. Why are we limited to QML - Quote Marking Language?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2010
It MAY be partially inaccurate but not in regards to the Jews. Revulsions is in the NEW Testament and not in the Torah.

Revulsions comes directly from the Jewish belief that the Moshiach will redeem israel, unite it's peoples and usher in the 1000 years of peace that revulsions speaks of cryptically. That's in the Tanakh. THe only difference is they don't think the world will end, simply that all non-Jews will become Jews be it by will or by force from divinity.
And I don't see anything in your post showing that Islam has anything to do with Revulsions. Insanity is not the exclusive province of that book.
Read up on the 12th Imam.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.