Hey, Lausten, unless the rules have changed, you can’t use blue highlights, as they are reserved for administrators. Maybe you can change it before the big guy catches it.
Back to the thread. Life, as we know it, so far, requires carbon and DNA. But that does not theoretically rule out life forms based on other formats.
You answered an earlier post twice. Are you working on my more recent one?I have ideas posted on multiple boards thus I jump around a little. Seriously, I would rather have you dispute the truth (my ideas), but since all you can do is say that I answered something twice, I will take that as a complement, since you have no disagreement with the ideas that I have mused. The Mars rover makes electricity for movement from sunlight. How much more efficient would it be if the rover made sugar for movement, and oxygen from sunlight, noting that we could use both that sugar and oxygen when we got their ourselves. Think What I was interested in was your response to this post ] There's no other way to "take" what I said. That you post on multiple boards is your problem and not an excuse for evading questions. Maybe, since you admit it makes following conversations difficult, you should stop doing it. You continuously evade the question, as to how could evolution be responsible for the existence of life in a mathematically oriented universe, when evolution is a product of DNA code variations, and since we know that DNA is the code of all life and all evolution both, how could evolution, predate the DNA that causes evolution in the first place. Mathematically put, DNA is one of the variables to come to the product that is evolution, no DNA, then no evolution. Now since you are claiming that science backs up your ideas, please define the mathematical science, where a very complex mathematical equation, that is orchestrated by DNA based code strings, could predate the DNA based code strings. This inane concept is like saying that the sun created heat and light, before the sun existed.
Hey, Lausten, unless the rules have changed, you can't use blue highlights, as they are reserved for administrators. Maybe you can change it before the big guy catches it. Back to the thread. Life, as we know it, so far, requires carbon and DNA. But that does not theoretically rule out life forms based on other formats.Absolutely, theoretical life from other places does not need to be based on Carbon and DNA, however until we either leave the Earth and find this, or less likely find other forms of life on the Earth, that are not Carbon based, then this is just a distracting thought. However I have heard others say that life has to be based on carbon, or must have Earth conditions to exist, and there is no evidence for this, other than it seems to be true on this planet. Interesting thought here, if an alien were retrieved and dissected and it's DNA did have strong ties to other Earth DNA, what would you conclude from this? Yea, it's just a theoretical and nonsensical postulation, but it makes just as much sense as billions of lines of genetic operating systems being created from muck.
Hey, Lausten, unless the rules have changed, you can't use blue highlights, as they are reserved for administrators. Maybe you can change it before the big guy catches it. Back to the thread. Life, as we know it, so far, requires carbon and DNA. But that does not theoretically rule out life forms based on other formats.They're call links, start with a square bracket url=]Text that could turn blue]
You continuously evade the question, as to how could evolution be responsible for the existence of life in a mathematically oriented universe, when evolution is a product of DNA code variations, and since we know that DNA is the code of all life and all evolution both, how could evolution, predate the DNA that causes evolution in the first place. Mathematically put, DNA is one of the variables to come to the product that is evolution, no DNA, then no evolution.Telling others they evade questions when you evade questions probably counts as trolling. Don't recommend it. The answer is simple, and is contained in our above discussion about intelligent design: DNA is not a result of biological evolution. Most of the elements in the universe arose from some other process. It started with mostly hydrogen. Stars cooked up other elements which spread around after those stars died. Gravity brought them together in to planets. Why is it so hard to imagine that something happened to form the first strand of RNA? Have you googled it? Have you read a book about it? Maybe PBS. No matter what, you aren't really asking a question anyway. You are asserting that God did it. As I said before about your two design examples, "Both require the known presence of intelligent creatures and the required materials to make that inference. When you ask if that is a “God function", you introduce something that is undefined." And as I asked before, if Darwin was wrong because he didn't know about DNA, how do you know you aren't wrong because there might be something that came before DNA that you don't know about it?
Hey, Lausten, unless the rules have changed, you can't use blue highlights, as they are reserved for administrators. Maybe you can change it before the big guy catches it. Back to the thread. Life, as we know it, so far, requires carbon and DNA. But that does not theoretically rule out life forms based on other formats.They're call links, start with a square bracket url=]Text that could turn blue] It was not a link, it was plain text, written in blue, look back, it's there.
You continuously evade the question, as to how could evolution be responsible for the existence of life in a mathematically oriented universe, when evolution is a product of DNA code variations, and since we know that DNA is the code of all life and all evolution both, how could evolution, predate the DNA that causes evolution in the first place. Mathematically put, DNA is one of the variables to come to the product that is evolution, no DNA, then no evolution.Telling others they evade questions when you evade questions probably counts as trolling. Don't recommend it. The answer is simple, and is contained in our above discussion about intelligent design: DNA is not a result of biological evolution. Most of the elements in the universe arose from some other process. It started with mostly hydrogen. Stars cooked up other elements which spread around after those stars died. Gravity brought them together in to planets. Why is it so hard to imagine that something happened to form the first strand of RNA? Have you googled it? Have you read a book about it? Maybe PBS. No matter what, you aren't really asking a question anyway. You are asserting that God did it. As I said before about your two design examples, "Both require the known presence of intelligent creatures and the required materials to make that inference. When you ask if that is a “God function", you introduce something that is undefined." And as I asked before, if Darwin was wrong because he didn't know about DNA, how do you know you aren't wrong because there might be something that came before DNA that you don't know about it? Comparing individual elements, that the universe contains, to billions of lines of genetic code composed of those elements, is like saying that because pens contain ink, that they write novels. Pens write nothing, ever, only intelligent novelist can write novels, just as DNA code can not write itself, nor can it arise from evolution, when DNA is the code that enables evolution in the first place. Can you grasp this, all of this is scientific fact. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation, this is scientific fallacy, no experiment confirms this.
Comparing individual elements, that the universe contains, to billions of lines of genetic code composed of those elements, is like saying that because pens contain ink, that they write novels. Pens write nothing, ever, only intelligent novelist can write novels, just as DNA code can not write itself, nor can it arise from evolution, when DNA is the code that enables evolution in the first place. Can you grasp this, all of this is scientific fact. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation, this is scientific fallacy, no experiment confirms this.You're making up things like "spontaneous generation". You're assuming a universe that existed for billions of years with no life, something we actually agree on, but then you leap some version of life that you haven't described and calling that "spontaneous". You're going from 0 to 60 and saying that's impossible. That would be right. So, maybe life didn't go from 0 to 60, maybe the universe was not created in 6 days, I think we agree on that too. It's only recently that you could challenge that 6 day creation and not get burned at the stake, so that we have not yet answered the questions of creation is not a problem to me. Give us a few hundred or maybe a few thousand more years and we might get an answer. Or maybe we won't. But you're still comparing the odds of that happening to something you have zero evidence for, a God. Try this 15 minute video for some discussion of odds and primordial soups and making assumptions]
It was not a link, it was plain text, written in blue, look back, it's there.No idea what you're talking about. I mean, I know what blue is and I know what text is, but beyond that...
Comparing individual elements, that the universe contains, to billions of lines of genetic code composed of those elements, is like saying that because pens contain ink, that they write novels. Pens write nothing, ever, only intelligent novelist can write novels, just as DNA code can not write itself, nor can it arise from evolution, when DNA is the code that enables evolution in the first place. Can you grasp this, all of this is scientific fact. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation, this is scientific fallacy, no experiment confirms this.You're making up things like "spontaneous generation". You're assuming a universe that existed for billions of years with no life, something we actually agree on, but then you leap some version of life that you haven't described and calling that "spontaneous". You're going from 0 to 60 and saying that's impossible. That would be right. So, maybe life didn't go from 0 to 60, maybe the universe was not created in 6 days, I think we agree on that too. It's only recently that you could challenge that 6 day creation and not get burned at the stake, so that we have not yet answered the questions of creation is not a problem to me. Give us a few hundred or maybe a few thousand more years and we might get an answer. Or maybe we won't. But you're still comparing the odds of that happening to something you have zero evidence for, a God. Response from Coral Star Darwin is the creator of spontaneous generation, I make nothing up, Darwin left the silly idea out of the bird watching chronicles, because he knew that it made no sense. Here is Darwin's letter to his friend Joseph Hooker. It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. You seem to be confused, not in a bad way, but you could be seeing the light and how fallacious spontaneous generation is, and that it is not supported by science, your claim that I have created the warm pond theory of spontaneous generation is nonsense, evolutionist did that all on their own. Watch this atheist PHD professor come to the understanding that evolution can not create life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5j3XccmUM
It was not a link, it was plain text, written in blue, look back, it's there.No idea what you're talking about. I mean, I know what blue is and I know what text is, but beyond that... Post 39- What I was interested in was your response to this post Is in blue........
Comparing individual elements, that the universe contains, to billions of lines of genetic code composed of those elements, is like saying that because pens contain ink, that they write novels. Pens write nothing, ever, only intelligent novelist can write novels, just as DNA code can not write itself, nor can it arise from evolution, when DNA is the code that enables evolution in the first place. Can you grasp this, all of this is scientific fact. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation, this is scientific fallacy, no experiment confirms this.You're making up things like "spontaneous generation". You're assuming a universe that existed for billions of years with no life, something we actually agree on, but then you leap some version of life that you haven't described and calling that "spontaneous". You're going from 0 to 60 and saying that's impossible. That would be right. So, maybe life didn't go from 0 to 60, maybe the universe was not created in 6 days, I think we agree on that too. It's only recently that you could challenge that 6 day creation and not get burned at the stake, so that we have not yet answered the questions of creation is not a problem to me. Give us a few hundred or maybe a few thousand more years and we might get an answer. Or maybe we won't. But you're still comparing the odds of that happening to something you have zero evidence for, a God. Try this 15 minute video for some discussion of odds and primordial soups and making assumptions] Ok I watched your video, and all the fool was able to do was talk endlessly about the odds of why intelligent design can not be real. He also believes that intelligent design proponents believe that God created the entire universe, I do not see evidence of this, I concentrate only on life creation and not all ID proponents believe the literal interpretation of the bible, but all evolutionist believe that every ID proponent does believe in the literal translation, because this is easier for them. The video means nothing, what he should be doing, in order to defeat intelligent design, is to provide the evidence that evolution created life on Earth. Well not 1 second of the video deals with this, as there is nothing for him to say (NOTHING). Seriously his telling why he believes ID to be wrong, does not make any other theory correct, for that you need evidence that the other theory has merit, he offers none of this. For example, Edison and Tesla once had a feud over their rival forms of electrical currents. These two men went back and forth, and they did say that the others current would not work and was inferior, but they also demonstrated why their style of current was better. In the end Tesla's current is deemed better for long range electrical transmission, and Edison's was deemed more appropriate for home use, so they both won. You need to understand these facts. 1. Evolution is real, and very important. (you already know this) 2. Evolution is important, because it effects every facet of all living things. 3. Evolution is conducted by the code of DNA, no DNA, then no evolution. 4. Evolutionary theory requires spontaneous generation, which your little video speaks about, but you claim that I am making up. 5. 4, shows that you are making errors, which will always be the case if you are endorsing an unscientific theory.
It’s real hard to have a discussion where you don’t say what you DO believe. If God creating life or DNA, out of nothing, is not “spontaneous generation”, then I don’t know what is. You make it clear that you don’t believe that a guy from 150 years ago knew where life began but that isn’t saying much. You keep mentioning God, but when I try to get closer to what you mean by God, you say some new things about what you think God did or didn’t do that you never said before. So far, all you’ve done is make a big deal about how no one on this forum knows things that nobody in the world knows. Then you call us stupid. That’s just bad manners.
Edit: I just looked over this page of posts and can’t figure out why you think anyone said “spontaneous generation”. Your quote says “chemically formed” a protein. Proteins come before DNA. The video didn’t talk about it all. You introduced the term. Tell us what you were talking about.
It's real hard to have a discussion where you don't say what you DO believe. If God creating life or DNA, out of nothing, is not "spontaneous generation", then I don't know what is. You make it clear that you don't believe that a guy from 150 years ago knew where life began but that isn't saying much. You keep mentioning God, but when I try to get closer to what you mean by God, you say some new things about what you think God did or didn't do that you never said before. So far, all you've done is make a big deal about how no one on this forum knows things that nobody in the world knows. Then you call us stupid. That's just bad manners. Edit: I just looked over this page of posts and can't figure out why you think anyone said "spontaneous generation". Your quote says "chemically formed" a protein. Proteins come before DNA. The video didn't talk about it all. You introduced the term. Tell us what you were talking about.If you say that the video did not touch the topic of spontaneous generation, called abiogenesis in the video, and you also missed the words "a pool of chemicals, represents the opportunity for countless trials not a single trial" need I go on, I now recognize, that you are not cognitive of what you are claiming. So I will explain it to you, so that you can comprehend your own video. The pool that the narrator is speaking of, is the pool where he says that countless opportunities for abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) happened, and is the explanation for how life took hold on Earth. Can you please call an atheistic physicist or chemical PHD or something? Ask them what spontaneous generation from a pond refers too, or better yet check out the 3,000,000 plus links on this Google search............! https://www.google.com/#q=spontaneous+generation+from+evolution The Encyclopedia Britannica defines spontaneous generation as, "spontaneous generation, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilized this process to {{{{{{{explain the origin of life.}}}}}}}" The Encyclopedia Britannica defines abiogenesis as, "abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth." You are proving that you do not even understand your own videos and it is clear that you have no idea how life began on the Earth, and it is also clear that you do not accept abiogenesis or spontaneous generation (mean the same thing). Your refusal to accept spontaneous generation, is akin to your rejection of evolution in the first place. Change is allowable, many see the light.
I asked how YOU were using the term. That doesn’t show anything other than I want to understand you and attempt to communicate. The way you are using it, everything is spontaneous generation. Every interaction that ever happened could be said to be spontaneous, or at least anytime that two things came together, interacted and created something that didn’t exist before. Why are some chemical reactions “spontaneous” and others just “reactions”?
That opportunity for interaction is what Matt is talking about in the YouTube. Why is this so implausible to you? Why couldn’t inorganic matter form an amino acid which could then those form a protein and so on?
Addendum: I hit that 3 million hits on google link you supplied, and figured out what the problem is. Most of those hits are creationists sites misusing the scientific evidence against spontaneous generation as if it is evidence against evolution. You should stop using sites like that for your education. Here’s a simple explanation of why that doesn’t work. It’s from Freethoughtblogs.
Spontaneous generation held that life in its present form today could form from non-life, and did so all the time — for instance, aphids sprang from dew on plants, maggots emerged from rotting meat, and mice were created from wet hay. In 1859, Louis Pasteur performed experiments that put the final nail in the coffin of the hypothesis. He proved definitively that life does not spring, fully formed and unbidden, from any recipe of inorganic or dead organic matter. So the question of the origin of life was reopened for the first time in centuries. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, does not predict that life in any form known today — not even the simplest single-celled life forms — were created in some flash of magic or through some arcane recipe of components. That would be creation, in the sense of a personal creator deity. Rather, it predicts that, as life is made up of chemical reactions, and the constituent components of life can self-arrange given certain conditions, there is some point in Earth’s early history wherein a chemical chain reaction went runaway and breached the fuzzy barrier between chemistry and biology. All biology is is one single long, unbroken chemical reaction that can be traced back to whatever initial condition sparked it billions of years ago.
I asked how YOU were using the term. That doesn't show anything other than I want to understand you and attempt to communicate. The way you are using it, everything is spontaneous generation. Every interaction that ever happened could be said to be spontaneous, or at least anytime that two things came together, interacted and created something that didn't exist before. Why are some chemical reactions "spontaneous" and others just "reactions"? That opportunity for interaction is what Matt is talking about in the YouTube. Why is this so implausible to you? Why couldn't inorganic matter form an amino acid which could then those form a protein and so on?Seriously what I think is happening is that you are coming to the understanding that Darwinian evolutionary theory, which is based upon a few bird beaks, relies upon spontaneous generation of life in a mythical pond, and that there is just no evidence for this. Darwin did observe differences in bird beaks between different Galapagos islands, and this was the first written observation of evolution which was a great concept at the time, however now it is both accepted and far more understood, but no matter what random or forced mutation you observe in a finch, the finch never changes or appears to be changing species. Darwin's book, does not even try to explain the origin of any species, which makes the book a con by title. You did however write the following quote about me, "You’re making up things like “spontaneous generation". Why couldn't inorganic matter form an amino acid which could then those form a protein and so on? Answer, well there are several. One is that the same thing should be possible today, and none of the PHD's who trumpet this idea have a clue as to how to do this, though they have tried. Two is that the sheer complexity of a simple cell, makes this implausible. Three, evolution is a function of DNA, which is a highly advanced bio-code that if not already written, can not enable evolution, (Darwin had no concept of this). Four, every fossil ever unearthed, is a fully formed species, there are no examples of in-between species, or the gradual changing of one species into another as evolution theory claims is the case. I seriously doubt that you want to understand me, I think that you are curious, like me, and want to understand in general. I am going to give you three more links to watch, which will take you until tomorrow to finish, if you want to learn, take the time. I encourage you to watch and take notes as to what does not make sense to you and use this in defense of evolution theory, as there is no defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOXZGnY2ZpM&list=PL2CBD056641E70445 PS. You have more DNA in common with a rat, than a great ape, what does this say about evolution from lower, to higher life forms? Well it seems to say that a mouse is more like a human, than a Gorilla, which is clearly wrong......! http://www.myhero.com/hero.asp?hero=D_Fossey_southern_ms_US_2009_ul http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/women-of-national-geographic
1 – Read above. Abiogenesis only needed to happen once to create the chain of biologic life. If it happened more, we would see many chains of life with differences. We don’t.
2 – You made that up.
3 – This ignores what we just talked about. The chain of chemical reactions that we call life didn’t begin with DNA.
4 – Every fossil is a link in the chain. The idea of “missing link" is outdated and was never correct.
1 – Read above. Abiogenesis only needed to happen once to create the chain of biologic life. If it happened more, we would see many chains of life with differences. We don’t. 2 – You made that up. 3 – This ignores what we just talked about. The chain of chemical reactions that we call life didn’t begin with DNA. 4 – Every fossil is a link in the chain. The idea of “missing link" is outdated and was never correct.1. It was your video that says spontaneous generation should have happened countless times. 2. I never make anything up, Darwin believed that the cell was a blob of protoplasm, he had no clue that they contained billions of lines of code, nor that DNA could one day be used as a storage medium, for his very book. 3. If you know what, "The chain of chemical reactions that we call life didn’t begin with DNA." then you should share with the World what did, we will listen, and read your book, and make you a rich and famous author. ?However in reality you have no clue. 4. Evolution theory says that species changed very slowly over time, yet with the millions and millions of fossils of every type unearthed in the World, there is not even 1 example of an in between species......! This has nothing to do with a missing link, evolutionary theory predicts missing links for every single species, if you believe that this was disproved, then you do not believe in evolutionary theory.
1. It was your video that says spontaneous generation should have happened countless times. 2. I never make anything up, Darwin believed that the cell was a blob of protoplasm, he had no clue that they contained billions of lines of code, nor that DNA could one day be used as a storage medium, for his very book. 3. If you know what, "The chain of chemical reactions that we call life didn’t begin with DNA." then you should share with the World what did, we will listen, and read your book, and make you a rich and famous author. ?However in reality you have no clue. 4. Evolution theory says that species changed very slowly over time, yet with the millions and millions of fossils of every type unearthed in the World, there is not even 1 example of an in between species......! This has nothing to do with a missing link, evolutionary theory predicts missing links for every single species, if you believe that this was disproved, then you do not believe in evolutionary theory.1. You are misunderstanding or misinterpreting the video. He talked about the likelihood of chemical reactions. 2. The complexity of the cells in animals today is separated by billions of years from the original chemical reactions that led to them. 3. There are lots of books about that. None of them explains the story completely. We've already discussed that. 4. You just don't understand evolutionary theory.] That's a link, click it.
1. It was your video that says spontaneous generation should have happened countless times. 2. I never make anything up, Darwin believed that the cell was a blob of protoplasm, he had no clue that they contained billions of lines of code, nor that DNA could one day be used as a storage medium, for his very book. 3. If you know what, "The chain of chemical reactions that we call life didn’t begin with DNA." then you should share with the World what did, we will listen, and read your book, and make you a rich and famous author. ?However in reality you have no clue. 4. Evolution theory says that species changed very slowly over time, yet with the millions and millions of fossils of every type unearthed in the World, there is not even 1 example of an in between species......! This has nothing to do with a missing link, evolutionary theory predicts missing links for every single species, if you believe that this was disproved, then you do not believe in evolutionary theory.1. You are misunderstanding or misinterpreting the video. He talked about the likelihood of chemical reactions. 2. The complexity of the cells in animals today is separated by billions of years from the original chemical reactions that led to them. 3. There are lots of books about that. None of them explains the story completely. We've already discussed that. 4. You just don't understand evolutionary theory.] That's a link, click it. A drawing of a frog, a butterfly and a mushroom, well if the mushroom contains Lysergic acid diethylamide, then that explains it. 1. He said that 13 of the same suit card are dealt often, if the deck is shuffled well. (addicted to gambling no doubt) 2. I said a simple cell, say a stromatolite cell..... 3. There is not one book that demonstrates anything at all, you can say that anything is a theory. Einstein had one doosy, Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe"—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity. 4. You don't even believe in spontaneous generation as evolutionary theory demands that you must. In fact you never heard of spontaneous generation in relation to evolutionary theory, and you said that I made it up. 5. This is ceriousbly ComIcAl, at this point.... I think I hear Benny Hill playing the kazoo to some little yellow finches Yup...! 6. Seriously, this would go better with the Benny Hill theme, Yakety Sax..........