Answering a century-old question on the origins of life

disciple Clint · Nov 30, 2021

tas8831 said:
Odd then that you keep misrepresenting the Miller-Urey experiments despite the fact that you've studiously - dare I say piously? - avoided this post.

I am not avoiding anything, clearly when the experiment was done the original claims were that it proved much more than it did, maybe you are too young to know what claims were made, over the years those claims were found to be baseless and several questions were raised about the validity of the experiment itself. Even today we have those who would claim that it proved things that it simply did not provide evidence to confirm.

Subduction Zone · Nov 30, 2021

disciple Clint said:
I am not avoiding anything, clearly when the experiment was done the original claims were that it proved much more than it did, maybe you are too young to know what claims were made, over the years those claims were found to be baseless and several questions were raised about the validity of the experiment itself. Even today we have those who would claim that it proved things that it simply did not provide evidence to confirm.

What makes you think that? You cannot blame the press for misinterpreting science. They are not experts at it and will make mistakes. But I think that it was more likely creationists that lied about the experiment. Creationists have a very hard time with the concept of evidence. It is clear that the positive results of the Miller-Urey experiment are evidence for abiogenesis. When your beliefs have no scientific evidence at all some fine the need to deny all scientific evidence from the opposition.

I do hope that you are aware that there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

disciple Clint · Nov 30, 2021

Estrid said:
Fear? Fear? I'd be delighted beyond measure!
Who wouldn't be?
I think you' ve a profound misunderstanding of what it means to
just not believe there is a god- though in a through - the- looking glass sort of way perhaps you do.
Refusing to believe the ToE could be correct, despite the incredible amount
of hard evidence, despite that it requires faith - in - self of knowing more than
any scientist on earth.

Its not really equivalent to non- belief in something that has zero hard evidence
and one can only choose to accept it on faith-

But maybe maybe the parallel is visible, and the lack of fear evident.

Unless theres a Pascals wager sort of fear...is there?

Why does it seem that for many people who place their faith in science it is an either or proposition? God and science are totally comparable. Except for those Christians who believe that everything in the Bible is to be accepted as a literal fact it is not at all difficult to believe that God used methods that are consistent with what we are seeing as scientific facts. I have no problem believing in science and God at the same time, in fact the more I see discovered in science the more obvious it become that intelligent design was implemented by God. Everything works as it does because that is the way God intended it to be.

disciple Clint · Nov 30, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
What makes you think that? You cannot blame the press for misinterpreting science. They are not experts at it and will make mistakes. But I think that it was more likely creationists that lied about the experiment. Creationists have a very hard time with the concept of evidence. It is clear that the positive results of the Miller-Urey experiment are evidence for abiogenesis. When your beliefs have no scientific evidence at all some fine the need to deny all scientific evidence from the opposition.

I do hope that you are aware that there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

Well if you are saying that there is no scientific evidence that God exists I disagree. By the way I do not believe that the Miller experiment provides evidence for abiogenesis and the scientific community as a whole does not believe that it does. BUT is you have some evidence that it establishes the evidence necessary to prove abiogenesis please elucidate

tas8831 · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
I am not avoiding anything, clearly when the experiment was done the original claims were that it proved much more than it did,

And yet you are unable to show that this is the case.

maybe you are too young to know what claims were made,

Maybe you are too old to read and understand the original paper? The one I linked for you?

over the years those claims were found to be baseless

WHICH CLAIMS?

You have documented nothing, just linked to some propaganda website as if it were 100% valid.

and several questions were raised about the validity of the experiment itself.

By creationists with an axe to grind and a vested interest in spreading lies.

Apparently, your masters are unaware (or more likely, actively suppressing) that the experiments have been re-done using alterations to several parameters and produced similar results?

Even today we have those who would claim that it proved things that it simply did not provide evidence to confirm.

Even today, we have creationists making claims that they don't even try to support so as to protect their faith.

tas8831 · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
Well if you are saying that there is no scientific evidence that God exists I disagree.

Then present it.

By the way I do not believe that the Miller experiment provides evidence for abiogenesis

Who cares? You link to creationist propagandas sites and think they are beyond reproach.

and the scientific community as a whole does not believe that it does. BUT is you have some evidence that it establishes the evidence necessary to prove abiogenesis please elucidate

Waiting for this God evidence.
I'm betting that it is all just attacks on evolution.

Also, still waiting for your documentation that the Miller experiments were... whatever it is you claim they were.

And even in that post, you misrepresent the issue.

Estrid · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
Why does it seem that for many people who place their faith in science it is an either or proposition? God and science are totally comparable. Except for those Christians who believe that everything in the Bible is to be accepted as a literal fact it is not at all difficult to believe that God used methods that are consistent with what we are seeing as scientific facts. I have no problem believing in science and God at the same time, in fact the more I see discovered in science the more obvious it become that intelligent design was implemented by God. Everything works as it does because that is the way God intended it to be.

" The more obvious it seems to you"

I get the opposite reading.

Why bother addressing your post to me though?
You torally ignored everything I said

disciple Clint · Dec 1, 2021

tas8831 said:
Then present it.

Who cares? You link to creationist propagandas sites and think they are beyond reproach.

Waiting for this God evidence.
I'm betting that it is all just attacks on evolution.

Also, still waiting for your documentation that the Miller experiments were... whatever it is you claim they were.

And even in that post, you misrepresent the issue.

why would I bother to provide evidence to a biased court.

disciple Clint · Dec 1, 2021

Estrid said:
" The more obvious it seems to you"

I get the opposite reading.

Why bother addressing your post to me though?
You torally ignored everything I said

Estrid said:
You torally ignored everything I said

I am being kind

Shemjaza · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
why would I bother to provide evidence to a biased court.

Interesting accusation.

Can you substantiate it?

Estrid · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
why would I bother to provide evidence to a biased court.

There actually is a good reason to provide your " evidence" which
IF from a creationist site. Gives a chance to learn if you've been conned.

Thev" scopes monkey trial" was argued in a profoundly biased court,
but, while they lost the case they won the war.

As for the accusation of bias itself, theres so much to unpack that
maybe its best if you are just given time to rethink it.

Estrid · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
I am being kind

As if.

disciple Clint · Dec 1, 2021

Estrid said:
There actually is a good reason to provide your " evidence" which
IF from a creationist site. Gives a chance to learn if you've been conned.

Thev" scopes monkey trial" was argued in a profoundly biased court,
but, while they lost the case they won the war.

As for the accusation of bias itself, theres so much to unpack that
maybe its best if you are just given time to rethink it.

The only war that is going to make any difference will be the last one at the end of time. There is nothing new to rethink, I am confident in my faith.

Estrid · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
The only war that is going to make any difference will be the last one at the end of time. There is nothing new to rethink, I am confident in my faith.

Faith in an unjustified accusation of bias.

Shemjaza · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
The only war that is going to make any difference will be the last one at the end of time. There is nothing new to rethink, I am confident in my faith.

Having faith and conviction is fine... but you didn't just say you had unshakable faith in Christianity and Creationism, you implied you had evidence.

Claiming evidence then refusing to present it and implying the people asking for it won't accept it anyway looks dishonest.

Estrid · Dec 1, 2021

Shemjaza said:
Having faith and conviction is fine... but you didn't just say you had unshakable faith in Christianity and Creationism, you implied you had evidence.

Claiming evidence then refusing to present it and implying the people asking for it won't accept it anyway looks dishonest.

Unshakeable faith in God is one thing, faith in
ones own capacity is quite another.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
Yes God is brilliant among many other attributes and He requires nothing, not even a cause. So either there is God or everything was caused by nothing, when was the last time you found something that was caused by nothing. Think about it.

I thought about it - and concluded that using the same logic, the universe need not have a cause because it need not have a beginning, and so God is redundant. A more parsimonious explanation.

Estrid · Dec 1, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I thought about it - and concluded that using the same logic, the universe need not have a cause because it need not have a beginning, and so God is redundant. A more parsimonious explanation.

Parsimony on steroids!
God being greater than the universe, and all.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 1, 2021

Shemjaza said:
...It does open an interesting question, is it even possible for there to be nothing? We have no way of detecting such a state and have no actual evidence that "nothing" can even exist.

I don't think it's coherent to talk of nothing 'existing' or being a 'state'. Nothing is the concept of negation relative to things, e.g. an empty void isn't 'nothing', but it contains nothing, i.e. it is empty of things. Similarly, you can't just have 'empty' absent of some continuum in which there could be things.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 1, 2021

disciple Clint said:
we have discussed that in this thread. Your argument is not supported by the experts. The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

That paper has long since been refuted:

"Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%). However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper has found no evidence for such correlations in seven other isotopes (22Na, 44Ti, 108Ag, 121Sn, 133Ba, 241Am, 238Pu), and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects. The decay of radon-222 was once reported to exhibit large 4% peak-to-peak seasonal variations (see plot), which were proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or the distance from the Sun, but detailed analysis of the experiment's design flaws, along with comparisons to other, much more stringent and systematically controlled, experiments refute this claim." Wikipedia: Radioactive Decay: Changing Rates

Answering a century-old question on the origins of life

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads