Natural death by old age, logging, wildfires and other natural disasters, parasites, etc?
According to wiki, the oldest was cut down in 1964, so the current 'oldest' tree isn't the tree that reached greatest age before it died.
Metherion
Like this one?
Giant Fossil Scale Tree - Department of Paleobiology - NMNH
or...
this one?
LIVING FOSSILS AT PALOMAR COLLEGE
or...
the ones talked about in this article?
Mystery of fossilized trees is solved
Did you even do a google search for 'fossil tree'?
Metherion
Really? I’m pretty sure it’s not the exact same process as what happens in caves. Just saying.I remember one time I took a tour of a cave. The tour guide informed us that stalactites grew at such a slow rate that they only add a half inch every 100 years. I asked him if this was a uniform statement. He said yes. I then told him that the place I work has seven and eight inch stalactites in our basement. I asked him if my place of employment had been around for 1,500 years. He didn't have a response.
Except the rock was all there when you started. It didn’t need to be deposited, or formed, or whatnot.I remember one time when evolutionists told me that the geologic column took millions of years. I scraped some rock from every layer and ground it up. I then took all the rock dust and put it in a large jar, filling the remainder with water. I shook it up so much that it became a mucky mess. Less than a year later though, the rock had settled out into the very same layers that I had found them in nature. Water had done in less than a year what many say takes millions of years. I found out about hydraulogic sorting.
And this is a strawman I pointed out in the list of quotes you presented earlier,For those who think evolution can happen if all the information is present- take your watch and pound it until it's in many pieces. Next, put it in a box and shake well. All the information is there and energy has been added, but guess what, the watch still will not reassemble itself- ever.
Really? I am pretty sure that it is the exact same process. Water rains down and trickles through the cracks gathering calcium as it travels. When it hits the ceiling of whatever surface, water drips and just a tiny bit of calcium is left at the drip point. Over time a stalactite forms. How else would it happen? the stalactite fairy leaves them in some places but not in others? Also did you know people have found carcasses of bats imbedded in stalagmites. Do you think that could happen at a rate of one half of an inch every one hundred years?Really? Im pretty sure its not the exact same process as what happens in caves. Just saying.
Perhaps you missed the part about me grounding it up? I turned it into dust. I reconstituted it into it's sedimentary form then added a further separator with the addition of water to the mixed up, ground up, jumbled up concoction. And even though it was a muddy watery mix, each layer settled just as I had found it in nature. It's a neat experiment. You should try it.Except the rock was all there when you started. It didnt need to be deposited, or formed, or whatnot.
Well that proves it then. Case closed. Thanks.Also, see:
CH561.2: Hydrologic sorting
I live near a large lake that has many layers of the rock column exposed along side it's shores.Furthermore, where was the rock from?
People dismiss that argument under the guise of "Hoyle's Fallacy" because the argument says that something extremely complex must arise out of disorder. That is an unfair assumption. It's not that extreme complexity should arise in the first "round" of evolution, but that SOME complexity should arise at every interval. Back to the watch scenario, if you pulverized your watch to itty bitty pieces and put the pieces in the box and shook it, when you opened your box again you should see SOME complexity arise from the energy applied to the confined space and the watch pieces. Even if it was only two pieces rejoining, according to evolutionary line of thought, SOME complexity should be seen. Actually this argument would be, and should be, easier to demonstrate than a myriad of transition forms over millions of years! Yet somehow it is just dismissed rather than dealt with.And this is a strawman I pointed out in the list of quotes you presented earlier,
Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you have already responded with a single sentence about the "RNA Hypothosis", but would you care to expand at all on where all life got it's beginnings according to the evolution train of thought. Was it an electrocuted mud puddle? Was it aliens? If so, where did they come from? Has life just always been? Where and when and how exactly did life arise on planet Earth?Also, none of those actually have to do with evolution! Geology is not evolution. Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Is it any different than the mockery and shrugging off of every statement that calls into question the very core of evolution? You seem to think that if you dismiss any opposing view with a condescending attitude then the argument has been concluded.Really? Is this what creationism has to offer in science classrooms? Misstating the consensus theory to mock it? Misclassification of real science? Logical fallacies that have been shown wrong for 30 years at least? Quote mines? Questions and questions without dealing with rebuttals? The only answer coming from a religious book in public schools?
I would not teach it, any of it. What good does it do to tell a student of any age that millions of years ago T Rexes shed scales for feathers and flew away? You can teach that viruses can mutate without the ridiculous idea of blind chance bringing about all this organization. You can teach a child that we are very close in structure to other animals without filling their minds with some preconcieved notions that we all came from some single celled organism at some time in the past.I mean, tell me, what would the curriculum you would assemble be?
I apologize, I worded that part of my response poorly. It is the same process, it isn’t the same environment.Really? I am pretty sure that it is the exact same process. Water rains down and trickles through the cracks gathering calcium as it travels. When it hits the ceiling of whatever surface, water drips and just a tiny bit of calcium is left at the drip point. Over time a stalactite forms. How else would it happen? the stalactite fairy leaves them in some places but not in others? Also did you know people have found carcasses of bats imbedded in stalagmites. Do you think that could happen at a rate of one half of an inch every one hundred years?
Yes, so you had sorted dust. Did you have sorted solid rock? No. How long would it take the powder to reform into solid rock that needs to be scraped off? Did you put things in the middle to represent fossils and see how they would enter into the mix?Perhaps you missed the part about me grounding it up? I turned it into dust. I reconstituted it into it's sedimentary form then added a further separator with the addition of water to the mixed up, ground up, jumbled up concoction. And even though it was a muddy watery mix, each layer settled just as I had found it in nature. It's a neat experiment. You should try it.
That is pretty cool. The biggest thing near me is a small creek, almost totally dried up due to the drought. There’s a lake a bit of a drive away, but it’s used for fishing and such.I live near a large lake that has many layers of the rock column exposed along side it's shores.
Question:People dismiss that argument under the guise of "Hoyle's Fallacy" because the argument says that something extremely complex must arise out of disorder. That is an unfair assumption. It's not that extreme complexity should arise in the first "round" of evolution, but that SOME complexity should arise at every interval. Back to the watch scenario, if you pulverized your watch to itty bitty pieces and put the pieces in the box and shook it, when you opened your box again you should see SOME complexity arise from the energy applied to the confined space and the watch pieces. Even if it was only two pieces rejoining, according to evolutionary line of thought, SOME complexity should be seen. Actually this argument would be, and should be, easier to demonstrate than a myriad of transition forms over millions of years! Yet somehow it is just dismissed rather than dealt with.
It’s not an evolutionary train of thought. Evolution encompasses the origin of species, not of life. The way that differences in life come about. Not how life itself comes about.I know you have already responded with a single sentence about the "RNA Hypothosis", but would you care to expand at all on where all life got it's beginnings according to the evolution train of thought.
There’s Ben Stein again. No, it wasn’t.Was it an electrocuted mud puddle?
On a side not, there you have why ID is religious in nature. It could have been, but doubtful, and as you say, it just pushes the question back one step.Was it aliens? If so, where did they come from?
In order: No, presumably in the oceans, the current estimate I believe is 3-3.7 billion years ago, and how is not yet known, though as I say, there are ideas.Has life just always been? Where and when and how exactly did life arise on planet Earth?
What questioning the core of evolution? What are you referring to as the core of evolution? What has been shrugged off?Is it any different than the mockery and shrugging off of every statement that calls into question the very core of evolution?
If I were shrugging it off with a condescending attitude I wouldn’t have taken time to go through all these posts nearly point by point and point both you and gradyll to resources that could help some of the misconceptions you have been expressing. I would have just said ‘ha ha dum creo u so wr0ng i wn’t wast my time” and left, or something like that.You seem to think that if you dismiss any opposing view with a condescending attitude then the argument has been concluded.
What other subjects would you flat out not teach? And what would you fill in in its place in high school biology?I would not teach it, any of it.
Well, no good. But then again, since that isn’t what is taught, the point is moot.What good does it do to tell a student of any age that millions of years ago T Rexes shed scales for feathers and flew away?
The ‘ridiculous idea of blind chance bringing’ it all about isn’t what the theory of evolution states, either.You can teach that viruses can mutate without the ridiculous idea of blind chance bringing about all this organization.
Yes, but that’s just a fact. That’s not understanding. WHY are we close in structure to other animals? Why are we farther from some than others? Don’t you think children would ask that question?You can teach a child that we are very close in structure to other animals without filling their minds with some preconcieved notions that we all came from some single celled organism at some time in the past.
So you’d teach Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Day Age, Gap, theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, ID, Native American creation tales, Muslim creationism, Egyptian and Norse and ancient Greek creation tales, Hindu creationism, Babylonian creationism, the stories of the Australian Aborigine, and countless others? In SCIENCE class? Where are you going to get all the time for that? How do you justify that going on in science classrooms? How will you make sure they are all memorized and tested equally? How do you expect them to have the necessary background to make that choice if they don’t know anything about the topic yet (hence them being at school)?Or... I would teach it all, every single theory out there. From the farthest far fetched fairy tales of evolution to creation by a sovreign eternal God. Truly inform the children then let them decide. Giving them every single option them letting them decide
Did it reform into solid rock? No. Would it turn to rock if given the right circumstances or time? Yes. Did it realign itself as in the previous layers? Yes. I think that is the most important thing to note here. The rock layers repeated the exact same layers as those I had found ocurring naturally. Did I put fossils or bones of any kinds into the mix? No. I am married and my wife didn't even think I needed a jay of mud setting around, let alone a jar of mud and bones setting around. Of course there weren't many fossils in the layers I pulled from either.Yes, so you had sorted dust. Did you have sorted solid rock? No. How long would it take the powder to reform into solid rock that needs to be scraped off? Did you put things in the middle to represent fossils and see how they would enter into the mix?
Creeks are still good for hiking. I take my dog down to the river (the locals call it a river, I am used to the Mississippi, so their river is just a creek to me) to hike. You can still find all sorts of cool fossils and neat things around a creek or in a dried up creek bed, as in your case.That is pretty cool. The biggest thing near me is a small creek, almost totally dried up due to the drought. Theres a lake a bit of a drive away, but its used for fishing and such.
So, if one takes something that has been ordered and disorders it, one cannot reorder it without skill and determinate maneuvers. Is that a correct statement?Question:
If I put two pieces of broken watch into a beaker, mix them, add light or heat (not enough to melt them together) or air, will they spontaneously form a new piece? No.
How many explosions do you know of that brought order to anything? All the explosions I have ever seen have taken order and made chaos out of it.If I add elemental carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur in a beaker, mix them, add light or heat or air, will they spontaneous form new chemicals? You bet they will, possibly explosively, especially with the hydrogen and oxygen.
Again, if something that has been ordered is brought to disorder, then only skill, determinate manuevers, and patience will reorder it. Correct? Yet the blind mixing of chaotic amounts of chemicals could eventually bring about the most complex computer (the human brain)? Do you honestly believe that? Honestly?And THAT is why it is a fallacy. Broken pieces of watch do not spontaneously react with each other under the right circumstances. Chemicals do. So shaking watch parts in the box until the cows come home wont do anything, but mixing chemicals will. That is why it is a fallacy to compare the two. That is why the argument is dismissed, because it's apples and oranges at beast.
But that is what I want to know, what brought about life? How did life come, literally, into being? That is my question to evolutionists.Its not an evolutionary train of thought. Evolution encompasses the origin of species, not of life. The way that differences in life come about. Not how life itself comes about.
And no, that wasn't Stein. It is from a completely secular book. That is just my paraphrase from an evolutionary based book of an encyclopedia of dinosaurs. In the front of the book it explains the time spans and when and how life "arose" on Earth leading up to the time of the dinosaurs. If you want to come over to see the book, it's on my book shelf.Theres Ben Stein again. No, it wasnt.
Amino acids have been found in deep space. Heres a source for you about finding glycine in space:
Amino acid found in deep space - 18 July 2002 - New Scientist
So amino acids themselves arise fairly easily, if they can self assemble in SPACE of all places.
These boldened words sound alot like a mud puddle and an energy source. Hmm, interesting.At certain temperatures, correct concentrations of amino acids solutions can form protein like microspheres. Combine that with a nice heat source (volcanoes heating nearby water, deep sea thermal vents, etc), and you can get some of these microspheres.
I think you know how much of a Wiki fan I am but I did look at the page. It describes amino acids as the building blocks of protiens that form the cells. The problem is that the protiens are guided by the nucleic acid. But the nucleic acid is catylised by the protiens. So the protiens need the nucleic acid to know what to do but the nucleic acid needs the protiens to do it. Sounds like you got a chicken but no egg.You could read more here, if you wish.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It does a pretty good job summarizing what I know about it, and goes beyond it, and if you doubt it, you can always scroll down and check the sources yourself. (I tend to do that a lot, myself).
Where and how did life originate? That is the core question.What questioning the core of evolution? What are you referring to as the core of evolution? What has been shrugged off?
Alright, I will apologize for my wording of my earlier post. Please forgive me. You are merely defending your stance. I cannot fault you for that. I defend my stance too.If I were shrugging it off with a condescending attitude I wouldnt have taken time to go through all these posts nearly point by point and point both you and gradyll to resources that could help some of the misconceptions you have been expressing. I would have just said ha ha dum creo u so wr0ng i wnt wast my time and left, or something like that.
I would spend much more time on testable and applicable points such as anatomy or physiology or zoology.And what would you fill in in its place in high school biology?
That is exactly what is taught. They absolutely teach that dinosaurs evolved into birds. I have seen the textbooks. Shoot, I just got rid of a half a shelf of textbooks that teach that.Well, no good. But then again, since that isnt what is taught, the point is moot.
Care to tell what evolution DOES state?The ridiculous idea of blind chance bringing it all about isnt what the theory of evolution states, either.
Yes, I think they would ask questions. That is why the point is so true. I mean, why tell them what some people believe to be the origins but not tell what others think? Do you want to censor different viewpoints from their little minds? Why is it only a bad thing if evolution is not taught, but no one minds at all that opposing viewpoints are left out? It does not make for an atmosphere of learning, that makes for an atmosphere of indoctrination when all but one viewpoint is taught.Yes, but thats just a fact. Thats not understanding. WHY are we close in structure to other animals? Why are we farther from some than others? Dont you think children would ask that question?
So youd teach Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Day Age, Gap, theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, ID, Native American creation tales, Muslim creationism, Egyptian and Norse and ancient Greek creation tales, Hindu creationism, Babylonian creationism, the stories of the Australian Aborigine, and countless others? In SCIENCE class? Where are you going to get all the time for that? How do you justify that going on in science classrooms? How will you make sure they are all memorized and tested equally? How do you expect them to have the necessary background to make that choice if they dont know anything about the topic yet (hence them being at school)?
Here’s one of the parts I’m interested in. I thought the whole point of you bringing up that experiment was that the geologic column wouldn’t/didn’t take millions of years. But the mere sorting can’t show that, because you’d still need the right circumstances or TIME to get it back to solid rock.Did it reform into solid rock? No. Would it turn to rock if given the right circumstances or time? Yes.
So, if one takes something that has been ordered and disorders it, one cannot reorder it without skill and determinate maneuvers. Is that a correct statement?
How do you want to define order? I can take 3 equivalent amounts of chemical, explode them together, and get only 2 equivalent amounts out. Would that not be increasing order?How many explosions do you know of that brought order to anything? All the explosions I have ever seen have taken order and made chaos out of it.
Again, if something that has been ordered is brought to disorder, then only skill, determinate manuevers, and patience will reorder it. Correct?
1) Where is the ‘watch’ that got smashed? The parallel fails on another level here, for talking about the beginning of life. The parallel depends on starting with complexity, breaking it down, and regaining it spontaneously. Before life started, there was no life. Obviously, since it was before life. So there was nothing to smash and then expect to reorder.Yet the blind mixing of chaotic amounts of chemicals could eventually bring about the most complex computer (the human brain)? Do you honestly believe that? Honestly?
Then stop asking the ‘evolutionists’ and start asking the biochemists.But that is what I want to know, what brought about life? How did life come, literally, into being? That is my question to evolutionists.
The phrase is directly out of Ben Stein’s Expelled. While I can’t come over, could you put the title in the next post?And no, that wasn't Stein. It is from a completely secular book. That is just my paraphrase from an evolutionary based book of an encyclopedia of dinosaurs. In the front of the book it explains the time spans and when and how life "arose" on Earth leading up to the time of the dinosaurs. If you want to come over to see the book, it's on my book shelf.
Then how about this article from 2003 confirming it and explaining just what they found?They NEED to find amino acids in space, but it is not certain that what they have found IS amino acids. And also note that in 1994, the first time they tried to make that claim it fell through. Now they are trying to make that same claim again. Also take into consideration that the type of amino acid they think they have is the "simplest type" of amino.
Carbon does not spontaneously react to form diamonds without intense heat and pressure, unlike that found at the surface.In my three above scenarios, I have given way more of the needed building blocks to make the tiara, the window, or the house than the supposed amino acid in deep space. Yet in none of those above scenarios would the existence of those materials mean that any of those structures would arise without being guided by an intelligent designer. I guess what I am saying is this, Even if it IS in fact an amino acid, that in no way proves that life can come up out of nothing or that life exists anywhere else than right here on Earth.
*facepalm* Energy source, yes. Huge lake/oceanfront/bottom of the sea? Not so much like a mud puddle.These boldened words sound alot like a mud puddle and an energy source. Hmm, interesting.
Yep, that’s the current conundrum. But because they currently ARE catalyzed by each other doesn’t mean they always had to be. Case in point, form elsewhere in the article:I think you know how much of a Wiki fan I am but I did look at the page. It describes amino acids as the building blocks of protiens that form the cells. The problem is that the protiens are guided by the nucleic acid. But the nucleic acid is catylised by the protiens. So the protiens need the nucleic acid to know what to do but the nucleic acid needs the protiens to do it. Sounds like you got a chicken but no egg.
And et cetera.The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
1. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
2. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
3. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.
...
Early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids, protein-like molecules that are produced when amino acid solutions are heated–when present at the correct concentration in aqueous solution, these form microspheres which are observed to behave similarly to membrane-enclosed compartments
...
Relatively short RNA molecules which can duplicate others have been artificially produced in the lab
...
A slightly different version of the RNA-world hypothesis is that a different type of nucleic acid, such as PNA, TNA or GNA, was the first one to emerge as a self-reproducing molecule, to be replaced by RNA only later.
Do you know how evolution is useful when related to those fields?I would spend much more time on testable and applicable points such as anatomy or physiology or zoology.
Yes, some dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs like archaeopteryx, and the ones I linked a while back. Some dinosaurs evolving into birds over many generations and a very long time is a far cry from T-rex just growing feathers and turning into tweety bird.That is exactly what is taught. They absolutely teach that dinosaurs evolved into birds. I have seen the textbooks. Shoot, I just got rid of a half a shelf of textbooks that teach that.
Sure, I can summarize it fairly easily.Care to tell what evolution DOES state?
This is science class. Science operates under evidence. Evidence is like a tyrant with no favorites. If you go against it, you can’t be right. If you go without it, you may be right, but until it is on your side, you can’t be accepted as right. If your worst enemy does the exact same things as you do, as long as he is honest about the results, he must be able to get the exact same evidence from the exact same experiments within experimental error. Do the opposing viewpoints have evidence? Are there movements in atheist countries where scientists WITHOUT a religious agenda are going “Wait, wait, wait, that can’t be right, my data is showing only 10,000 years to the age of the earth, my data is solid, go test it and see if you get the same results.” or “Wait, my DNA analysis shows no DNA similarities that would be considered relationship-indicating between humans and other animals. Come, look at my data.” Nope. It’s all religious types, with an agenda, that often have already declared their belief in one outcome regardless of evidence, that have already a priori dismissed all other evidence as wrong, no matter what. Like AIG.Yes, I think they would ask questions. That is why the point is so true. I mean, why tell them what some people believe to be the origins but not tell what others think? Do you want to censor different viewpoints from their little minds? Why is it only a bad thing if evolution is not taught, but no one minds at all that opposing viewpoints are left out? It does not make for an atmosphere of learning, that makes for an atmosphere of indoctrination when all but one viewpoint is taught.
You say that chemistry is not random yet you talk about how amino acids can randomly form in space. Which is it? Is chemistry random or is it precise? Or are you saying that it can randomly be precise?2) It is not ‘blind mixing of chaotic amounts’. Chemistry is not random. Mixing together certain amounts of certain chemicals under the right conditions will ALWAYS yield the same product(s) in the same ratios. Furthermore, forces such as natural selection are also not random forces. So, no. I don’t expect you to believe that. I don’t believe that. But that also isn’t what is stated.
I will get you the title and page(s) when I get home.The phrase is directly out of Ben Stein’s Expelled. While I can’t come over, could you put the title in the next post?
What is the point of looking for amino acids in space except to say that life arises wherever and under whatever circumstances? And just so that I have this straight, trees don't automatically make houses, carbon does not automatically make diamond tiaras, and sand does not automatically make glass but you would have us believe that amino acids can automatically form then automatically form protiens that automatically know how to make nucleic acids that will automatically catylize with the protiens that are already made. Then those will automatically form single and multicelled orgainisms. Is that it? Trees can't make a house but amino acids can assemble spontaneously and further form protiens and onward and upward?Carbon does not spontaneously react to form diamonds without intense heat and pressure, unlike that found at the surface.
Timber does not spontaneously react with other timber to form log cabins.
Sand does not spontaneously react with itself to form sculptures.
Organic molecules DO tend to spontaneously react with other molecules (varying by which organic molecule we are speaking of) to make other molecules.
So, sand, the main ingredient of glass, can't make a window by itself but you feel your above statement is logical? Single celled organisms can mutate and eventually lead into things like the human mind but trees can't make a house on their own?Life does not replicate itself perfectly. So when the very first organisms replicated themselves, there were random mutations and other types of gene transfer. These resulted in nonrandom changes to the DNA code. These resulted in nonrandom changes to the genotype and in some cases the phenotype of the organism. These resulted in nonrandom changes in the ability of the organism to acquire sufficient food/reproduce/survive/etc. Those nonrandom changes resulted in nonrandom changes of the makeup of the gene pool for that particular organism, as changes that decreased the ability to survive and reproduce would contribute less, while changes that increased the ability to survive contributed more. Over time, the accumulation of changes along with factors such as (but not limited to) geographical isolation would lead to populations being unable to interbreed with their ancestors or other groups that formerly were their same species, which is generally recognized as speciation. The more speciation, the more changes, and their accumulation, combined with the time life has been around, leads to the diversity we see today.
The phrase is directly out of Ben Steins Expelled. While I cant come over, could you put the title in the next post?
Where did I say they randomly formed in space? I said they formed in space. Nasa says they form in space and have been found on comets.You say that chemistry is not random yet you talk about how amino acids can randomly form in space. Which is it? Is chemistry random or is it precise? Or are you saying that it can randomly be precise?
Except amino acids aren’t life. I can think of several reasons:What is the point of looking for amino acids in space except to say that life arises wherever and under whatever circumstances?
Correct.And just so that I have this straight, trees don't automatically make houses,
Carbon can make diamonds, but they don’t come precut as tiaras.carbon does not automatically make diamond tiaras,
Well, go onto the beach after a lightning strike and you might find some, but it won’t be cut for a windowframe or anything.and sand does not automatically make glass
Given the Miller-Urey experiments and the articles I posted, yes.but you would have us believe that amino acids can automatically form
Automatically, maybe not. But under the proper circumstances, in the proper solution, with the right temperature and all, quite probably. Or the order might be reversed. Don’t know yet.then automatically form protiens that automatically know how to make nucleic acids that will automatically catylize with the protiens that are already made.
Well, given the paper presented here (as an oral paper)Evolution 2011 - Presentation SearchThen those will automatically form single and multicelled orgainisms.
Yes. You are missing the main difference between CHEMICAL interactions and PHYSICAL interactions. Making a house is a physical process. Cutting a diamond for a tiara is a physical process. Two chemicals reacting is not the same thing.Is that it? Trees can't make a house but amino acids can assemble spontaneously and further form protiens and onward
Yes, it is. Is there any impetus for sand to turn into glass? Only if energy like heat or lightning is applied. Is there any impetus for single celled organisms to evolve multicellularity? Yes.So, sand, the main ingredient of glass, can't make a window by itself but you feel your above statement is logical? Single celled organisms can mutate and eventually lead into things like the human mind but trees can't make a house on their own?
Doubt it. How would the rock weather UNDER any of the noses without wearing the noses down? How would it form the eyes right? Et cetera.Could rain, wind, and time equal Mt Rushmore? All the information is present and orgainized, it just would happen to be hiding under how many ever feet of rock. Just curious.
Because it ISN"T the same rule. That's why.But that's just it. You dismiss the same approach if it is applied to anything else as falling under the umbrella of Hoyle's Fallacy. It's as if you think chemistry is free from the same confines that binds everything else. Why do you think the same law that governs everything else is null and void when it comes to the one area of chemistry?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?