Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps he was using 'lifeless rock' as an evocative soundbite...
When have I ever claimed that life began from simply lifeless rock alone?
Well what would Mr Miller expect? Does Mr Miller think anyone else knows?
Then read the posts and be informed.
Agreed .. so why say that?
No it is not. Rather it is a false accusation in search of a fact.
Simply repeating it over and over again does not turn it into a supporting fact for the factless false accusation you are focused on so far.
Stanley Miller: "... I'm skeptical that you are going to get more than a few percent of organic compounds from comets and dust. It ultimately doesn't make much difference where it comes from. I happen to think prebiotic synthesis happened on the Earth, ..."
.
Honestly, how Abiogenesis occurs, is a subject of study and of testable hypotheses .. I'm as skeptical as you are .. but it seems to me you are just arguing for argument's sake?
Miller:
It may be that life came to Earth from another planet. That may or may not be true, but still doesn't answer the question of where life started. You only transfer the problem to the other solar system. Proponents say conditions may have been more favorable on the other planet, but if so, they should tell us what those conditions were.
Along these lines, there is a consensus that life would have had a hard time making it here from another solar system, because of the destructive effects of cosmic rays over long periods of time.
People here have been repeatedly correcting your misrepresentations for weeks. That you don't want to acknowledge this fact doesn't make it untrue.
The only reference to a "rock" in that entire discussion is from an interviewer's question, not even Stanley Miller.
Is it your "claim" that Miller "believes" that the starting condition was not a lifeless rock and was trying to correct the statement made in the question?
It is true that people here have been making a number of accusations and your claim is of the form "false accusation piled on top of false accusation -- then becomes a supporting fact for those accusations" is employing a form of logic I am not familiar with.
My claim is that your characterization as abiogenesis/evolution being "rocks [doing] whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time" is a gross misrepresentation of the process in question. .
That you read "lifeless rock" in an interview question and somehow came up with ..
I did not claim it was a "representation of the process" since in fact I know there "is no such process" - I merely point to the starting conditions that all agree to - and the end point that all agree to.
Now if you want to correct this perception, then by all means provide a proper description of the abiogenesis/evolution process
come up with "lifeless rock"?? hint they admit to that starting condition.
But nobody agrees with the way you are representing it. All you've done is concocted a strawman.
pitabread said: ↑
Now if you want to correct this perception, then by all means provide a proper description of the abiogenesis/evolution process
no such process exists - it is just a story with a lot of "speculation".
It's a metaphor for the planet itself. .
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?