Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer

[pitabread]

Perhaps he was using 'lifeless rock' as an evocative soundbite...

It's worth noting the "lifeless rock" quote comes from an interview question, not Stanley Miller himself.

 

[BobRyan]

When have I ever claimed that life began from simply lifeless rock alone?

What else did you have? (hint - no "evolution fertilizer" as the title of the thread states)

Stanley Miller: "“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones."

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones.

Well what would Mr Miller expect? Does Mr Miller think anyone else knows?

Apparently he does not think anyone else knows what "special fertilizer" would be needed to get this off the ground from the "lifeless rock" state since we already have all the basic chemicals but cannot reproduce the chemical reaction sequence that would result in a living cell... still.

 

[pitabread]

Then read the posts and be informed.

I did. It still in no way supports your representation that abiogenesis/evolution involves "rocks [doing] whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time".

The only reference to a "rock" in that entire discussion is from an interviewer's question, not even Stanley Miller. And the context is quite clear it's simply a reference to the planet (Earth) itself. It's not referring to literal rocks in the context of abiogenesis.

It's also odd that you're quoting an interview from 25 years ago and seem to be putting full stock of your arguments/characterizations in it.

I asked you before and I'll you again, what have you actually read in terms of modern abiogenesis research? Have you read anything outside of the Urey-Miller experiment and/or random interviews on the same?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Stanley Miller: "If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support."

Agreed .. so why say that?

Because there are "others" here who suppose that aliens or life or compounds from outer space "did it" instead of the lifeless rocks.

 

[pitabread]

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.

People here have been repeatedly correcting your misrepresentations for weeks. That you don't want to acknowledge this fact doesn't make it untrue.

 

[pitabread]

Because there are "others" here who suppose that aliens or life or compounds from outer space "did it" instead of the lifeless rocks.

Who? Who are you even talking about?

 

[BobRyan]

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?

nonsense.. you can't provide as your example "me quoting Stanley Miller" - who in fact was trying to get that testable feature of the hypothesis off the ground - and claim that quoting Miller is "arguing for argument's sake".

How can that be taken seriously?

Stanley Miller takes a more serious POV than "oh that is 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.

 

[BobRyan]

People here have been repeatedly correcting your misrepresentations for weeks. That you don't want to acknowledge this fact doesn't make it untrue.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Is it your claim that when Miller flat out rejected the idea that some life was here all along - that he was objecting to "lifeless rock"???

He repeatedly refers to "how life got started" and admits that all the "chemicals" that are in the equation - are already here in the lifeless rock scenario.

 

[pitabread]

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?

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 the above characterization is mystifying to me. Unless you either didn't understand the context of the interview question or you're deliberately misrepresenting the process for the purpose of argument.

Now if you want to correct this perception, then by all means provide a proper description of the abiogenesis/evolution process in your own words. Otherwise, I can only continue to assume that you're not familiar enough with the process to accurately describe it.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Correction of your misrepresentations isn't an accusation. It's just correction of your misrepresentations.

It's the reality of the way these discussions have been going for weeks now.

 

[BobRyan]

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. .

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.

details matter.

 

[BobRyan]

That you read "lifeless rock" in an interview question and somehow came up with ..

come up with "lifeless rock"?? hint they admit to that starting condition.

you're really saying this is where you did not follow the point??

 

[pitabread]

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.

But nobody agrees with the way you are representing it. All you've done is concocted a strawman.

 

[BobRyan]

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".

Stanley Miller: "“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones."

 

[pitabread]

come up with "lifeless rock"?? hint they admit to that starting condition.

It's a metaphor for the planet itself. It is not intended to be a fulsome description of the "starting condition", as you put it.

Your taking a colloquialism/metaphor and treating it overly literally.

 

[BobRyan]

But nobody agrees with the way you are representing it. All you've done is concocted a strawman.

prove it - since even you admit I have not described any process.

hint: see your own statement here

pitabread said: ↑
Now if you want to correct this perception, then by all means provide a proper description of the abiogenesis/evolution process

 

[pitabread]

no such process exists - it is just a story with a lot of "speculation".

Regardless of whether you accept it or not is besides the point. It's a question of whether you can accurately represent it.

 

[BobRyan]

"lifeless rock"

It's a metaphor for the planet itself. .

no joke. Is this what you were having a hard time with?