Life From Dirt?

[Aupmanyav]

More I read about lava and sediment, lava erupted is sediment. Plain, simple, and rock.

Classic "Bang Head"
If you get time from your Bible reading, kindly read this: Education Search | National Geographic Society or

Rock (geology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No it doesn't. just because you refuse to learn ..

You miss one reason. Perhaps our friend has no capacity to learn.

 

[ratiocinator]

Magic supports your theories, frankly. By this time I am getting to know you and the theories you embrace.

Incredible.

Sorry but there's very little else I can think of that would explain this sort of post, after all the information and evidence that you've been given, except a stubborn determination to ignore it all and pretend it doesn't exists.

 

[Brian2]

The autonomous, self-actualized humanist retains the sovereignty that the believer gives away to others speaking for their gods. He remains the judge of right and wrong. He defines evil for himself.

And it is God who is calling all of us back to Him.

 

[PureX]

. Ghosts, vampires, witches flying around on brooms, wizards like Dumbledoor. Railway platforms when you crash through pillars. Oh, you do have a colorful world straight out of Harry Potter.

And they all 'exist', yes.

 

[PureX]

Some here are mistaken about my viewpoint. While I certainly do not know about everything in the Bible although I am glad to know what I do know, I have come to realize that no matter how logical the theory of evolution may seem for some, it no longer makes sense to me in the long run and complexities and details. I'm speaking of just the theory. The reason is that no matter what philosophers in the scientific arena may imagine, life didn't get started from a supposed chemical thoughtless reaction. If someone wants to try to explain it, obviously they have the freedom to do so, but it no longer logically adds up to me. They can try to explain but for several reasons they cannot really explain it.Just like they may try to explain scientifically how they think the sub formed and light shone to the earth. The second is that it no longer makes sense to me that chimps, gorillas, dogs, cats, etc. evolved to a more or less thinking state. And also I am pretty sure that bees didn't figure they must build hives for themselves at a certain point. So no, just based on the theory itself, I no longer give credence to it as generally promoted.

You are free to believe whatever you want to about it. And if you are foolish enough, you are free to reject 'what is' in favor of your beliefs. But the truth will still be 'what is', and not what you believe it to be. And that goes for the scientism cultists as well. They also want to believe their beliefs rule the truth of what is. And they don't.

Right now, 'what is', is that the origin and purpose of life is a mystery to us.

The truth is what is, and we don't have much access to it. Nor do we possess the intellect required to grasp what we do have access to. So we can go around spouting off about what we believe to be true and how anyone that believes differently is a fool, but in the end we are all fools if we are believers in our own profound ignorance.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are questions though about that. Magma is molten rock. But when erupted and cooled becomes hard rock, is that right?

What questions?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You are free to believe whatever you want to about it. And if you are foolish enough, you are free to reject 'what is' in favor of your beliefs. But the truth will still be 'what is', and not what you believe it to be. And that goes for the scientism cultists as well. They also want to believe their beliefs rule the truth of what is. And they don't.

Right now, 'what is', is that the origin and purpose of life is a mystery to us.

The truth is what is, and we don't have much access to it. Nor do we possess the intellect required to grasp what we do have access to. So we can go around spouting off about what we believe to be true and how anyone that believes differently is a fool, but in the end we are all fools if we are believers in our own profound ignorance.

Even as to thinking there is a purpose to anything? Given that believing such might set one on a path to supporting any notions one might think up.

 

[PureX]

Even as to thinking there is a purpose to anything? Given that believing such might set one on a path to supporting any notions one might think up.

The question stands. What we do about it is up to us.

 

[shunyadragon]

More I read about lava and sediment, lava erupted is sediment. Plain, simple, and rock.

Lava erupted is not sediment. Sediments such as sand, gravel, silt and clay result from millions of years from the erosion and oxidation of many different rocks, such as basalt,ash, granite and quartzite.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The question stands. What we do about it is up to us.

At least science tries to understand from an unbiased viewpoint, given that it is basically a forum of the best ideas as to what reflects reality - and the better ones rising to the surface. How can anything else come close to this?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Right now, 'what is', is that the origin and purpose of life is a mystery to us.

Make it into two questions. What is the origin of 'what is'?
and is there a purpose associated with 'what is'?

'What is' seems to follow its properties which may have two phases, existence and non-existence.
Other than the two phases, 'what is' does not seem to have any purpose.
Hindus term 'what is' as Brahman.

 

[PureX]

At least science tries to understand from an unbiased viewpoint, given that it is basically a forum of the best ideas as to what reflects reality - and the better ones rising to the surface. How can anything else come close to this?

Science can only investigate the mechanisms of physics involved. It can't tell us a thing about the origin of those mechanisms. Which means that it cannot answer the questions we have about existential origins or purpose.

 

[PureX]

Make it into two questions. What is the origin of 'what is'?
and is there a purpose associated with 'what is'?

The answer to one will probably provide the answer to the other. Existence is holistic, after all.

'What is' seems to follow its properties which may have two phases, existence and non-existence.

It's more likely that "existence/non-existence" are the cognitive result of how the human brain functions: compare-contrast-repeat between phenomena being experienced and phenomena being imagined and/or remembered. Our brains are a binary processor.

Other than the two phases, 'what is' does not seem to have any purpose.

A whole lot of your fellow humans would assert that it does seem to have a purpose.

Hindus term 'what is' as Brahman.

All religions do; each by their own labels. That's how theism works. Even the 'scientism' crowd has a label for the big mystery "what is" ... they call it objective reality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have come to realize that no matter how logical the theory of evolution may seem for some, it no longer makes sense to me in the long run and complexities and details.

Do you consider that significant? Is it evidence for any other truth? I would be concerned if I found myself at odds with a panel of sound critical thinkers, but you're not. Do you have a hypothesis for why that is ?

I'm speaking of just the theory. The reason is that no matter what philosophers in the scientific arena may imagine, life didn't get started from a supposed chemical thoughtless reaction.

That's not what the theory of evolution argues. You've described abiogenesis, and yes, it appears that life did self-organize without intelligent oversight. It's likely inevitable wherever possible, like all other physical processes such as planets organizing into spheroids and ice melting.

They can try to explain but for several reasons they cannot really explain it.

Not to somebody with an interest in not hearing or understanding it. Teaching only results in learning when the student is prepared to understand what he is told and shown. That requires a certain amount of knowledge and an open mind.

try figuring how building hives got into the bee brain.

We have a very good idea already. The theory of evolution explains how that can happen. All that is needed is that genetic variation generate a series of incremental changes that are selected for.

what has the theory of evolution done for mankind?

The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

Someone here made the claim that collection of atoms think. Really? Do single atoms think? Or is it only a collection of atoms that think?

Single atoms don't think, but "collections of atoms" think. They need to be organized into biomolecules which need to be arranged into brains made of neurons. Mind is an emergent property of life, which in turn is an emergent property of matter, meaning that they are higher order phenomena (epiphenomena).

Think of it like the wetness of water. It's an emergent phenomenon found in collections of H2O molecules of a certain average kinetic energy, none of which are wet.

Support your theories, you can't. I'm talking about the lack of evidence for evolution.

Not to you he can't. He can't make you see what you have a stake in not seeing.

I suppose you think, theorize, and imagine that "science" will discover, theorize, imagine, figure how life started in the first place

Yes, that seems very likely, although the precise pathway chemical evolution took may be difficult or impossible to elucidate.

You can't even accept that lava is sediment. Why bother with anything else? or better, why do you think you can teach me when you can't even get what sediment is. Or don't want to.

Nobody should think that they can teach anything to anybody who is committed to not learning it.

I am going to tell you now that science will never figure some things out no matter how many years a scientist may try.

You didn't need to. That seems very likely. But I would add that if answers don't come from empiricism, the questions are unanswerable, where to be called answers, ideas must be demonstrably correct. This eliminates all unfalsifiable claims such as those about gods existing and acting. Religions cannot provide answers, just guesses. Faith is a path to both false belief such as that evolution didn't occur and unfalsifiable belief such as that intelligent creation did - not a path to knowledge or useful answers.

Geneticallyl we inherit death from yes, Adam & Eve

Where did the beasts "inherit" their mortality from?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Belief is just the foolishness of the ego. It's pretending we know things that we can't and don't honestly know. I try to believe as little as possible.

I wonder what you mean by the word belief that you could write that. Maybe you mean unjustified belief, as when somebody says, "I don't believe it. I KNOW it." My definition of a belief is any idea which one considers true. This can be because the belief is justified, and can be called knowledge, or because it is believed by faith, which cannot, but both can be called belief.

To place "evidence" above reasoning is a big mistake. It's the endless and biased refrain of the scientism crowd because they won't let go of their philosophical materialist presumption that physicality defines reality. But it doesn't.

The critical thinker and empiricist places sound conclusion above faith, the former derived by applying valid reasoning to evidence. One wonders what you mean by reasoning here. Your objection when you cry scientism and materialist is that critical thinkers reject insufficiently supported claims including the unfalsifiable claims of the faithful. And as best we can tell, reality is physical, that is, comprising only energy, matter, force, space, and time. If it exists, it exists in space and time interacting with other existing things. The sum of all such things is the same as reality, or nature. If gods exist, they are also natural and part of nature.

to claim that it does is absurdly illogical and irrational.

Do those words have any meaning to you that you can attach to your claim? I don't think so. I'd think you'd need to demonstrate self-contradiction and fallacy, or at the least, paradox. This is one of the dozens of vague warnings we see here on RF of the form, "You're/they're doing it wrong, and there will be a price to pay." We never see just what is called wrong or why it is called wrong - what harm is expected. But this is just you defending what I've come to call soft thinking (lacking rigor) by tilting at the foundations of empiricism

A path that when followed leads to foolish priorities like "evidence trumps all".

If it means anything at all to say that it is foolish to reject soft thinking, then you should be able to show the price critical thinkers and empiricists pay for rejecting these other ideas generated by this other way of "knowing." What price do you think someone like me who is happy and who feels good about the life he's lived paid for being the materialist-"sceintismist" you warn others not to become?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Science can only investigate the mechanisms of physics involved. It can't tell us a thing about the origin of those mechanisms. Which means that it cannot answer the questions we have about existential origins or purpose.

But speculating can? And based upon what science finds, apart from those who refuse to believe this - as displayed here on this forum.

 

[wellwisher]

Nope, you made a claim. It is up to you to support it. Please prove to use that life did not start up naturally. Why do you think that is impossible? Proper reasoning and evidence are required.

Can you show how life started up naturally? Both sides are stuck there. Evolution cleverly starts after Abiogenesis so it does not have to include the real starting point; uses a faux origin. Another difference is Creation assumes an intelligent design, which to me implies rationally planned. While Evolution and Casino Science uses an irrational startup and maintenance design; chance. If science was rational shouldn't the design choices be switched?

Think of an intelligently designed automobile; solidify the nomenclature. This will not happen with dice and cards. It can only happen with experience and long careful planning and execution of well fitting and integrated parts and details. Intelligent design to me, implies the answer to Abiogenesis, Life, and Evolution will be logical, since that is a more intelligent approach and design than a black box. The black box has too much room for active imagination and therefore subjectivity; casino bling, hype and addiction.

The way I would form life, with an intelligent science design; casino science free, is to begin with water. Water can react with simple gases like Nitrogen, Methane, Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, etc, under thunder storm lightening conditions, created by water based thunderstorm clouds. These reactions can make amino acids and complex organic oils, tars and solids. Water makes lightning clouds, and then uses this EM energy to react with gases. This is logical and simple; Miller Experiments. These were duplicated by others under these and other conditions; such as oxidation and reduction potential. Works well with many variable choices.

One of the bottlenecks is, even if you can form amino acids, these do not easily react in water to form protein, since the forward reaction needed for polymerization has to give off water, into water, which then inhibit/reverses back to amino acid. Now, early protein polymerization models use surfaces like clay to absorb the output water. Luckily, the Miller Experiments implied another way, connected to the organic oils formed with the amino acids.

Organic oils can create surface tension within water. This can be used to help evacuate the forward reaction water from the polymerizing protein, if the polymerization had been done in an oil phase. This may not have been fully tested, since the bias of the theory of fossil fuel, does not allow you to assume oils could form way before life. However, the Miller Experiments of the 1950's demonstrated it could happen that way, since complex carbon solids were found in his formed amino acid samples. My guess is life formed in oil and water and then life infiltrated into these primal carbon fuel deposits and may have modified them.

A simultaneous appearance of amino acids and organic oils, will give us the water and oil affect, early. Organic oils, forming protein and water can tidal mix; high tide, and then phase separate; low tide. This allow pre-cells to form compartments. If you mix olive oil and water, shake, we get randomness. If you let it settle, order appears within the chaos. Casino Science does expect water to reverse random, but Italian Salad dressing does it everyday.

Protein packing in water is ordered by surface tension priory in water. They are packed based on removing the worse surface tension moieties in the water first; bury the most hydrophobic moiety in the protein core.

Picture a matrix of pure liquid water. It is held together with the strong secondary bonding called hydrogen bonding with up to four bonds per water molecule. This a very strong secondary bonded matrix, with a lot of potential to form. The strength of this binding explains the oddly high boiling point of the small water molecule; unique water anomaly.

As we add organics to water and mix, surface tension builds in the water and disrupts the optimized aqueous hydrogen bonding matrix. The water by having the most powerful secondary bonding matrix; organic van der Waals forces are weaker, it pushes everything to lower surface tension, so water can lower its powerful potential. The organics are pushed in the direction of evolution; connected to optimizing the water matrix. As we add new stuff, it either has a sweet spot in the cellular water, or not; water potential selection at the nanoscale.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution cleverly starts after Abiogenesis so it does not have to include the real starting point; uses a faux origin.

Evolution only explain the mechanisms of changes - biodiversity, adaptation, speciation, Natural selection, frequency of alleles, mutations, genetic recombination, hybrid population from 2 parent populations (Gene Flow), etc.

Evolution was never about the origin of life, which there are several different models of the hypothesis, Abiogenesis.

But Abiogenesis isn’t just about the first life, but rather the origins of numbers of different biological compounds or more precisely biological macromolecules (eg amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc) that are building blocks of the “cell”.

As you know, every organisms, living and extinct, are made of cells, but these cells are made from a number of these biological molecules & compounds. So part of understanding Abiogenesis, are not only about the origins of these cells, but also how these macromolecules work?

Basically, these organic matters, molecules and compounds, are chemistry.

There is nothing magical about chemistry or biology: biology and chemistry are natural processes, so you just needs to understand how they work.

Only creationists are too ignorant to bother understanding chemistry and biology. Instead they believe in the “God did it” SUPERSTITIONS.

Superstition, is just irrational assumption that some invisible & powerful supernatural beings (god or gods) are responsible for creation of life. How are any Abrahamic religious scriptures than those of Egyptian or Sumerian religious texts, which they borrowed from? The Bible and the Quran are not even more knowledgeable, nor plausible than Celtic fairytales.

Like the myths and fairytales that Christians and Muslims as being superstitions and fables, and yet their own scriptures contain talking serpent and donkey, and the Quran have talking ants.

As to Intelligent Design, it was started by creationists from the Discovery Institute, in which they use misinformation and propaganda, with no science in their concept of the “Designer”, which is really, just a substitute for “God” or “Creator”.

Intelligent Design involved no science whatsoever, because they have no support the existence of this Designer any more than there are evidence for God or spirits or angels or demons or fairies.

That you would compare Evolution to Intelligent Design or to any forms of creationism, just show how sloppy you are in comparing the two. It is just wilful ignorance and intellectually dishonest of you.

There are no magic or supernatural events or entities in either Evolution or Abiogenesis.

In Evolution, there are no creating light with using mere words (Genesis 1:3), no magically creating man from dust (Genesis 2:7), no popping animals into existence from the ground, no talking serpent (Genesis 3) or donkey or ants, no turning water into wine, no magical fruits from magical trees that give knowledge of good and evil or give eternal life.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you show how life started up naturally? Both sides are stuck there. Evolution cleverly starts after Abiogenesis so it does not have to include the real starting point; uses a faux origin.

Science isn't stuck. Creationism is. Science is making progress.

Interesting comment about a "faux origin." Biological evolution begins when life begins, which requires first the evolution of matter into galaxies of solar systems made of the elements on the periodic table, and then for matter to evolve into life - so-called chemical evolution or abiogenesis.

Science isn't trying to accommodate the creationist worldview, which is a sterile idea that adds nothing to understanding - just unfalsifiable claims that can't be used for anything beneficial to mankind.

Another difference is Creation assumes an intelligent design

And for the empiricists and critical thinkers who eschew faith-based claims, what creationists say is meaningless. Nothing derived from an unshared premise can be called sound or should be believed by the empiricist and critical thinker. All of theology fits into this category - based in an unshared premise making its conclusions of no value to those who don't assume that gods exist.

The way I would form life, with an intelligent science design; casino science free, is to begin with water. Water can react with simple gases like Nitrogen, Methane, Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, etc, under thunder storm lightening conditions, created by water based thunderstorm clouds. These reactions can make amino acids and complex organic oils, tars and solids.

Where's the intelligence there? What is it needed for? The ingredients for life can find one another and react without intelligent supervision as happens in every living cell every day. Nobody needs to unzip the DNA, transcribe it, get it and the transfer RNA to the ribosomes, or translate it into proteins.

There is no evidence of intelligence being present or needed once the universe began expanding. The rest was automatic. The universe evolved as described by sciences (cosmology, astrophysics, quantum science, evolution, and likely naturalistic abiogenesis). It assembled itself and runs itself on a daily basis without intelligent oversight, so just what is a god's place in any of this? What is it needed for?

Are you going to argue that a god was needed to fine tune the initial symmetry breaking that generated the fundamental particles and forces? That argument is easily refuted - two ways.

[1] All that is needed is a multiverse that generates countless universes of every possible configuration, and we have some evidence to support that hypothesis.

[2] But even if an intelligent designer were involved, how much credit does it deserve for creating the universe if it needs to discover and conform to rules it didn't create? why an omnipotent God would be constrained to choose certain settings of the fundamental physical constants? Who created the laws that this God is limited by? How can you call this a God if it could only have created this world one way if it were intended to support life and mind? If that's the case, this God didn't actually design anything. It merely obeyed rules imposed on it, just like man in his ongoing march to understand and predict nature. Such a deity would be the naturalistic result of evolution in a reality that existed before it did and constrained what it could do just like man.

Consider the problem of the origin of consciousness. It must have evolved naturalistically in an unconscious milieu. It could not have been intelligently designed by an already conscious deity. The points are that if anything that can be called a sentient universe designer and creator exists, it evolved naturalistically from unconscious substance, and that we don't need gods to explain anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you show how life started up naturally? Both sides are stuck there. Evolution cleverly starts after Abiogenesis so it does not have to include the real starting point; uses a faux origin. Another difference is Creation assumes an intelligent design, which to me implies rationally planned. While Evolution and Casino Science uses an irrational startup and maintenance design; chance. If science was rational shouldn't the design choices be switched?

Think of an intelligently designed automobile; solidify the nomenclature. This will not happen with dice and cards. It can only happen with experience and long careful planning and execution of well fitting and integrated parts and details. Intelligent design to me, implies the answer to Abiogenesis, Life, and Evolution will be logical, since that is a more intelligent approach and design than a black box. The black box has too much room for active imagination and therefore subjectivity; casino bling, hype and addiction.

The way I would form life, with an intelligent science design; casino science free, is to begin with water. Water can react with simple gases like Nitrogen, Methane, Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, etc, under thunder storm lightening conditions, created by water based thunderstorm clouds. These reactions can make amino acids and complex organic oils, tars and solids. Water makes lightning clouds, and then uses this EM energy to react with gases. This is logical and simple; Miller Experiments. These were duplicated by others under these and other conditions; such as oxidation and reduction potential. Works well with many variable choices.

One of the bottlenecks is, even if you can form amino acids, these do not easily react in water to form protein, since the forward reaction needed for polymerization has to give off water, into water, which then inhibit/reverses back to amino acid. Now, early protein polymerization models use surfaces like clay to absorb the output water. Luckily, the Miller Experiments implied another way, connected to the organic oils formed with the amino acids.

Organic oils can create surface tension within water. This can be used to help evacuate the forward reaction water from the polymerizing protein, if the polymerization had been done in an oil phase. This may not have been fully tested, since the bias of the theory of fossil fuel, does not allow you to assume oils could form way before life. However, the Miller Experiments of the 1950's demonstrated it could happen that way, since complex carbon solids were found in his formed amino acid samples. My guess is life formed in oil and water and then life infiltrated into these primal carbon fuel deposits and may have modified them.

A simultaneous appearance of amino acids and organic oils, will give us the water and oil affect, early. Organic oils, forming protein and water can tidal mix; high tide, and then phase separate; low tide. This allow pre-cells to form compartments. If you mix olive oil and water, shake, we get randomness. If you let it settle, order appears within the chaos. Casino Science does expect water to reverse random, but Italian Salad dressing does it everyday.

Protein packing in water is ordered by surface tension priory in water. They are packed based on removing the worse surface tension moieties in the water first; bury the most hydrophobic moiety in the protein core.

Picture a matrix of pure liquid water. It is held together with the strong secondary bonding called hydrogen bonding with up to four bonds per water molecule. This a very strong secondary bonded matrix, with a lot of potential to form. The strength of this binding explains the oddly high boiling point of the small water molecule; unique water anomaly.

As we add organics to water and mix, surface tension builds in the water and disrupts the optimized aqueous hydrogen bonding matrix. The water by having the most powerful secondary bonding matrix; organic van der Waals forces are weaker, it pushes everything to lower surface tension, so water can lower its powerful potential. The organics are pushed in the direction of evolution; connected to optimizing the water matrix. As we add new stuff, it either has a sweet spot in the cellular water, or not; water potential selection at the nanoscale.

At first I misread this and thought that you were opposing abiogenesis and now I see that you appear to be supporting it. Early morning squinting into sunlight as I try to read can lead to misunderstanding posts. Except for the very start where you say that scientists in abiogenesis are "stuck". You explained quite a few elements. The only clear error is that you seem to think that proteins were necessary for the first life but that does not appear to be the case. Proteins are necessary for modern life. But RNA can do the jobs of proteins, just not as well.