On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

Yes, people made mistakes. So what? Again, this sort of bad argument does not help you. I already admitted that some people put the wrong interpretation on the work.

By the way, this once again, demonstrates that you do not understand the sciences very well at all. When a scientist first encounters a very complex problem they very very rarely try to solve it all in one go. The easy problems in science were solved a long time ago. Now all that is left are rather complex ones. So scientists break them down.

At the time of the Miller Urey experiment we knew far less about life than we do now. The opposition knew far less too. One of their claims was that abiogenesis was impossible because amino acids do not form naturally. All that Miller Urey did was to show that this claim was wrong. That did not "prove" abiogenesis. I have seen many people make that mistake. It only showed that the doorway to life was not sealed shut by that particular means.

It is generally recognized by scientists that the experiment demonstrated the distinct possibility of abiogenesis, i.e., life arising from nonlife. While later contested, here is a pretty good explanation of what's being looked into. The origin of life on Earth, explained.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is generally recognized by scientists that the experiment demonstrated the distinct possibility of abiogenesis, i.e., life arising from nonlife. While later contested, here is a pretty good explanation of what's being looked into. The origin of life on Earth, explained.

Correct. it showed that it was still possible.

 

[Yerda]

It is generally recognized by scientists that the experiment demonstrated the distinct possibility of abiogenesis, i.e., life arising from nonlife. While later contested, here is a pretty good explanation of what's being looked into. The origin of life on Earth, explained.

You could say that the result increases the plausibility of life forming naturally.

 

[YoursTrue]

You could say that the result increases the plausibility of life forming naturally.

With a bolt of electricity perhaps with the 'right' elements there maybe and not necessarily...Anyway, the back and forth and continual rising and falling of these discussions regarding what the Miller-Urey experiment showed/proved/demonstrated or did not show/prove/demonstrate whatever it was said to, is getting to the point where I am have a smile on my face and -- leaving the classroom. Since -- maybe "we" will know, maybe "we" will never know... Hey! have a good one!

 

[Subduction Zone]

With a bolt of electricity perhaps with the 'right' elements there maybe and not necessarily...Anyway, the back and forth and continual rising and falling of these discussions regarding what the Miller-Urey experiment showed/proved/demonstrated or did not show/prove/demonstrate whatever it was said to, is getting to the point where I am have a smile on my face and -- leaving the classroom. Since -- maybe "we" will know, maybe "we" will never know... Hey! have a good one!

Why do you insist on demonstrating that you do not understand the topics being discussed?

 

[icant]

Of course not, it is old and actually more contemporary research updated his work. still no proof here.

You perpetually abuse the English language and science by using phony terminology such as accusations of the need and use of "proof" in science

Then give me the evidence that life started as you believe it did. Nothing tried has created life yet.

I read the article and all I learned was that the think.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

No, it is a physical observation of the existence of the universe, Some observe it and claim it is maybe 6,000 to 10,000 old and geocentric. Science reaches its conclusions concerning the nature of the universe based on the objective verifiable evidence far beyond the simple observation that the universe exists, with questions still unanswered concerning the history of the universe and whether we are pert of a Multi-verse.

There is no doubt in my mind we are part of a much larger universe.
I believe the universe is much older than our scientist do.
I believe the universe in which we live has eternally existed in some form just not in the form we see it now.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

No, none of those are "absolute scientific facts". There is no such a thing. In the sciences all facts are recognized to be provisional. It is due to this honesty that scientific facts are far more reliable than any other "facts". But thank you for supporting that evolution is a fact as well.

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the universe exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Sun Exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Earth exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Moon exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that I just sent this message to you through the marvels of science? Yes or No

Ok so none of those things exist. Is that what you are saying?

I see them and You did get my message.

Enjoy,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no doubt in my mind we are part of a much larger universe.
I believe the universe is much older than our scientist do.
I believe the universe in which we live has eternally existed in some form just not in the form we see it now.

Enjoy,

Why do you hold those beliefs?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it an absolute scientific fact that the universe exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Sun Exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Earth exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that the Moon exists? Yes or No
Is it an absolute scientific fact that I just sent this message to you through the marvels of science? Yes or No

Ok so none of those things exist. Is that what you are saying?

I see them and You did get my message.

Enjoy,

I would like to know first what the difference is between an "absolute scientific fact" and a "scientific fact".

 

[icant]

Why do you hold those beliefs?

Why not that is the most logical thing to believe.

1. Immutable Laws:Natural laws—gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics—are the cosmic ground rules. They’re like the universal referee, ensuring consistency across the cosmos.

2. These laws are immutable—unchanging and unwavering. They don’t shift with cosmic moods or human desires. If it’s a law of nature, it’s etched in cosmic stone.

So the laws of thermodynamics, makes no difference what you or anyone might want it to do, does not change.

You can't create energy or mass without breaking the law.
Don't mention Alan Guth's zero energy universe that didn't get 2 inches off the ground.
Our universe had to have a source of energy to be transferred into the mass that fills our universe.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

I would like to know first what the difference is between an "absolute scientific fact" and a "scientific fact".

It an absolute fact even if scientist don't believe it is a fact.

Scientist study the universe, sun, earth, moon, if they don't exist what are they studying them, and if they didn't build the computer how do I have one? I also believe they are responsible for the fiber optics cable that brings the internet to my house.

Enjoy,

 

[shunyadragon]

As far as I know, assertions have been made that it exemplified abiogenesis.

Confusing statement as to what science doe and does not know about abiogenesis. you basically assert opinions based on your religious agenda without ny knowledge of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Confusing statement as to what science doe and does not know about abiogenesis. you basically assert opinions based on your religious agenda without ny knowledge of science.

Your opinion is unfortunately Sooo misconstrued. Sad, very sad.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why not that is the most logical thing to believe.

1. Immutable Laws:Natural laws—gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics—are the cosmic ground rules. They’re like the universal referee, ensuring consistency across the cosmos.

2. These laws are immutable—unchanging and unwavering. They don’t shift with cosmic moods or human desires. If it’s a law of nature, it’s etched in cosmic stone.

Sort of OK, but does not reflect the science well.

So the laws of thermodynamics, makes no difference what you or anyone might want it to do, does not change.

You can't create energy or mass without breaking the law.
Don't mention Alan Guth's zero energy universe that didn't get 2 inches off the ground.
Our universe had to have a source of energy to be transferred into the mass that fills our universe.

Enjoy,

Again . . . no enjoyment here, just simplistic confusion of an ancient Newtonian view of our universe.

This is not OK and reflects your perpetual simplistic misrepresentation of our universe and our physical existence in terms of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The following reference provides more a contemporary understanding of our universe in terms of the Laws of Thermodynamics, Our universe my not simply be a closed system.

Does the Universe Violate the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Total energy must be conserved. Every student of physics learns this fundamental law. The trouble is, it does not apply to the universe as a whole

www.scientificamerican.com

Finally it concludes:

In the end, therefore, there is no mystery to the energy loss of photons: the energies are being measured by galaxies that are receding from one another, and the drop in energy is just a matter of perspective and relative motion.

Still, when we tried to understand whether the universe as a whole conserves energy we faced a fundamental limitation because there is no unique value we can ever attribute to something called the energy of the universe.

Thus, the universe does not violate the conservation of energy; rather it lies outside that law's jurisdiction.

 

[YoursTrue]

Confusing statement as to what science doe and does not know about abiogenesis. you basically assert opinions based on your religious agenda without ny knowledge of science.

"Modern abiogenesis hypotheses are based largely on the same principles as the Oparin-Haldane theory and the Miller-Urey experiment." (Encyclopedia Britannica)

 

[YoursTrue]

Confusing statement as to what science doe and does not know about abiogenesis. you basically assert opinions based on your religious agenda without ny knowledge of science.

Your continual put downs of those in your range of choice of fire makes you look really bad, prejudiced and narrow minded.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your continual put downs of those in your range of choice of fire makes you look really bad, prejudiced and narrow minded.

Your problem with a prejudiced put down of science based on a religious agenda.

It is a valid true statement that you lack the knowledge of science to make the opinions you assert.

You look unbelievably bad.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your problem with a prejudiced put down of science based on a religious agenda.

You look unbelievably bad.

Lol I think you do because of your ridiculous putdowns of the science. Meantime go fight with this! "Modern abiogenesis hypotheses are based largely on the same principles as the Oparin-Haldane theory and the Miller-Urey experiment." From the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[shunyadragon]

Lol I think you do because of your ridiculous putdowns of the science. Meantime go fight with this! "Modern abiogenesis hypotheses are based largely on the same principles as the Oparin-Haldane theory and the Miller-Urey experiment." From the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Your selective citations are unethical and a bit backwards The Miller-Urey experiment is a early successful experiment but many more advanced experiments have been conducted since, and the Oparin-Halden theory are based on science and but old and knowledge has evolved since,. Modern abiogenesis is based on the origin of life in Mid-Ocean Vents. The problem with the origin of the chemicals was in the atmosphere and that is no longer the Modern hypothesis for a biogenesis. Aspects of the Oparin--Haldane re still valid but our knowledge has advanced since.

oparin-haldane theory of origin of life
The Oparin-Haldane theory proposes that life on Earth originated from simple organic molecules, like amino acids, which formed in the primitive Earth's atmosphere through chemical reactions fueled by external energy sources like lightning, eventually leading to the formation of complex molecules and ultimately, primitive life forms in the early oceans; this theory was independently developed by Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin and British scientist J.B.S. Haldane in the 1920s.

They are all based on science, there has been many discoveries and research since that has increased the knowledge of the origins of life since. Many of the discoveries and research I have posted on this forum. See post #333 for an important discovery for the formation of the first life around Mid-Ocean vents at the ocean floor.


Your still stuck dishonestly selectively citing references to justify your agenda.