You're still wrong. Abiogenesis is not well understood, but there at least is some supporting Evidence for it.
Creationism/ID has absolutely No Evidence supporting it.
Except it doesn't, because if it did, you'd think it would've been documented at some point, but it hasn't. So really, abiogenesis is really no better than intelligent design. There's no fucking evidence it can actually happen, and thus it is no more scientific than intelligent design.
Which is my whole problem. Religion says "It was designed!"
Science says "Meh, it just kinda happened, here's a couple ways it might have happened"
Except science hasn't ever demonstrated it actually could have happened, and based on what we know, it seems much more likely to be "designed" than "happened".
And again, it's all mental masturbation unless you can go back and DEMONSTRATE a causal relationship.
Until then, it's a nice story. Kinda like the bible.
Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.” - Luke 13-22
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 14&version=NIV
Generally speaking, if it doesn't seriously violate any well-established physical processes, anything can happen. I don't understand where you get the idea that it is a scientific endeavor to demonstrate something "could have happened." Do you want to rephrase?Except science hasn't ever demonstrated it actually could have happened...
That's just silly. Life was "designed" ... how, exactly? Magic? That's what the ID proponents offer. Magic. You think magic is the more likely "explanation" than natural processes?... and based on what we know, it seems much more likely to be "designed" than "happened".
Doesn't panspermia still require some form of abiogenesis somewhere in the universe?
How am I wrong? In order for a theory to be valid, it has to explain all observed phemonena! Neither science nor religion has a valid explanation for the beginnings of life and until you recognize that, you're no better than a religious fundamentalist. Maybe better read, but still just as wrong.You're still wrong. Abiogenesis is not well understood, but there at least is some supporting Evidence for it.
Creationism/ID has absolutely No Evidence supporting it.
Because as far as we can demonstrate, life begets life, and non-life does not ( nor has it ever!) beget life! The Urey experiment has demonstrated that amino acids can be formed in interstellar space, and potentially in a pre-historic environment, any other claims are pure over-extrapolation bordering on fantasy, for which they deride religion so much.Why would it?
Why would it?
How am I wrong? In order for a theory to be valid, it has to explain all observed phemonena! Neither science nor religion has a valid explanation for the beginnings of life and until you recognize that, you're no better than a religious fundamentalist. Maybe better read, but still just as wrong.
Because as far as we can demonstrate, life begets life, and non-life does not ( nor has it ever!) beget life! The Urey experiment has demonstrated that amino acids can be formed in interstellar space, and potentially in a pre-historic environment, any other claims are pure over-extrapolation bordering on fantasy, for which they deride religion so much.
Because as far as we can demonstrate, life begets life, and non-life does not ( nor has it ever!) beget life!
From where does extraterrestrial life then first originate?
That link doesn't do shit. Its one person trying to tout the guy as some shining beacon of science who alone throws out the entire argument of macroevolution because he claims no one can understand this because he can't and he claims others tell him they have no idea either.
Look at the excerpts (and if you read that first article it links to), all the guy does is say he doesn't understand. He doesn't explain what he doesn't understand about it, just that he does not understand. Then he says a bunch of stuff about how all these other scientists he claims also say they don't understand and other things that in no way presents anything than the guy does not understand this.
I don't know how he expects anyone to be able to explain it, or debate it with him, or whatever he's looking for when he can't even explain what his actual issues with it are.
From what I can tell, he doesn't understand it and thinks his knowledge of molecular science should be able to alone help him understand it. I don't know if he's just being misguided, or what, but its telling that he spends more time focused on him feeling like him and others are being attacked over it than anything.
1) What are your qualifications and are they good enough to judge Dr. Tour?
2) Post credentials from #1 so we can be the judge of them as well.
3) Assuming Yes to #1, when are you going to post a copy of your drafted email to Dr. Tour to discuss macroevolution?
Dr. Tour's credentials:
{snip fellatio}
Yeah, yeah I do. In fact, I've spent years of my life studying chemistry, and I've never seen a conglomeration of molecules, amino acids, lipids, or carbohydrates, ever coalesce into a symbiotic "organism". I've spent a lot of years mixing things together, and I've never seen anything do half the shit that scientists are so willing to explain as a happy accident.Generally speaking, if it doesn't seriously violate any well-established physical processes, anything can happen. I don't understand where you get the idea that it is a scientific endeavor to demonstrate something "could have happened." Do you want to rephrase?
That's just silly. Life was "designed" ... how, exactly? Magic? That's what the ID proponents offer. Magic. You think magic is the more likely "explanation" than natural processes?
Your argument supports nothing. Amino acids are a necessary condition for life (as we know it) but not sufficient.Baseless assertion. We understand what the Life on this planet needs. Amino Acids are one of those things and, to your own admission, has been demonstrated to occur Naturally. This supports Abiogenesis and was Predicted by Abiogenesis. Without Abiogenesis, it is likely we would never have even tried the experiment that lead to this discovery.
Have you seen lots of magic, though? Lots of god-intervention in your experiments?Yeah, yeah I do. In fact, I've spent years of my life studying chemistry, and I've never seen a conglomeration of molecules, amino acids, lipids, or carbohydrates, ever coalesce into a symbiotic "organism". I've spent a lot of years mixing things together, and I've never seen anything do half the shit that scientists are so willing to explain as a happy accident.
No, why would it? Trying to reproduce a 1 in a trillion trillion opportunity may be all but impossible. We can learn a lot of stuff along the way, though, and it should never be misconstrued as evidence that the hypothesis is false. You're trying to derive "it can't be done" from "we haven't been able to yet" without any rational basis.If I've worked so hard to do something, and it hasn't gotten anywhere near where others say something else could have gotten by accident, despite my observations, despite my controlled conditions, doesn't that then fly in the face of their arguments?
But, empirically speaking, your claim is not true. You confuse "very improbable" for "impossible."The key word there is "design". I've designed a lot of chemicals, a lot of reactions in my time, and I've never come up with anything that has even 1/100th of the capacity of a single-celled organism. Yet, empirically, I've studied this for 10 years, and I have capabilities at hand that would never occur in nature, yet I can't replicate it. That, my friend, is the definition of requiring "design" to beget life.
Who do you know that claims to know how it happened?I don't know how it happened, but no one else does either. Anyone who proclaims otherwise is a liar or Psychotic.
Because as far as we can demonstrate, life begets life, and non-life does not ( nor has it ever!) beget life! The Urey experiment has demonstrated that amino acids can be formed in interstellar space, and potentially in a pre-historic environment, any other claims are pure over-extrapolation bordering on fantasy, for which they deride religion so much.
Not at all, what I'm saying is both are equally improbable, and until one demonstrates itself to be better than the other, both should be held in equal esteem.Have you seen lots of magic, though? Lots of god-intervention in your experiments?
No, why would it? Trying to reproduce a 1 in a trillion trillion opportunity may be all but impossible. We can learn a lot of stuff along the way, though, and it should never be misconstrued as evidence that the hypothesis is false. You're trying to derive "it can't be done" from "we haven't been able to yet" without any rational basis.
But, empirically speaking, your claim is not true. You confuse "very improbable" for "impossible."
Who do you know that claims to know how it happened?
Sandorski, apparently.Have you seen lots of magic, though? Lots of god-intervention in your experiments?
No, why would it? Trying to reproduce a 1 in a trillion trillion opportunity may be all but impossible. We can learn a lot of stuff along the way, though, and it should never be misconstrued as evidence that the hypothesis is false. You're trying to derive "it can't be done" from "we haven't been able to yet" without any rational basis.
But, empirically speaking, your claim is not true. You confuse "very improbable" for "impossible."
Who do you know that claims to know how it happened?
Not even sure where to label this fallacy as I fell asleep a lot in logic class (insert your own joke here) but it's pretty consistent with my arguments that we can test Newton's hypotheses and thus define where they hold true (Newtonian mechanics) and where they fail completely (quantum mechanics).Newton only had to know that the universe existed in order to figure out how it works. Does finding flaws in the big bang theory invalidate his work?
Your argument supports nothing. Amino acids are a necessary condition for life (as we know it) but not sufficient.
QED.
Because as far as we can demonstrate, life begets life, and non-life does not ( nor has it ever!) beget life! The Urey experiment has demonstrated that amino acids can be formed in interstellar space, and potentially in a pre-historic environment, any other claims are pure over-extrapolation bordering on fantasy, for which they deride religion so much.
Credentials are not an argument.1) What are your qualifications and are they good enough to judge Dr. Tour?
2) Post credentials from #1 so we can be the judge of them as well.
3) Assuming Yes to #1, when are you going to post a copy of your drafted email to Dr. Tour to discuss macroevolution? Keep in mind he wants to know how microevolution (which he agrees with) becomes macroevolution (which he does not agree with).
Dr. Tour's credentials:
James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering. Tours scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, carbon supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, CO2 capture, water splitting to H2 and O2, water purification, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, graphene oxide, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, and synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which includes molecular motors and nanocars. He has also developed strategies for retarding chemical terrorist attacks. For pre-college education, Tour developed the NanoKids concept for K-12 education in nanoscale science, and also Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero science packages for elementary and middle school education: SciRave (www.scirave.org) which later expanded to Stemscopes-based SciRave (http://stemscopes.com/scirave/). The SciRave program has risen to be the #1 most widely adopted program in Texas to complement science instruction, and it is currently used by over 450 school districts and 40,000 teachers with over 1 million student downloads.
Tour has over 500 research publications and over 70 patents, with an H-index = 100 (89 by ISI Web of Science) with total citations = 50,000 (Google Scholar). Tour was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014; was named among The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today by TheBestSchools.org in 2014, and recipient of the Trotter Prize in Information, Complexity and Inference in 2014. Tour was named Scientist of the Year by R&D Magazine, 2013. He was awarded the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, 2012, Rice University; won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, 2012; was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2011 and was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2009. Tour was ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009; won the Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009 and the Houston Technology Centers Nanotechnology Award in 2009. He won the Feynman Prize in Experimental Nanotechnology in 2008, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers and the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007. Tour was the recipient of the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching in 2007. He also won the Small Times magazines Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Innovator Award in 2006, the Alan Berman Research Publication Award, Department of the Navy in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from the American Chemical Society in 2005 and The Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005. Tours paper on Nanocars was the most highly accessed journal article of all American Chemical Society articles in 2005, and it was listed by LiveScience as the second most influential paper in all of science in 2005. Tour has won several other national awards including the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry.
Tour is the founder and principal of NanoJtech Consultants, LLC, performing technology assessments for the prospective investor. He has served as a visiting scholar at Harvard University, on the Chemical Reviews Editorial Advisory Board, the Governors Mathematics and Science Advisory Board for South Carolina, the Defense Science Study Group through the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Defense Science Board Chem/Nano Study Section, the Department of Commerce Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee and the MD Anderson Cancer Research Centers Competitive Grant Renewal Board. He has been active in consulting on several national defense-related topics, in addition to numerous other professional committees and panels.
http://www.jmtour.com/