ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Nathon Detroit]

I doubt a jar of peanut butter is big enough or carries the necessary compounds (water being the most essential) to create life.

Fair enough.... so why is it when when scientists combine all the necessary compounds and the most favorable conditions... still no life from non-living matter. :idunno:

Wouldn't you think that it would be far more likely to create life from non-living matter via a controlled scientific experiment using all the intelligence and wisdom of the finest scientists than it would in a puddle?

In other words..... you are not sure that a jar of peanut butter has what is necessary to create life from non-living matter, but yet you ARE SURE that a puddle of water DOES have the necessary ingredients to create life from non-living matter. Remind me again which one of us has the greater faith? :think:

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Fool, you have been here long enough to realize that Bob B has no problem with intentionally altering quotes to change their meaning. If I remember correctly, Johnny caught him doing the exact same thing about a month or so ago in one of the evolution threads in the Political sub-forum.

Oh, I wonder how he is going to rationalize his way out of this one...

 

[Woodbine]

Fair enough.... so why is it when when scientists combine all the necessary compounds and the most favorable conditions... still no life from non-living matter. :idunno:

Wouldn't you think that it would be far more likely to create life from non-living matter via a controlled scientific experiment using all the intelligence and wisdom of the finest scientists than it would in a puddle?

In other words..... you are not sure that a jar of peanut butter has what is necessary to create life from non-living matter, but yet you ARE SURE that a puddle of water DOES have the necessary ingredients to create life from non-living matter. Remind me again which one of us has the greater faith? :think:

Trouble is no one knows how or where or what the conditions were when it is supposed to have happened. Was it above ground, underground, in water? What particular forces were at work, what pressures, temperatures, electricity, radiation? The practically infinite variables involved reduce the possibility of repeating such an event dramatically.

Also, the field of research into Abiogenesis is tiny compared to evolutionary theory and other scientific fields. Whereas evolutionary theory is reaping rewards in medicine and agriculture, Abiogenesis has no cash value so it will remain under-researched and generally theoretical unless there's a concerted effort. The fact that people invariably cite a a 50 year old experiment (Miller/Urey) when this topic comes up highlights the comparatively small amount of research done in the field.

 

[fool]

I wonder if abiogenesis could occur in peanut butter if your chocolate bar accidentally fell into my peanut butter. :think:

Peanut butter works on so many things from celery to graham crackers to chocolate bars to licking it off the knife.
The origin of life?
Why not.
Pool water might want an entry as well.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Trouble is no one knows how or where or what the conditions were when it is supposed to have happened. Was it above ground, underground, in water? What particular forces were at work, what pressures, temperatures, electricity, radiation? The practically infinite variables involved reduce the possibility of repeating such an event dramatically.

Well luckily for you... you can experiment with every conceivable circumstance ruling out known detrimental conditions in advance.

Surely with all these advantages you should be able to create life from non-living matter eh??

 

[Woodbine]

Steady on with the accusations against Bob. I've just done a brief search and both of these quotes......

having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one

having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one

....from the book's conclusion are accurate.
There were several of editions of Origin, and minor changes were made throughout it's early years. I couldn't find out if the "creator" version came first and the word was later expunged, or if "creator" was added later. I'm guessing the change was made in response to criticism of one kind or another, but without knowing which version came first it's impossible to know just why the change was made.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Fool, you have been here long enough to realize that Bob B has no problem with intentionally altering quotes to change their meaning. If I remember correctly, Johnny caught him doing the exact same thing about a month or so ago in one of the evolution threads in the Political sub-forum.

Oh, I wonder how he is going to rationalize his way out of this one...

Spare us the attempt at marginalizing bob b, if you have nothing to add please butt out.

 

[fool]

Fair enough.... so why is it when when scientists combine all the necessary compounds and the most favorable conditions... still no life from non-living matter. :idunno:

Because they don't know how to do it.
So the "necessary compounds" and "most favorable conditions" are unknown.
If they knew they'd be selling it like sea monkeys.
And winning awards.
"nothing but an empty cup"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because they don't know how to do it.
So the "necessary compounds" and "most favorable conditions" are unknown.
If they knew they'd be selling it like sea monkeys.
And winning awards.
"nothing but an empty cup"

Yet you have faith that what science does know know or cannot do..... a puddle can?

Again, remind me again who has the greater faith?

 

[Johnny]

BobB!
Please check your quote!
You cited;

As Darwin wrote, “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” (1859: 490).

Whereas my copy says;

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved”
The difference being the three words in red.

Oh, I wonder how he is going to rationalize his way out of this one...

To be fair here, I believe only the later editions of Darwin's book contained the "by the Creator" phrase. In either case, Darwin still believed that they had been breathed into a few forms or into one which in and of itself implies a Creator.

 

[fool]

Steady on with the accusations against Bob. I've just done a brief search and both of these quotes......



....from the book's conclusion are accurate.
There were several of editions of Origin, and minor changes were made throughout it's early years. I couldn't find out if the "creator" version came first and the word was later expunged, or if "creator" was added later. I'm guessing the change was made in response to criticism of one kind or another, but without knowing which version came first it's impossible to know just why the change was made.

Thanks for the research.
I'll note that BobB didn't make this quote but rather quoted someone that quoted it.
That's why I asked "why would his book be different?"
Not Bob's book.

But now that Bob is aware that there is a different book out there does he have any other takes on what someone might think when reading the book if it had those additional words?

 

[Woodbine]

Well luckily for you... you can experiment with every conceivable circumstance ruling out known detrimental conditions in advance.

Well, no we can't. That's my point. The variables are practically infinite even after we've eliminated detrimental conditions. And when it comes to the transition between non-life and life who knows what constitutes "detrimental conditions"?.

Surely with all these advantages you should be able to create life from non-living matter eh??

So, because a tiny subset of scientists in an underfunded field of research have thus far failed to replicate an event that may have only happened once in the history of the Earth....that's a reason to suspect it never happened or that it cannot happen? Scientists cannot blow a star up and yet stars blow up quite naturally all the time. It means nothing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because they don't know how to do it.
So the "necessary compounds" and "most favorable conditions" are unknown.
If they knew they'd be selling it like sea monkeys.
And winning awards.
"nothing but an empty cup"

Hey fool, earlier on this thread I asked....

YES or NO.... Do you believe that it is scientifically impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter? And if so.... why?

To which you unequivocally answered....

NO

Yet now... several pages later you acknowledge that science doesn't know. If science doesn't know (as you assert) how can you unequivocally assert that you KNOW life cannot form in peanut butter?

Do you know more than the scientists know?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So, because a tiny subset of scientists in an underfunded field of research have thus far failed to replicate an event that may have only happened once in the history of the Earth....that's a reason to suspect it never happened or that it cannot happen? Scientists cannot blow a star up and yet stars blow up quite naturally all the time. It means nothing.

Me thinks.... you are painfully missing my point. I don't blame you.

Puddles of water generally do not have intelligence.
Puddles of water generally do not know how to conduct scientific experiments.
Puddles of water generally do not have a predetermined desired result.

Puddles of water do not have these things in common with scientists.

Yet..... yet..... (que huge Broadway show music) you have faith that a puddle of water can do on its own what thousands of scientists cannot come close to doing in a "most favored" condition.

Remind me again who has the greater faith?

 

[fool]

Yet you have faith that what science does know know or cannot do..... a puddle can?

Again, remind me again who has the greater faith?

Apparently I do.
I have enough faith in the truth to pass by easy answers and keep digging.
Ad nauseum.
Like a machine.
Is a machine one of God's creatures?
Why would he make such a machine?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And when it comes to the transition between non-life and life who knows what constitutes "detrimental conditions"?

Even non-scientists can think of dozens of detrimental conditions. Think of how much more science must know. :think: And even though we may not know them all, clearly that is irrelevant. For simply removing the ones we do know of should dramatically improve our odds over the puddle.

The little puddle who could!!! Chug-a-chug... chug!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Apparently I do.
I have enough faith in the truth to pass by easy answers and keep digging.

That doesn't make sense.

Ad nauseum.
Like a machine.
Is a machine one of God's creatures?
Why would he make such a machine?

fool, have you been drinking tonight?

 

[fool]

Hey fool, earlier on this thread I asked....

YES or NO.... Do you believe that it is scientifically impossible that life could form by chance in a jar of peanut butter? And if so.... why?

No.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No.

Uh... I know that. You already answered that remember? :doh:

You also stated that science doesn't know the conditions needed to create life from non-life.

Therefore, apparently you know more than the scientists do.

 

[fool]

The little puddle who could!!! Chug-a-chug... chug!

I think someone brought up droplets.
And I mentioned the clay (lost favor because the crystal did attract and arrange the molecules but then it didn't let them go)
I think they're on to undersea volcano vents now.
They'll think of something after that, when your job is to come up with stuff you tend to come up with stuff.