(March 23, 2018 at 1:11 am)He lives Wrote: I agree with your points and your argument. However by agreeing I would like to point out that everyone should also be skeptical about abiogenesis as there is no solid evidence to it's extraordinary claims that life began from some hypothetical primordial soup that was thought to exist on the pre life earth. This sounds too much like the fictional story of Frankenstein. At least in the story of Frankenstein body parts were used to bring him to life. You may say that life on earth is evidence of abiogenesis. However life on earth can also be used as evidence of intelligent design. In fact I am very much a skeptic of abiogenesis. The chances of the biogenesis Hypothesis ever happening are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. It would be more likely to find a brand new F-16 on the dark side of the moon. I therefore would like to know why anyone would trust in the abiogenesis hypothesis?I don't see it as being of any more value to anyone than ID since neither one have been proven.

---

I want to point out that this type of figure is often quoted, but it has no solid foundation. The problem is that is assumes that a cell has to pop into existence as a complete unit in a single step with no precursors at all. NOBODY makes such a claim!

Furthermore, the usual 'computation' that leads to such absurd numbers makes some assumptions about probabilistic independence (even at the level of proteins) that are known to be incorrect. Among others: that only a single string of amino acids would perform the job of a given protein, that there is no precursor to that protein, that the amino acids are integrated in sequence and each is probabilistically independent from the rest, etc.
Every single one of these assumptions is known to be wrong. In almost every case, there is *far* more flexibility in protein composition than the calculation claims. And, again, the formation of a protein of 200 amino acids is NOT thought to happen in a single step, but via the merging of smaller, but useful (maybe for different reactions!) proteins.

And, of course, this completely neglects the RNA world that is strongly suspected as a precursor to the current protein based biology.
Sorry, but your F-16 claim is irrelevant to the reality of the chemistry of life.

(March 23, 2018 at 2:45 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 22, 2018 at 12:01 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Matthew 5:22
Of course, the verse doesn't prevent me from calling you an illiterate closet-minded moron with the IQ of a brain-damaged chihuahua.  Actually, since the book is total trash, it doesn't prevent me from anything, you're the one who seems to think that the so-called words of your godboy have any meaning.

Nor does it quell me from calling you a fool.
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

In post #581, you said:  "Our planet is 3 dimensional yes, but our existence is 4. The fourth being time. without the measure time the objects defined by the measure of length width and height are frozen in place. So again yes while science can indeed well define the objects found readily in the three dimensions it has no protocol to account for what s lost to time, besides guessing"

Quote:This post is so badly constructed that it is impossible to be certain which fantasy you're rambling about this time. (pun intended)
We exist in three dimensions.  Time is not, and never has been, (in our solar system anyway) a "fourth dimension". 

That is an uneducated assertion/persumption. do you vet anything before you speak?
This is why I called you a fool. you speak without forethought or knowledge, and seeming don't care how stupid you come off so long as your grammar is correct.. I am not angry with you nor do I hate you. your actions/thought patterns simply qualify you to be defined by that word. To me having my facts straight are as important if not of greater importance than how I come off based on sentence structure.

That said if you had any inclination to vet anything besides what you think you already believe, you would have come across this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

The crux of the arguement is here:
In 1908, Hermann Minkowski presented a paper consolidating the role of time as the Fourth dimension of spacetime, the basis for Einstein's theories of special and general relativity.

Do you understand that bit? Based on the idea that time is the 4th dimension EIN-FRIGGEN-STEIN'S Theories of special and general relativity would not exist. So again how stupid are you to argue against me with nothing more than a feeling that you are right about this?

Quote:Time is simply a numerical measure of the movement of the earth and has no bearing or influence upon the three dimensions. H,L,W.  (As the article I posted clearly stated.)  To someone who is uneducated, time is measured by the "movement" of the sun and moon.  "Lost to time" makes no sense - either something from the past has been saved in some medium, or it is no longer accessible.  Science does not "guess" - it extrapolates probabilities from the available data - what can be gleaned from the past that has been saved in some medium.  You seem to be implying that science cannot provide any information about things "lost to time", or that time contains some sort of "spiritual information" that science can't access.  

Quote:Have you been hanging out with Rik and taking some psychedelic mushrooms?

idk who that is.

Aw, poor little preacher fundie. It's really fun to watch you freak out.  Did you stroke out yet?  Go take your meds, and don't forget the anti-psychotic ones.

It is an interesting topic of study, I'll grant you that.  I'm a huge Sagan fan, and I immediately thought of his description of a hypothetical 4th dimension - the tesseract.  Ooh, and you have led me to a really good recent article that contains one of my favorite Sagan snippets on the subject, and much more.  http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/hints-o...physicists  
Well!!  Who are you and what have you done with Dripshit?  Don't I remember posts from you that were trashing the LHC?  -- And general trashing of anything scientific?  Dripshit's response to any mention of science is usually the jerkoff emoji above.

I'm also a huge fan of Stephen Hawking. (A Brief History of Time!)  So when challenged, I searched for him. 


  

A little science-fiction oriented, but fun.  It we COULD travel through time . . . beyond our limited linear awareness . . . yep, that would be a 4th dimension.
I also like this article: https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html   It shows Minkowski's light cone diagram, which presents the concept of time in quite a different way from a simple linear measurement.  Interesting.  
I confess that my mathematical knowledge did not get to calculus, so tensor mathematics is quite beyond me. There is actually a theory that there could be as many as 10 dimensions, but that humans can only perceive four - h, l, w, t.   So I will grant you a point.  Some very qualified people refer to spacetime as a 4th dimension.  So I must thank you for urging me to take a break, and try to break away from my basic physics/geometry definitions of physical dimensions.

So now enlighten me, just how you think Minkowski space has any bearing on anything of a supernatural or spiritual nature?  For me, it only deepens my admiration for math and scientific observation, and makes the concept of the existence of any deities or any form of invisible entities more unlikely to exist.

(March 23, 2018 at 3:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 1:11 am)He lives Wrote: I agree with your points and your argument. However by agreeing I would like to point out that everyone should also be skeptical about abiogenesis as there is no solid evidence to it's extraordinary claims that life began from some hypothetical primordial soup that was thought to exist on the pre life earth. This sounds too much like the fictional story of Frankenstein. At least in the story of Frankenstein body parts were used to bring him to life. You may say that life on earth is evidence of abiogenesis. However life on earth can also be used as evidence of intelligent design. In fact I am very much a skeptic of abiogenesis. The chances of the biogenesis Hypothesis ever happening are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. It would be more likely to find a brand new F-16 on the dark side of the moon. I therefore would like to know why anyone would trust in the abiogenesis hypothesis?I don't see it as being of any more value to anyone than ID since neither one have been proven.

---

I want to point out that this type of figure is often quoted, but it has no solid foundation. The problem is that is assumes that a cell has to pop into existence as a complete unit in a single step with no precursors at all. NOBODY makes such a claim!

Furthermore, the usual 'computation' that leads to such absurd numbers makes some assumptions about probabilistic independence (even at the level of proteins) that are known to be incorrect. Among others: that only a single string of amino acids would perform the job of a given protein, that there is no precursor to that protein, that the amino acids are integrated in sequence and each is probabilistically independent from the rest, etc.
Every single one of these assumptions is known to be wrong. In almost every case, there is *far* more flexibility in protein composition than the calculation claims. And, again, the formation of a protein of 200 amino acids is NOT thought to happen in a single step, but via the merging of smaller, but useful (maybe for different reactions!) proteins.

And, of course, this completely neglects the RNA world that is strongly suspected as a precursor to the current protein based biology.
Sorry, but your F-16 claim is irrelevant to the reality of the chemistry of life.

Francis Crick believed the origin of life was almost a miracle. He thought life might have been seeded from another planet.

Your dense lived 

(March 23, 2018 at 6:18 pm)He lives Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 3:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I want to point out that this type of figure is often quoted, but it has no solid foundation. The problem is that is assumes that a cell has to pop into existence as a complete unit in a single step with no precursors at all. NOBODY makes such a claim!

Furthermore, the usual 'computation' that leads to such absurd numbers makes some assumptions about probabilistic independence (even at the level of proteins) that are known to be incorrect. Among others: that only a single string of amino acids would perform the job of a given protein, that there is no precursor to that protein, that the amino acids are integrated in sequence and each is probabilistically independent from the rest, etc.
Every single one of these assumptions is known to be wrong. In almost every case, there is *far* more flexibility in protein composition than the calculation claims. And, again, the formation of a protein of 200 amino acids is NOT thought to happen in a single step, but via the merging of smaller, but useful (maybe for different reactions!) proteins.

And, of course, this completely neglects the RNA world that is strongly suspected as a precursor to the current protein based biology.
Sorry, but your F-16 claim is irrelevant to the reality of the chemistry of life.

Francis Crick believed the origin of life was almost a miracle. He thought life might have been seeded from another planet.

I find your name-dropping of Francis Crick to be very odd.  This is the same guy who said about Christianity:  "I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about." and "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

Yes, he did espouse directed panspermia in the 1970's, but in 1993, in the article "Anticipating an RNA world. Some past speculations on the origin of life: where are they today?" (now found on PubMed, just go to a good library with research databases and you can read it) he states that in the past he was "clearly overly pessimistic about the chances of

(wait for it)

ABIOGENESIS.

Quote:Francis Crick believed the origin of life was almost a miracle. He thought life might have been seeded from another planet.

Crick considered it possible life could have started somewhere else . He never stated it as a fact . and nor does it matter . And no ID is a overwhelmingly religious movement . And saying life was seeded by aliens only pushes the problem back .

Quote:.so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.

As for the miracle quote here is what creationists leave out or distort . He's talking about problems in research of his time . Not that life is a literal miracle .

lol, life coming coming from another form of life on another planet, doesn't refute abiogenesis in the general sense, because it could easily mean that abiogenesis occurred on another planet.

Francis Crick believed something.  Quick..everybody..stop the presses!  A person believes something...this is groundbreaking! Never before in the history of mankind has anyone believed something...surely, we should all assent to the beliefs of Francis Crick.

Here is very good evidence of out of body NDE.

https://youtu.be/WNbdUEqDB-k

Or a longer version:

https://youtu.be/S-hi8bMIlQ4

(March 24, 2018 at 12:03 am)He lives Wrote: Here is very good evidence of out of body NDE.

https://youtu.be/WNbdUEqDB-k

Nope.