Abiogenesis: The First Frontier

Information Central ^ | 2/28/2001 | Steven Sawyer, Jon Sarfati

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

NOPE THEY WORK JUST FINE

politicly correct problem?

[Heartlander]

Was anything created?

cre·ate [kree áyt ] (past cre·at·ed, past participle cre·at·ed, present participle cre·at·ing, 3rd person present singular cre·ates) verb
1. transitive verb make: to bring 'somebody' or 'something' into existence

Anything?

[Heartlander]

If nature did not bring anything into existence – who did?

[Heartlander]

I see, to assert that God does not exist is now politically correct.

[GeekDejure]

Listening to the senseless drivel coming from certain Eastern sources. . . there must have been TWO Creators . . . one created all those Muzzle-em fanatics . . . and the other created all of us Infidels !!!

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

I see, to assert that God does not exist is now politically correct.

As far as ive known it always has been politicly correct not to beleive in a supreme being

[BMCDA]

Why does it have to be a "who"? I think a "what" would be more appropriate.
And as I said before, nature just is and it is not appropriate to say that nature does this or that. A natural process occurs and there is no intelligent agent influencing it. I don't understand why you insist on that word.
If some atoms bond and form a molecule, who created this molecule? Or an interestellar cloud collapses under its own gravity and forms a sun and planets, who created them?
It simply happens. That's it.

[BMCDA]

Are you sure?

[AndrewC]

It simply happens. That's it.

Sounds like what creationists are accused of saying--- God did it. That's it.

[BMCDA]

I just acknowledged that natural processes occur whether we know why or not. Or do you deny this fact?

[Dimensio]

Already did it here.

[AndrewC]

Or do you deny this fact?

What do you suspect?

[jennyp]

Or do you deny this fact?

What do you suspect?

Do you EVER post a message that's not in the form of a question? :-)

[AndrewC]

Do you EVER post a message that's not in the form of a question? :-)

Well my original post on this thread was not. In this case(the one you are commenting on not yours) it is a question because I am under no obligation to answer an inane question.

[BMCDA]

Of course I suspect that you too acknowledge this fact.
What I meant when I said that a natural process simply happens is that there is no supernatural entity tinkering with it like in goddidit, it simply occurs and we may (at least in principle) be able to find out why. I didn't want to imply that we should be satisfied with the fact that it simply happens. On the other hand if we accept that a deity did it we may never find out why and how that particular phenomenon occured because the supernatural is not knowable by a natural mind.

[VadeRetro]

Do you EVER post a message that's not in the form of a question? :-)

That socratic "irritating idiot" trick can be hard to turn off once you start turning it back on them. It's the Dark Side of the Force. </ObeWanKenobe mode>

[AndrewC]

On the other hand if we accept that a deity did it we may never find out why and how that particular phenomenon occured because the supernatural is not knowable by a natural mind.

Well, I apprehend your viewpoint, but also point out, from your viewpoint, that the inclusive "we" can never know everything. The same goes for the exclusive "we", there are things that mankind can never "know".

On another point, like nature the "supernatural" mind is not completely "knowable" by the natural mind, however, it is "knowable". The religious person is a testament to that.

[capitan_refugio]

Thanks for the ping. Interesting article, but I haven't read all the posts yet.

One thing occurred to me. Recently there was a meteorite recovered from Antarctica which purportedly had trace fossil evidence, and that the lithological make-up of the fragment suggested it was of Martian origin. Let's suppose both observations are correct.

Might "living molecules" have evolved on a young Mars and a young Earth simultaneously? If so, were the physical conditions and time frame similar? If both are of an "intelligent design" origin, then why did a designer place life on a planet (Mars) destined to become lifeless (or nearly so)?

Without arguing the fundamental correctness of the statistical calculations, and the fundamental premises upon which they are based, how does the equation change if we begin a more-or-less constant rain of trans-solar system material, some of which may have been carrying organic molecules whose origin may have been from some distant part of the solar system is some distant time in the past??? Then, the physical constrants of the Earth's temperture or chemical composition become less meaningful. In other words, you don't need to begin the process on Earth, if your are "seeding" life from other parts of the cosmos.

The test of the "seeding" hypothesis would be if organic molecules can be detected on "dead" planetary bodies, such as moons, asteroids, meteors, etc.