Florida license plates

[Amianthus]

Yes , and the result is life? Or an organic compound that just sits there ?

Well, it replicates. And over a large number of replications, changes happen. And these changes sometimes also replicate themselves. And over billions of years, eventually you have a smooth ascension to more complex forms.

Like I said, you would have to define "life" for me to be able to point to the spot on that smooth climb and say "according to your definition of life, that's where it began."

However, that point might be different for others.

BTW, none of this precludes a God from being in the picture - it just does not require one.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obviously, the strongest logical position belongs to the Agnostic, followed by the Theist.  The weakest logical position is Atheism.  I cannot tell what might symbolize that, but it wouldn't seem to me to be a question mark.

=================================
An agnostic simply is a person who has concluded that there may or may not be a God, since there is insufficient proof to reach a conclusion. This seems to me to be the only scientifically logical position. If we could set up a universe with a God and another without one, then we could observe both and compare them to the universe in which we exist. Since we cannot create universes, and do not live long enough to observe them even if we could, it seems that this experiment is impossible.

I know people who say they KNOW there is a God, because they say they converse with him regularly, but do not seem to be able to record his image or voice, this seems to be insufficient evidence. I also know people who claim that no God COULD exist because the universe is obviously not the work of any great logical mind. For example, would not a logical Deity have designed a system in which we would have an uneven number of months in a year. Planets could describe perfectly circular orbits rather that elliptical ones. Mayne pi could be a rational number.

I don't see how atheism is a more or less logical position than being a theist. Perhaps you could explain why you think there is a difference in more detail.


 

[Rich]

How old is the Earth?

At what point did live occur? By life, I mean something we all would consider to represent life. One celled organizims would be a start.
How did they form? What did they form from? Where did those materials come from?

[Universe Prince]

For example, would not a logical Deity have designed a system in which we would have an uneven number of months in a year.

You're joking, right?

[Amianthus]

How old is the Earth?

Roughly speaking, 5 billion years.

At what point did live occur? By life, I mean something we all would consider to represent life. One celled organizims would be a start.
How did they form? What did they form from? Where did those materials come from?

The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth. Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids. Other tests have shown that these acids will combine to form more complex structures, again with only the addition of energy. In addition, these acids are also found on meteorites, so even if they did not form spontaneously on earth, they would have been seeded here from space (most likely, a combination of both occurred).

Amino acids, in the presence of phosphoric acid and heat, will form "proteinoids" which are cell-like spheroids and can encapsulate RNA or DNA (which are also self-assembling from amino acids). These are your earliest "cells". The original self-replicating "cells" were likely RNA strands with proteinoid shells, very much like modern viruses.

And the original materials? From earlier stellar nova, which will "cook" the needed elements and simple molecules, then disperse them with massive explosions. Our solar system was formed from the remains of one or more stellar nova.

[Plane]

How old is the Earth?

Roughly speaking, 5 billion years.

At what point did live occur? By life, I mean something we all would consider to represent life. One celled organizims would be a start.
How did they form? What did they form from? Where did those materials come from?

The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth. Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids. Other tests have shown that these acids will combine to form more complex structures, again with only the addition of energy. In addition, these acids are also found on meteorites, so even if they did not form spontaneously on earth, they would have been seeded here from space (most likely, a combination of both occurred).

Amino acids, in the presence of phosphoric acid and heat, will form "proteinoids" which are cell-like spheroids and can encapsulate RNA or DNA (which are also self-assembling from amino acids). These are your earliest "cells". The original self-replicating "cells" were likely RNA strands with proteinoid shells, very much like modern viruses.

And the original materials? From earlier stellar nova, which will "cook" the needed elements and simple molecules, then disperse them with massive explosions. Our solar system was formed from the remains of one or more stellar nova.

Remember there is with no organisation and no goal or guidence. These peices are not seeking each other , unless they are. They are made like Lego blocks with intent to fit together the very nature of these chemicals being so made implys planning. How often do Rolex watch parts form spontainiously in a deposit of ores? Why are watch parts less likely than the proteins and enzimes of life?

[Xavier_Onassis]

They are made like Lego blocks with intent to fit together the very nature of these chemicals being so made implys planning. How often do Rolex watch parts form spontainiously in a deposit of ores? Why are watch parts less likely than the proteins and enzimes of life?

Organic life is not like the parts of a watch.

Those self-replicating protein molecules are very much like the proteins that you are made of, however.
If the universe had been planned, it would be much less chaotic. Why would a sane creator come up with all the many varieties of cockroach, or AIDS, or smallpox or the Bubonic Plague?

I doubt that anyone would give out awards for human teeth, either. NOT a good design. Not even as good a design as those awful "crystal" cases CD's come in.

[Plane]

If the universe had been planned, it would be much less chaotic. Why would a sane creator come up with all the many varieties of cockroach, or AIDS, or smallpox or the Bubonic Plague?

A comfortable world in which Human beings never grow old or sick would be either Eden or Heaven ,These places are optimised for human enjoyment . Perhaps Earth is perfected for the purpose it is serving , perhaps Humankind is not Gods end product. And the development of what we will become requires our struggles.


I am not pretending to actually know this , I am speculateing for the purpose of showing that there are further purposes posssible for God than just to make man comfortable.

[Stray Pooch]

I don't see how atheism is a more or less logical position than being a theist. Perhaps you could explain why you think there is a difference in more detail.
 

An Agnostic has not concluded anything.  He believes that there may or may not be a god, but that there is insufficient evidence to settle the question.  To the question of whether there is a god, his answer is "I don't know."  That is logically unassailable.  In fact, an Agnostic can, without compromise, be converted to Theism by experiences that convince him of the reality of a god.  It would be less logical, however, for an Agnostic to become Atheist, for reasons which the description of Atheism will clarify.

The Theist has concluded that there is a god.  His position can be proved.  Hold your fire, mates, because I did not say that it HAS been proved.  In order to prove them premise that there is a god, the only requirement is the appearance of a god.  If that is to happen once the Atheist and Agnostic positions are forever annulled (though again the Agnostic need only amend his position).  Moses, Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and others all claim to have seen God face-to-face.   If any or all of those claims are true, Theism is proved.  That a very large percentage of the world choses to disagree with that logic in the absence of replicable, measureable experience only means that many do not accept the proof.  But if they (the prophets) are all liars, drugged out or hallucinating, the potential future appearance (or an unknown past one) would still prove the existence of god, and settle the question.  So Theism CAN be proved, whether or not that has, or ever will, happen.

The Atheist, last of all, has concluded that there is no God.   His position, by its nature, cannot be proved.  The lack of any appearance of a god does not negate the potential for an appearance next year, next century or while you had your back turned.  In fact, even after death, if we could suspend the paradox for a moment and assume that even a dead Atheist might somehow observe his own, dead, self and determine that "Aha!  I'm dead and no god appeared to pull me out of the grave and give me artificial respiration!"  he could still not conclude that a god might, at some time arrive and do just that. 

So in a nutshell, Agnostism is unassailable, Theism is theoretically provable, and Atheism cannot be proved.  Because of the potential for proof, Theism is logically superior to Atheism.

[Plane]

Yes , and the result is life? Or an organic compound that just sits there ?

Well, it replicates. And over a large number of replications, changes happen. And these changes sometimes also replicate themselves. And over billions of years, eventually you have a smooth ascension to more complex forms.

Like I said, you would have to define "life" for me to be able to point to the spot on that smooth climb and say "according to your definition of life, that's where it began."

However, that point might be different for others.

BTW, none of this precludes a God from being in the picture - it just does not require one.

In a sense quartz cristals replacate as does any cristal . but do accidentally formed chains of amino acids inded replicate? Got a link for that ?I need to read up on that point.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So in a nutshell, Agnostism is unassailable, Theism is theoretically provable, and Atheism cannot be proved.  Because of the potential for proof, Theism is logically superior to Atheism.

============================
Well, no. Theism is POTENTIALLY logically provable. Like POTENTIALLY a rat cold be turned into a rodentdroid, or an army of soldiers could be formed using yo yos as weapons.

You could only prove that the technology does not exist to do either of these things now.

A unicorn could appear and sh*t gold ingots. My house could be overrrun by griffins, or velociraptors.

[Amianthus]

In a sense quartz cristals replacate as does any cristal . but do accidentally formed chains of amino acids inded replicate? Got a link for that ?I need to read up on that point.

Formation of some amino acids from the environment typical of early earth was initially done in the Miller-Urey experiment. Later experiments showed that all 20 amino acids can be created in this fashion.

Sidney Fox (University of Miami) conducted experiments that showed that amino acids will spontaneously form peptides and proteinoids in the '50s and '60s, however I can't find a specific link right now.

And proteinoids will spontaneously form microspheres with a selective membrane (similar to modern cells) when mixed with cold water. Again, this has been shown experimentally.


Microspheres

[Plane]

http://link.abpi.net/l.


QUESTION OF THE WEEK
Last week's question concerned predicting intelligent life elsewhere in
 the
universe. In a recent paper published in the journal Astrobiology,
 Professor
Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia describes a mathematical
 model
for the evolution of intelligent life. He asserts that four major steps
 were
required before intelligent life evolved on Earth, starting from the
emergence of single-celled life to the development of human language.
 Watson
asserts that the overall likelihood of intelligent life hinges on the
probability of each step occurring, which is very low. We asked if
 scientists
could establish an accurate method to predict the presence of
 intelligent
life in the universe. Thirty percent of you said yes and 70 percent
 said no.
Here's more of what you had to say:

"While trying to estimate the likelihood of intelligent life may be fun
 
and may gain notoriety, the effort is purely speculative. We only have
real experience with carbon-based biology and employ human
interpretations of intelligence. With so many billions of stars and
planets for raw material, it would seem odd that ours might be the only
 
planet bearing intelligent life. Stipulating that evolution could
 rarely
produce sentience, it also would seem unusual and unexpected that we
 will
ever find life on another planet, let alone intelligent life. Some
 outside
observers might wonder whether life on Earth is truly intelligent,
 given
the propensity of the majority of the planet's "intelligent" population
 
for self-destructive behavior." Bob

"Science has failed to answer a most basic question... Where did the
 matter
that the first forms of life were made from, come from? Did matter just
 
suddenly appear from nothing? When we answer that question, we'll then
know where the first bit of life came from also." Steve Jones

"To predict intelligent life, scientists need to have it first.
Intelligence indicates that creation came from a Creator, as Newton
famously explained with his in-home model of the (then known) solar
system. The Bible does not say God created life elsewhere in this
universe, but indicates otherwise. As for pure science, many others are
 
right in noticing that man on his own has yet to explain how life
"happened to be" on this one planet...and this is only a sample of one.
 A
sample of one is a very dangerous result from which to extrapolate."
Paul Fleming

This week's question concerns the availability of low-cost broadband
service in the U.S. With the U.S. converting all TV broadcasts from
 analog
to digital next February, the Federal Communications Commission is
auctioning the 700 MHz frequency band vacated by TV carriers to
 wireless and
broadband communications providers. Critics have charged that large,
 fee-
charging carriers such as AT&T and Verizon Wireless have won bids for
 much of
the available spectrum. Recently, a Silicon Valley congresswoman
 proposed the
winner of the next spectrum auction be required to offer free, wireless
 
broadband service to most of the U.S. population within a decade - an
 idea
opponents charge would impose excessive regulations on the winning
 bidder.
What do you think? Should the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
mandate availability of free broadband service? Yes or no? Submit your
answer and post your comments at:
http://link.abpi.net/1.php?20080429A12.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Rich]

>>The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth.<<

How did they get there?

>>Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids.<<

Why? Becuse they just do?

>>Other tests have shown that these acids will combine to form more complex structures, again with only the addition of energy.<<

Why?


>>In addition, these acids are also found on meteorites, so even if they did not form spontaneously on earth, they would have been seeded here from space (most likely, a combination of both occurred).<<

Again, why?

[snip a few more why's]

>>And the original materials? From earlier stellar nova, which will "cook" the needed elements and simple molecules, then disperse them with massive explosions. Our solar system was formed from the remains of one or more stellar nova.<<

Where did the earlier stellar nova come from? What caused the explosions?

[Amianthus]

>>The molecules needed for the basic amino acids were present in the early earth.<<

How did they get there?

The earth was formed from them. And before you ask, it was gravity that caused them to form a sphere.

>>Laboratory tests have shown that these molecules, with the addition of energy, spontaneously form amino acids.<<

Why? Becuse they just do?

Yup. The beauty of chemical bonding.

>>Other tests have shown that these acids will combine to form more complex structures, again with only the addition of energy.<<

Why?

Again, chemical bonding. Just like when you have hydrogen and oxygen gases mixed together, and add energy, you will have water formed.

>>In addition, these acids are also found on meteorites, so even if they did not form spontaneously on earth, they would have been seeded here from space (most likely, a combination of both occurred).<<

Again, why?

[snip a few more why's]

The same reason they would have formed on earth. Addition of energy with the right mix of base molecules causes a chemical reaction that forms them.

>>And the original materials? From earlier stellar nova, which will "cook" the needed elements and simple molecules, then disperse them with massive explosions. Our solar system was formed from the remains of one or more stellar nova.<<

Where did the earlier stellar nova come from? What caused the explosions?

When a sun begins to run low on nuclear fuel for fusion, gravity causes a collapse at the core, which heats up the sun. This causes the sun to cook the heavier elements, and eventually to explode. Stellar processes are all run by gravity.