Life On Other Planets

[thesometimesaint]

Not really.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/560859/spontaneous-generation

[Robert F. Smith]

Not really.

http://www.britannic...eous-generation

Nice little blurb, but does in no way alter my statement. Archebiosis (abiogenesis) is spontaneous generation of life. It is a hypothetical notion and has never been proven. It violates the Law of Entropy, among other problems.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

The law of entropy states that in any closed system energy declines to stability. The earth is not in a closed system. We have constantly received energy from the sun for the last 4.5 +/- billion years, and will continue to receive more energy from the sun for another 4-5 billion years. Plus you add in the earths' own internal heat. That's what makes our geology, and non oceanic life on this planet possible.

Edited September 26, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[shalamabobbi]

Found this interesting site.

http://www.newground...tal/view/525347

Here's an enjoyable view if you haven't already seen it, though it has to do with the life on this planet..

[media=]

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

A diatribe against creationism (actually a straw man version of creationism) masquerading as science is probably not the best place to get an intro to abiogenesis (archebiosis). You'll note that the science side of the discussion is entirely hypothetical when it comes to the actual spontaneous generation of life. Freeman Dyson has already shown that abiogenesis is not possible.

The law of entropy states that in any closed system energy declines to stability. The earth is not in a closed system. We have constantly received energy from the sun for the last 4.5 +/- billion years, and will continue to receive more energy from the sun for another 4-5 billion years. Plus you add in the earths' own internal heat. That's what makes our geology, and non oceanic life on this planet possible.

I often hear that Earth is an open system and that solar energy supposedly reverses the effects of the Law of Entropy. That together with Earth's own heat and active geology in the mix does not actually reverse the Law of Entropy. Entropy describes the deterioration of everything at a regular rate over time, unless a living system intervenes to temporarily reverse that deleterious affect. A living system can do that either due to sentience (through intelligent design and building) or through automated systems of biological replication. We begin to deteriorate already at birth. The car we own begins to deteriorate the moment it comes off the assembly line.

Yes, chemical changes can take place and crystals can form (but that never produces life), and geological activity will continue for a long time, but all eventually shut down entirely, just as the sun itself must shut down, with all molecules and atoms and subatomic particles eventually deteriorating and drifting apart -- until all particles are equidistant from one another throughout the universe, and the temperature everywhere just above absolute zero: no stars, no planets, no galaxies, and no black holes. That is our future without sentience to counteract it. The Law of Entropy reigns supreme, and can only be reversed through intelligent design (of watches or biological systems).

[shalamabobbi]

Hi Robert,

You're not having a faith crisis are you?

The Law of Entropy reigns supreme, and can only be reversed through intelligent design (of watches or biological systems).

Life nor intelligence can alter the law of entropy. In order to do any useful work more energy is required than is expended(in living systems as well as in machines). There will always be waste energy or heat when any work is done. That is why the end of the universe is called the heat death of the universe. Life nor intelligence can reverse that process. That is another reason why the universe we live in cannot extend indefinitely into the past. I may help you gain an appreciation for the BB yet.

You should take the undergraduate courses in physics and math. I think you'd find it enjoyable.

Freeman Dyson has already shown that abiogenesis is not possible.

Is this the Freemon Dyson who wrote the following books:

Book: Origins of life 1986

Dyson suggest a model for the origins of life. It is, as he readily admits, an idealized model, ignoring, as it were, many of the details. Nevertheless, it offers a good starting point for further study of the Oparin theory (which claims "cells came first, enzymes second, genes much later"). Taking as its starting point ten assumptions Dyson builds up a mathematical model that graphically illustrates how life could have started,...

While it may be hard for the layman to judge the validity of Dyson's assumptions (i.e. whether or not they are tailored to fit his objective), the model does offer a plausible explanation of how life might have come into being.

http://www.complete-...igins.htm#basic

book: Infinite in all directions 1988

He quickly departs on an episodic guide to the scientific answers to cosmology and the origin of life. It is interesting that this kind of science has chipped away at the authority with which religious thinking usually answers such questions. Dyson spends some time discussing the invention of DNA (invented by whom? RNA, it turns out according to the generally accepted theories). He talks of the theories of Alexander Oparin ('The Origin of Life on Earth', 1924) and Manfred Eigen ('Steps Towards Life : A Perspective on Evolution'). Dyson also spends time talking about his own particular theory of the dual origin of life. All of this is pretty much outdated since the publication of this book

http://www.cs.sfu.ca...ves/000161.html

Or is it this Dyson you are referring to?

[Robert F. Smith]

Life nor intelligence can alter the law of entropy. In order to do any useful work more energy is required than is expended(in living systems as well as in machines). There will always be waste energy or heat when any work is done. That is why the end of the universe is called the heat death of the universe. Life nor intelligence can reverse that process. That is another reason why the universe we live in cannot extend indefinitely into the past. I may help you gain an appreciation for the BB yet.

That is why I used the word "temporarily" in describing the temporary reversal through the actions of life. A watch cannot create itself, and as I pointed out to you, as soon as that watch is created it begins to deteriorate. I also described for you the inevitable heat death of the universe. Life can theoretically be designed, but it cannot happen spontaneously (abiogenesis is impossible). See http://www.edge.org/discourse/creation/creation_index.html for a recent view on designing and developing synthetic life.

I fully appreciate the Big Bang. I recall when I was taking high school physics back in the 1950s, most of us still believed in the Steady State theory and we carried around slide-rules (no hand calculators then). Of course we can't quite get back to the BB itself, nor can we understand what existed before it, if anything. Science is limited in that respect. The notion of a multiverse, or other universes or dimensions is so far merely theoretical.

For the idea of gods and angels able to traverse vast distances with relative ease, or to deal with novae and black holes without danger, something has to be completely out of synch with standard physics, but we'll see someday just what it is all about.

Is this the Freemon Dyson who wrote the following books:

Book: Origins of life 1986

And 2nd ed in 1999.

I was referring to Allen Lambert's earlier conversation with you in which he said that physicist Dyson had made an "analysis of the problems of origin of life, of the impossibility by known physics and chemistry to account for the transition from physical chemistry of initial (hypothesized) conditions to the biochemistry of 'life'." As you correctly pointed out in reply, Dyson actively explored several scenarios.

However, he found no actual method by which abiogenesis could take place, nor has any other scientist. The implication should be clear.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[shalamabobbi]

For the idea of gods and angels able to traverse vast distances with relative ease, or to deal with novae and black holes without danger, something has to be completely out of synch with standard physics, but we'll see someday just what it is all about.

Which is why I think the visible explorable universe is a subset of something more vast. But that is a proposition of faith.

However, he found no actual method by which abiogenesis could take place, nor has any other scientist. The implication should be clear.

Ah, so your argument is resting on the idea that if it were possible we should have figured it out by now? But we haven't yet so it is impossible?

I didn't find anything in the video I posted (about abiogenesis) implausible much less impossible.

If it were all done in a lab more slowly (instead of synthetically creating DNA insertions) this would qualify, no? This would be the good experiment vs the "bad experiment" as Dyson refers to it in the comments section.

Of course we would then say "well the lab experimenter still plays the role of God" and we are back to square one when discussing the meta-physical. But that isn't within the perview of science.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

That is why I used the word "temporarily" in describing the temporary reversal through the actions of life. A watch cannot create itself, and as I pointed out to you, as soon as that watch is created it begins to deteriorate. I also described for you the inevitable heat death of the universe. Life can theoretically be designed, but it cannot happen spontaneously (abiogenesis is impossible). See http://www.edge.org/...tion_index.html for a recent view on designing and developing synthetic life.

I fully appreciate the Big Bang. I recall when I was taking high school physics back in the 1950s, most of us still believed in the Steady State theory and we carried around slide-rules (no hand calculators then). Of course we can't quite get back to the BB itself, nor can we understand what existed before it, if anything. Science is limited in that respect. The notion of a multiverse, or other universes or dimensions is so far merely theoretical.

For the idea of gods and angels able to traverse vast distances with relative ease, or to deal with novae and black holes without danger, something has to be completely out of synch with standard physics, but we'll see someday just what it is all about.

And 2nd ed in 1999.

I was referring to Allen Lambert's earlier conversation with you in which he said that physicist Dyson had made an "analysis of the problems of origin of life, of the impossibility by known physics and chemistry to account for the transition from physical chemistry of initial (hypothesized) conditions to the biochemistry of 'life'." As you correctly pointed out in reply, Dyson actively explored several scenarios.

However, he found no actual method by which abiogenesis could take place, nor has any other scientist. The implication should be clear.

OH that old "Watch Maker" canard. You can do better than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

Though more needs to be learned Abiogenesis is well accepted by the scientific community. ALL of life is a series of chemical reactions. There is no need for a God(intelligence) to be involved in them.

Slide rulers the ultimate non electric hand held calculator.

I don't understand your hesitation about theoretical science, after all it is still the Atomic Theory, the Germ Theory, the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity.

I have no problem with Gods or Angels. But putting them into science makes hash of science. We'd be better off painting ourselves blue and dancing around the trees to appeal to the Gods. I too expect that someday we'll know all about both science and Gods, However today probably isn't going to be that day.

It took Newton to explain gravity, and he had to invent a whole new math. Einstein explained gravity better on the mega scale. QM explains gravity better on the micro scale. That doesn't mean that prior to those theories the implications of there lack were right.

[ERayR]

Though more needs to be learned Abiogenesis is well accepted by the scientific community.

So was the concept of a flat earth 1000 years ago. Perhaps another 1000 will show the fallacies not yet evident in current theories. Or it may prove them solid but for me it is too early to hang my eternal well being on them.

[Robert F. Smith]

Which is why I think the visible explorable universe is a subset of something more vast. But that is a proposition of faith.

Ah, so your argument is resting on the idea that if it were possible we should have figured it out by now? But we haven't yet so it is impossible?

I didn't find anything in the video I posted (about abiogenesis) implausible much less impossible.

If it were all done in a lab more slowly (instead of synthetically creating DNA insertions) this would qualify, no? This would be the good experiment vs the "bad experiment" as Dyson refers to it in the comments section.

Of course we would then say "well the lab experimenter still plays the role of God" and we are back to square one when discussing the meta-physical. But that isn't within the perview of science.

I don't believe in metaphysics or the supernatural, so I am naturally favoring the scenario in which scientists and technologists design life in the lab. I wouldn't mind them showing how spontaneous generation of life in fact took place without human interference, but all have failed on that score so far. It is a bridge too far. So I think that synthetic life forms will be created by humans first, perhaps with cybernetic assistance. I don't know whether this will mean that some version of Frankenstein's monster will ensue, but it is a good story-line.

[Robert F. Smith]

OH that old "Watch Maker" canard. You can do better than that.

http://en.wikipedia....chmaker_analogy

Though more needs to be learned Abiogenesis is well accepted by the scientific community. ALL of life is a series of chemical reactions. There is no need for a God(intelligence) to be involved in them.

Correct. "Abiogenesis is well accepted by the scientific community," and they haven't the foggiest idea how it can be done. They've tried everything, and always failed. I think that they should continue to try, but most of them will take what they know of the constituent elements of life and synthesize life first. That's the reason for the old canard about the watch maker. Intelligent design is the warp and woof of technology in modern times, and was also central when the first tool-making began (chimps can make tools).

I don't understand your hesitation about theoretical science, after all it is still the Atomic Theory, the Germ Theory, the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity.

I have no problem with science. I love it. God expects us to use it as cleverly as possible.

I have no problem with Gods or Angels. But putting them into science makes hash of science. We'd be better off painting ourselves blue and dancing around the trees to appeal to the Gods. I too expect that someday we'll know all about both science and Gods, However today probably isn't going to be that day.

That is because you place gods and angels in a metaphysical or supernatural category (as in normative Christian-Jewish-Muslim theology), which is not part of Mormon theology. Instead, you need to think of a monistic universe with natural law and natural gods and angels (very advanced sentient beings), and the complete absence of any law-abrogating miracles.

It took Newton to explain gravity, and he had to invent a whole new math [the calculus]. Einstein explained gravity better on the mega scale. QM explains gravity better on the micro scale. That doesn't mean that prior to those theories the implications of there lack were right.

Without Einsteinian mechanics you cannot send a man to the Moon, nor can you understand the Book of Abraham. We are often bedeviled by limited theories. We are still waiting to discover what dark energy and dark matter might be and how they function.

[thesometimesaint]

Correct. "Abiogenesis is well accepted by the scientific community," and they haven't the foggiest idea how it can be done. They've tried everything, and always failed. I think that they should continue to try, but most of them will take what they know of the constituent elements of life and synthesize life first. That's the reason for the old canard about the watch maker. Intelligent design is the warp and woof of technology in modern times, and was also central when the first tool-making began (chimps can make tools).

I have no problem with science. I love it. God expects us to use it as cleverly as possible.

That is because you place gods and angels in a metaphysical or supernatural category (as in normative Christian-Jewish-Muslim theology), which is not part of Mormon theology. Instead, you need to think of a monistic universe with natural law and natural gods and angels (very advanced sentient beings), and the complete absence of any law-abrogating miracles.

Without Einsteinian mechanics you cannot send a man to the Moon, nor can you understand the Book of Abraham. We are often bedeviled by limited theories. We are still waiting to discover what dark energy and dark matter might be and how they function.

We have synthesized RNA and DNA. I'd hardly call that a failure. Part and parcel of so called intelligent design is irreducible complexity. We have demonstrated that is not the case. Simple chemical reactions don't need a God(intelligence) to guide them. They do them by themselves.

That living animals have a type of intelligence is not the issue, that is a given. That humans are vastly more intelligent than even our closest cousins the great Apes is equally not the issue. The issue before us is God(intelligence) required for simple chemical reactions to take place. The answer for a scientific standpoint is NO.

That's good to hear.

As a Mormon I am a Christian. I just don't buy into much of what reactionary Christianity poses as science. Neither should the Saints.

I like miracles. What I can't do is use science to explain them. I have no problem with admitting when I don't know something. However I do have a problem when someone tries to convince me that lightening bolts are just Zeus's way of punishing man.

Simple Newtonian physics got us to the moon and the other planets in our solar system. The only way to successfully understand the BoA is a geocentric universe.

[Robert F. Smith]

We have synthesized RNA and DNA. I'd hardly call that a failure. Part and parcel of so called intelligent design is irreducible complexity. We have demonstrated that is not the case. Simple chemical reactions don't need a God(intelligence) to guide them. They do them by themselves.

I guess you did not read what I wrote on this issue. So, once again: Human scientists are likely to design artificial, synthetic life, probably in this century. XNA work is tending in the direction right now. However, it has not yet been fully done. Only some of the necessary constituents have been created in the lab.

The notion that life creates itself, or that "they do by themselves" is just silly. Scientists have faced complete failure in trying to find a way in which abiogenesis can occur. We may be able to design life, just as we design watches, but sentience is required to design and build life. You are introducing "god" into the discussion for no rational reason I can think of.

That living animals have a type of intelligence is not the issue, that is a given. That humans are vastly more intelligent than even our closest cousins the great Apes is equally not the issue. The issue before us is God(intelligence) required for simple chemical reactions to take place. The answer for a scientific standpoint is NO.

Again, you are introducing non sequiturs here. Why?

As a Mormon I am a Christian. I just don't buy into much of what reactionary Christianity poses as science. Neither should the Saints.

I like miracles. What I can't do is use science to explain them. I have no problem with admitting when I don't know something. However I do have a problem when someone tries to convince me that lightening bolts are just Zeus's way of punishing man.

Miracles by their very nature abrogate natural law, which is why scientists often reject religions which are in favor of miracles. You seem to have missed that point.

Simple Newtonian physics got us to the moon and the other planets in our solar system. The only way to successfully understand the BoA is a geocentric universe.

You need to take a few courses in physics, with an emphasis on astrophysics, and then carefully read the Book of Abraham. I'd be very interested to read your research paper on the subject.

Meantime, You may be correct about Newtonian mechanics being used on our Moon and other planetary missions (inaccuracies being corrected in flight), although Newtonian mechanics cannot accurately provide the orbit of Mercury, and a GPS system depends on Einsteinian mechanics to remain accurate. The same applies to nuclear bombs. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html . http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&key=BEM77 . http://www.whillyard.com/science-pages/relativity.html .

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

I guess you did not read what I wrote on this issue. So, once again: Human scientists are likely to design artificial, synthetic life, probably in this century. XNA work is tending in the direction right now. However, it has not yet been fully done. Only some of the necessary constituents have been created in the lab.

The notion that life creates itself, or that "they do by themselves" is just silly. Scientists have faced complete failure in trying to find a way in which abiogenesis can occur. We may be able to design life, just as we design watches, but sentience is required to design and build life. You are introducing "god" into the discussion for no rational reason I can think of.

Again, you are introducing non sequiturs here. Why?

Miracles by their very nature abrogate natural law, which is why scientists often reject religions which are in favor of miracles. You seem to have missed that point.

You need to take a few courses in physics, with an emphasis on astrophysics, and then carefully read the Book of Abraham. I'd be very interested to read your research paper on the subject.

Meantime, You may be correct about Newtonian mechanics being used on our Moon and other planetary missions (inaccuracies being corrected in flight), although Newtonian mechanics cannot accurately provide the orbit of Mercury, and a GPS system depends on Einsteinian mechanics to remain accurate. The same applies to nuclear bombs. See http://hyperphysics....iv/reldop2.html . http://relativity.li...003-1&key=BEM77 . http://www.whillyard...relativity.html .

I always read what you post. I find it interesting and challenging even if I don't always agree or respond.

The use of God or intelligence is not needed. The Law of Parsimony is directly applicable here. There is no need for some wild Rube Goldberg "intelligent design" injection to make chemistry work. An easy way to look at this is to do an experiment. Burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and you get water. Is God or intelligence needed force those two atoms of hydrogen to combine with that one atom of oxygen. NO. They do it by themselves. We are just duplicating the process.

I see no need to go to completion. If I wish to describe on a blueprint how a house is built I need not actually build a house to show it.

Abiogenesis works. It has been demonstrated in nature and the lab. Far from a failure it is a well accepted fact, even if more needs to be learned. The clockmaker canard has been refuted for a long time now.

I said I have no problems with miracles what I can not do is use science to explain them. For the simple reason that once they are explained by science they cease to be miracles in the Supernatural sense of the word. Modern medical is truly miraculous, not because we can't explain it, but because we can. Moreover we all benefit from the results.

I like Newton, and Einstein, and what little I understand of QM, but each is based on completely different models. So Newton tells me how that bomb falls. Einstein(actually Fermi) tells me how thermonuclear reactions(bomb) work, and QM is needed for how the sub-nuclear works. Something even the great Einstein never did reconcile.

I have a side interest in those subjects, but not enough to have any desire to go back to school just to take them. I've already taken three years of chemistry, and two years of physics in college. Plus I am a voracious reader of scientific journals and reports. So I understand them well enough for my own purposes. My own specific interests are in the social sciences particularly Sociology, Psychology, and Physical Anthropology. Writing papers for school on any subject is the last things I have any desire to do, and at 61 years old I'm not likely to change my mind on that one. Though every few years I kick around the idea of writing my opus magnum "Why We Do The Things We Do". It's either going to be the shortest book in the world or the longest.

I read the BoA in rotation with the Church's curriculum. Plus I have books by LDS authors on the subject. I quite enjoy them. To my understanding the best way to understand the BoA is with a geocentric universe. Though even that does no real justice to either Abraham or our heliocentric solar system. I sure wouldn't try to submit a paper to Astronomy magazine on the scientific merits of the BoA.

[Robert F. Smith]

The use of God or intelligence is not needed. The Law of Parsimony is directly applicable here. There is no need for some wild Rube Goldberg "intelligent design" injection to make chemistry work. An easy way to look at this is to do an experiment. Burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and you get water. Is God or intelligence needed force those two atoms of hydrogen to combine with that one atom of oxygen. NO. They do it by themselves. We are just duplicating the process.

I agree basically. After all, when you, me, or a god builds a watch or uses chemistry, we are using our intelligence to operate in a natural universe. However, you clearly don't understand what I have been saying along these lines, or you would not have made this statement here.

I see no need to go to completion. If I wish to describe on a blueprint how a house is built I need not actually build a house to show it.

Is this your admission that abiogenesis has not and cannot be demonstrated? That you need only assert it?

Abiogenesis works. It has been demonstrated in nature and the lab. Far from a failure it is a well accepted fact, even if more needs to be learned. The clockmaker canard has been refuted for a long time now.

CFR that "Abiogenesis works. It has been demonstrated in nature and the lab."

"even if more needs to be learned." ??

You are trying to have it both ways! There has never been any demonstration of abiogenesis, despite many clever attempts. Perhaps you are erroneously equating the scientific effort to create synthetic life with abiogenesis. If so, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word.

I said I have no problems with miracles what I can not do is use science to explain them. For the simple reason that once they are explained by science they cease to be miracles in the Supernatural sense of the word. Modern medical is truly miraculous, not because we can't explain it, but because we can. Moreover we all benefit from the results.

That only tells me that you want to have the broadest possible semantic range for "miracle" or "supernatural" in this discussion, and thereby ignore the issue I raised in a logical, scientific context.

I read the BoA in rotation with the Church's curriculum. Plus I have books by LDS authors on the subject. I quite enjoy them. To my understanding the best way to understand the BoA is with a geocentric universe. Though even that does no real justice to either Abraham or our heliocentric solar system. I sure wouldn't try to submit a paper to Astronomy magazine on the scientific merits of the BoA.

I would still like to understand why you believe that the BofA is geocentric. Various people have made that claim, but I just don't see it. Please enlighten me.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree basically. After all, when you, me, or a god builds a watch or uses chemistry, we are using our intelligence to operate in a natural universe. However, you clearly don't understand what I have been saying along these lines, or you would not have made this statement here.

Is this your admission that abiogenesis has not and cannot be demonstrated? That you need only assert it?

CFR that "Abiogenesis works. It has been demonstrated in nature and the lab."

"even if more needs to be learned." ??

You are trying to have it both ways! There has never been any demonstration of abiogenesis, despite many clever attempts. Perhaps you are erroneously equating the scientific effort to create synthetic life with abiogenesis. If so, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word.

That only tells me that you want to have the broadest possible semantic range for "miracle" or "supernatural" in this discussion, and thereby ignore the issue I raised in a logical, scientific context.

I would still like to understand why you believe that the BofA is geocentric. Various people have made that claim, but I just don't see it. Please enlighten me.

If I or anyone else drops a piece of Iron onto the ground it rusts. God, me, or some intelligence is not needed to make it rust. The forming of simple organic compounds doesn't need God, me, or some intelligence to form. The combining of simple organic compounds doesn't need God, me, or some intelligence to combine. Repeated often enough they form very simple Amino Acids, an so forth and so on until RNA then DNA form. RNA and DNA are the building block of life as we know it. That is a very condensed form of what actually took place about 3.5 billion years ago. Whether God, or intelligence was involved is a religious issue and not an issue science can address.

Is it God, intelligence, that keeps the earth rotating around the sun because I sure don't or is it gravity and angular momentum?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

We have a Theory of Gravity. It does a pretty good job of explaining gravity. Do we know all there is to know about gravity? NO. Does that mean we have to throw out Gravity? I sure hope not. We have no clue as to what electricity is beyond the flow of electrons(Another theoretical experiment/idea). Do we get rid of all our electronics until we know all there is to know? Not on a bet. Abiogenesis like any scientific theory is simply the best, taking into account all the known evidence, explanation for a natural evident or object. To input any God, or intelligence to any scientific theory, including Abiogenesis, is beyond the scope of science.

Neither God, or intelligence is required to make natural processes work. I don't know much simpler I can put it to be understood. More over ANYTHING that needs to invoke ANY God or intelligence to work is not science. It is by definition the Supernatural. Religion = the supernatural. Religion, including that of so called "Intelligent Design", makes hash out of science. He/She/It throws a great big unknowable "X" into any equation. IE; 10 x God = anything I want it to.

See http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=2&id=627

[shalamabobbi]

...

Makes you feel a little bit lonely, doesn't it?

[Robert F. Smith]

If I or anyone else drops a piece of Iron onto the ground it rusts. God, me, or some intelligence is not needed to make it rust. The forming of simple organic compounds doesn't need God, me, or some intelligence to form. The combining of simple organic compounds doesn't need God, me, or some intelligence to combine. Repeated often enough they form very simple Amino Acids, an so forth and so on until RNA then DNA form. RNA and DNA are the building block of life as we know it. That is a very condensed form of what actually took place about 3.5 billion years ago. Whether God, or intelligence was involved is a religious issue and not an issue science can address.

Is it God, intelligence, that keeps the earth rotating around the sun because I sure don't or is it gravity and angular momentum?

In the midst of your rant about God and rust, you apparently missed the point that no such jump from organic molecules to RNA and DNA has ever taken place, although you do pointedly ignore the fact that scientists can probably design such synthetic life forms in the near future. You really need to read the following Wikipedia article:

See http://en.wikipedia....Urey_experiment

This is your pretended answer to my CFR request? This does not explain Abiogenesis, "the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules." Miller-Urey and their successors have done some nice chemistry experiments which any high school chemistry student can do to create pre-biotic amino acids. None of them has life could begin spontaneously and none has found a way to explain it convincingly, even theoretically.

You might also have taken note of these words from that same article: "The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed. This has been used to infer an origin of life outside of Earth: the panspermia hypothesis." Of course, LDS theology favors transmission of life to Earth.

We have a Theory of Gravity. It does a pretty good job of explaining gravity. Do we know all there is to know about gravity? NO. Does that mean we have to throw out Gravity? I sure hope not. We have no clue as to what electricity is beyond the flow of electrons(Another theoretical experiment/idea). Do we get rid of all our electronics until we know all there is to know? Not on a bet. Abiogenesis like any scientific theory is simply the best, taking into account all the known evidence, explanation for a natural evident or object. To input any God, or intelligence to any scientific theory, including Abiogenesis, is beyond the scope of science.

I'll grant you that abiogenesis is considered as the best theoretical explanation by many scientists, but you virtually admit here what I have been saying all along: That is, abiogenesis has never been demonstrated or proven. Unlike the law of gravitation, it has no real purchase in science, and cannot be demonstrated.

Neither God, or intelligence is required to make natural processes work. I don't know much simpler I can put it to be understood. More over ANYTHING that needs to invoke ANY God or intelligence to work is not science. It is by definition the Supernatural. Religion = the supernatural. Religion, including that of so called "Intelligent Design", makes hash out of science. He/She/It throws a great big unknowable "X" into any equation. IE; 10 x God = anything I want it to.

Correct. Natural processes and natural laws exist and can be used by any designer to make something useful: watches, rockets, or whatever. We are only limited by our intellectual and technical capacity. There is no need for the supernatural for any purpose, unless you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue and create the subterfuge that you actually understand what you are saying here. You would have been better advised to stick to science.

See http://maxwellinstit...18&num=2&id=627

You might have taken note of the sentence in that review: "One of the most rewarding aspects of the book is the juxtaposition of articles whose conclusions or methodologies do not agree with one another." Would that you had learned that lesson early, so that we could carry on a meaningful discussion.

You still haven't told me why you assume the BofA to be geocentric. Are you merely depending on the work of others? And ignoring opposing opinions. Is that how you do science?

Edited October 5, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[shalamabobbi]

In the midst of your rant about God and rust, you apparently missed the point that no such jump from organic molecules to RNA and DNA has ever taken place, although you do pointedly ignore the fact that scientists can probably design such synthetic life forms in the near future. You really need to read the following Wikipedia article:

http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/

http://www.wired.com...n/#previouspost

http://www.wired.com...d/#previouspost

The fact that scientists use words such as "might" and "may have" does not make their conclusions any less likely than the use of dogmatic assertion makes your particular beliefs/viewpoint any more likely.

Natural processes and natural laws exist and can be used by any designer to make something useful: watches, rockets, or whatever. We are only limited by our intellectual and technical capacity.

Wrong Robert. You are displaying a complete lack of awareness of the laws of thermodynamics here. Your completely natural Gods are subject to natural laws. You have no means of running an end route around the law of entropy and the degradation of useful energy over time. What you are proposing is a perpetual motion machine problem of the tallest order.

There is no need for the supernatural for any purpose, unless you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue and create the subterfuge that you actually understand what you are saying here. You would have been better advised to stick to science.

Irony anyone? Again a God that is not subject to thermodynamic constraints for all practical purposes could be defined as *supernatural* as far as science is concerned.

Edited October 5, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

To try to inject religion into science makes hash of both. I have no problem with God using a process to create everything including life itself.

[3DOP]

There still isn't anybody except me, the non-LDS, who thinks life on other planets is "unlikely"? Only 1 out of 59 skeptical about life on other planets? I am not saying it is impossible. I am just amazed at the unanimity of opinion. I just can't believe this is representative of mainstream America. Is there some kind of LDS revelation that I don't know about in this regard?

Edited October 7, 2012 by 3DOP

[shalamabobbi]

There still isn't anybody except me, the non-LDS, who thinks life on other planets is "unlikely"? Only 1 out of 59 skeptical about life on other planets? I am not saying it is impossible. I am just amazed at the unanimity of opinion. I just can't believe this is representative of mainstream America. Is there some kind of LDS revelation that I don't know about in this regard?

Pearl of Great Price, book of Moses

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

http://www.lds.org/s...s/1.39?lang=eng

And for the non LDS crowd there is the statement by Jodie Foster in Contact, "But I'd guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space."

[3DOP]

Pearl of Great Price, book of Moses

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

http://www.lds.org/s...s/1.39?lang=eng

And for the non LDS crowd there is the statement by Jodie Foster in Contact, "But I'd guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space."

Heh!

Well said by Jodie...very homey and countrified humor almost..."it seems like, "says the movie...but I guess I don't see space as necessarily a waste. Size is so relative. What difference if space is big or little? God could have made us smaller or larger too. Anyway...thanks for the Latter-day revelation shalamabobbi, although I don't know how if I were LDS that would make me believe that life on other planets was more likely.

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP

There are limits as to how large and small adult humans come. On average we're less than about 2 meters tall.

http://www.newground...tal/view/525347

Edited October 7, 2012 by thesometimesaint