Cosmos - Are You Watching?

[thesometimesaint]

Matter is not eternal. The universe had a beginning. It will have a end.

 

Science can't posit any supernatural being or force.

[cdowis]

Matter is not eternal. The universe had a beginning. It will have a end.

 

 

 

I understand that this is in dispute -- the "recycle" theory or the "fizzle out" theory, depending on the mass of the universe.

[Gray]

Evolution does not create intelligent information. No observation as ever documented evolution creating new and inteligent information. God is a designer just as both of us are also designers.

 

Actually that's exactly what it does. And continues to do every day. 

[Gray]

There are many more challenges to abiogenesis. In the presence of oxygen everything dies. No oxygen and UV light kills it. 

 

As for "plausible models" it is interesting that in the light of no direct observable evidence that these are considered plausible. 

 

So far, those who are only looking to confirm their belief that only natural causes exist, have done so. 

 

Some of it has been confirmed under lab conditions. But at best we'll only be able to show how it could have happened, since all of the original evidence has been destroyed.

 

 

So far, those who are only looking to confirm their belief that only natural causes exist, have done so. 

 

So far there has arisen no evidence of an unnatural cause. Everything we know so far points to natural causes for everything. You can hardly fault people for confirmation bias when there has been no contradictory evidence. 

[Rob Osborn]

 

Actually that's exactly what it does. And continues to do every day.

Well, could you show proof of that? As far as I know they have been doing studies with quickly reproducing fruit flys making them undergo severe rates of mutations and they have yet to produce new intelligent information.

[Rob Osborn]

 

Matter is not eternal. The universe had a beginning. It will have a end.

 

Science can't posit any supernatural being or force.

 

Well, thats certainly more of your atheistic dogma. Whats new?

[Rob Osborn]

 

Some of it has been confirmed under lab conditions. But at best we'll only be able to show how it could have happened, since all of the original evidence has been destroyed.

 

 

So far there has arisen no evidence of an unnatural cause. Everything we know so far points to natural causes for everything. You can hardly fault people for confirmation bias when there has been no contradictory evidence.

So you admit there is not one single piece of evidence for abiogenesis but yet it happened anyway?

[Gray]

 

Well, could you show proof of that? As far as I know they have been doing studies with quickly reproducing fruit flys making them undergo severe rates of mutations and they have yet to produce new intelligent information.

 

Each gene mutation is new intelligent information. 

 

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

[Gray]

 

So you admit there is not one single piece of evidence for abiogenesis but yet it happened anyway?

 

No, that's not what I said. There is some evidence for it. It probably happened, but we'll never know for sure. At best it may become more and more plausible through new discoveries. 

[Gray]

 

 

Well, thats certainly more of your atheistic dogma. Whats new?

 

Mathematics and physics don't amount to "atheist dogma"

[pogi]

Each gene mutation is new intelligent information. 

 

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

 

I'm not sure what information your link provides on this subject other than explaining mutation rates.  In fact, at the bottom of the article you posted it says that when viruses mutate too frequently, they cannot "maintain the integrity of the information in their genomes."  This is called "error catastrophe."

 

The vast majority of gene mutations result in harmful and damaging effects to proteins which negatively effect organisms.  In other words, most mutations damage information. 

[Rob Osborn]

No, that's not what I said. There is some evidence for it. It probably happened, but we'll never know for sure. At best it may become more and more plausible through new discoveries.

I would like to restate what you said but with facts. Perhaps-

"Even though scientists believe abiogenesis to be reality there is no evidence for it. It may have happened if scientists can find a plausible and testable scenerio but we may never know for sure. At best it may become a plausible scenerio through new discoveries even though at this time it just remains an idea or belief.

[Rob Osborn]

131 (

Mathematics and physics don't amount to "atheist dogma"

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. All matter is eternal. Matter cannot turn into something that has no mass.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; (D&C 93:33)

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All a spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by b purer eyes;

8 We cannot a see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all b matter. (D&C 131:7-

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not sure what information your link provides on this subject other than explaining mutation rates.  In fact, at the bottom of the article you posted it says that when viruses mutate too frequently, they cannot "maintain the integrity of the information in their genomes."  This is called "error catastrophe."

 

The vast majority of gene mutations result in harmful and damaging effects to proteins which negatively effect organisms.  In other words, most mutations damage information.

 

The vast majority of gene mutations have no effect on the survivability of the organism.

[thesometimesaint]

I would like to restate what you said but with facts. Perhaps-

"Even though scientists believe abiogenesis to be reality there is no evidence for it. It may have happened if scientists can find a plausible and testable scenerio but we may never know for sure. At best it may become a plausible scenerio through new discoveries even though at this time it just remains an idea or belief.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/11432430_Abiogenic_formation_of_alkanes_in_the_Earth%27s_crust_as_a_minor_source_for_global_hydrocarbon_reservoirs/file/79e4150b54ba052a3a.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3-2LG3K2gnWvdLJavWhsYMHAm3gA&oi=scholarr

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024493704000544

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703707001949

[thesometimesaint]

131 (

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. All matter is eternal. Matter cannot turn into something that has no mass.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; (D&C 93:33)

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All a spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by b purer eyes;

8 We cannot a see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all b matter. (D&C 131:7-

 

E=MC(squared).

 

Nuclear decay.

http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/nuclear/stability.html

 

Proton decay

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

[cdowis]

del 

Edited April 8, 2014 by cdowis

[Rob Osborn]

E=MC(squared).

 

Nuclear decay.

http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/nuclear/stability.html

 

Proton decay

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

I understand decy. My point was that you cannot create nor destroy matter.

[Gray]

I'm not sure what information your link provides on this subject other than explaining mutation rates.  In fact, at the bottom of the article you posted it says that when viruses mutate too frequently, they cannot "maintain the integrity of the information in their genomes."  This is called "error catastrophe."

 

The vast majority of gene mutations result in harmful and damaging effects to proteins which negatively effect organisms.  In other words, most mutations damage information. 

 

And those that aren't harmful represent new information. 

[Gray]

I would like to restate what you said but with facts. Perhaps-

"Even though scientists believe abiogenesis to be reality there is no evidence for it. It may have happened if scientists can find a plausible and testable scenerio but we may never know for sure. At best it may become a plausible scenerio through new discoveries even though at this time it just remains an idea or belief.

 

This doesn't quite represent my position. There IS evidence for abiogensis. Not sufficient evidence at present, maybe never.

[Gray]

131 (

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. All matter is eternal. Matter cannot turn into something that has no mass.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; (D&C 93:33)

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All a spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by b purer eyes;

8 We cannot a see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all b matter. (D&C 131:7-

 

Anything that contradicts (or that you think contradicts) the D&C does not  automatically fall into the category of atheist dogma. 

[thesometimesaint]

I understand decy. My point was that you cannot create nor destroy matter.

 

Incorrect.  E=MC(squared) That is how our sun works. It combines Hydrogen in a thermonuclear explosion to form Helium in a release of excess energy.

[Brian 2.0]

I understand decy. My point was that you cannot create nor destroy matter.

Incorrect.  E=MC(squared) That is how our sun works. It combines Hydrogen in a thermonuclear explosion to form Helium in a release of excess energy.

 

The first question to clear up is this...  Rob, do you consider "energy" to be "matter"? 

[thesometimesaint]

The first question to clear up is this...  Rob, do you consider "energy" to be "matter"? 

 

They are different aspects of the same thing.

[Brian 2.0]

They are different aspects of the same thing.

 

I understand but I don't know how he's approaching it:

 

A)  Matter cannot be destroyed, it only changes its form into energy

B)  Matter is destroyed when it changes into energy