The missing ingredient is ... probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 11:38 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:25 AM)le_bard Wrote:  People have given you articles about abiogenesis, which you refused to read thinking that it had nothing to do with anything. Either that or you read it and really thought that formation of hydrocarbons has nothing to do with the formation of carbon based life.
Yes, I really think this article is about energy reserves and says nothing about the origin of life:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v41...6522a.html
Quote:Natural hydrocarbons are largely formed by the thermal decomposition of organic matter (thermogenesis) or by microbial processes (bacteriogenesis). But the discovery of methane at an East Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent1 and in other crustal fluids supports the occurrence of an abiogenic source of hydrocarbons2, 3, 4. These abiogenic hydrocarbons are generally formed by the reduction of carbon dioxide, a process which is thought to occur during magma cooling5 and—more commonly—in hydrothermal systems during water–rock interactions, for example involving Fischer–Tropsch reactions and the serpentinization of ultramafic rocks6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Suggestions that abiogenic hydrocarbons make a significant contribution to economic hydrocarbon reservoirs2 have been difficult to resolve, in part owing to uncertainty in the carbon isotopic signatures for abiogenic versus thermogenic hydrocarbons4, 10. Here, using carbon and hydrogen isotope analyses of abiogenic methane and higher hydrocarbons in crystalline rocks of the Canadian shield, we show a clear distinction between abiogenic and thermogenic hydrocarbons. The progressive isotopic trends for the series of C1–C4 alkanes indicate that hydrocarbon formation occurs by way of polymerization of methane precursors. Given that these trends are not observed in the isotopic signatures of economic gas reservoirs, we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons.
At first I thought you guys were just stubborn, but now I'm thinking you actually believe what you're saying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:29 AM)donotwant Wrote:  It is not proven that life on earth arised from abiogenesis but it has been proven in a lab that life can arise from abiogenesis.
Let's see specific peer-reviewed evidence, rather than a link to a search with results on energy reserves. Rolleyes And who won the Nobel prize for doing this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 11:29 AM)donotwant Wrote:  It is not proven that life on earth arised from abiogenesis but it has been proven in a lab that life can arise from abiogenesis.
Let's see specific peer-reviewed evidence, rather than a link to a search with results on energy reserves. Rolleyes And who won the Nobel prize for doing this?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:44 AM
The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 11:29 AM)donotwant Wrote:  It is not proven that life on earth arised from abiogenesis but it has been proven in a lab that life can arise from abiogenesis.
Let's see specific peer-reviewed evidence, rather than a link to a search with results on energy reserves. Rolleyes And who won the Nobel prize for doing this?

Now you're just lying, you were provided with at least 5 links in the other thread.

You still have presented no evidence for <God exists> and yet provide <God created life> as if it as the only possible alternative to abiogenesis.

Let's see some peer-reviewed evidence for both of your claims.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Let's see specific peer-reviewed evidence, rather than a link to a search with results on energy reserves. Rolleyes And who won the Nobel prize for doing this?

I don't think you understand how this works, dude. There is no logical reason why abiogenesis should be impossible. That's on you to demonstrate.

But, uh, if you want to keep on rocking the ol' "if it hasn't been proven then it didn't happen" fallacy, go ahead.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:42 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 11:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Let's see specific peer-reviewed evidence, rather than a link to a search with results on energy reserves. Rolleyes And who won the Nobel prize for doing this?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/
Peer-reviewed please, not someone's paraphrase.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:55 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:44 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 11:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Let's see specific peer-reviewed evidence, rather than a link to a search with results on energy reserves. Rolleyes And who won the Nobel prize for doing this?

Now you're just lying, you were provided with at least 5 links in the other thread.
Five links on energy reserves, not the origin of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 12:07 PM by rampant.a.i..)
The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:55 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 11:44 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Now you're just lying, you were provided with at least 5 links in the other thread.
Five links on energy reserves, not the origin of life.

[Image: a5y6e8e8.jpg]

(25-02-2014 03:22 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  "They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”"

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/

http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n....1086.html

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918...c333fe7f95

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...173205.htm

http://m.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

Perhaps your Abiogenesis question would be better suited for a thread about Abiogenesis.

It's a common Theist mistake to believe science is only valid with an origin of life theory, when no such theory is necessary for scientific inquiry to be valid.

It's a wonderful illustration of the significant difficulty Theists have with probability: They present a story of the origin of life with no proof or evidence to support it, and assert it is more valid than theories with empirical evidence behind them.

Theists don't seem to understand the burden of proof, evidence, or why presenting a false dilemma is unscientific, unfounded, and simply wrong.

And for the 3rd-4th time:

Do you have any peer-reviewed (your standard) evidence to support:

<God exists>
Or
<God created life>?

Without evidence, neither of these claims can be used in an alternative hypothesis.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:13 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:58 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/
Not peer reviewed.

Quote:http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n....1086.html
Starts with RNA.

Quote:http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918...c333fe7f95
Doesn't mention origin of life.

Quote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...173205.htm
Not peer reviewed.

Quote:http://m.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
Not peer reviewed, no claim that it could have formed naturally.

Remember, when scientists create something, it's an instance of intelligent design.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:23 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 12:13 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 11:58 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/
Not peer reviewed.

Quote:http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n....1086.html
Starts with RNA.

Quote:http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918...c333fe7f95
Doesn't mention origin of life.

Quote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...173205.htm
Not peer reviewed.

Quote:http://m.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
Not peer reviewed, no claim that it could have formed naturally.

Remember, when scientists create something, it's an instance of intelligent design.

...

Are you really that stupid?

Protip: it's usually good to read and understand things before commenting on them.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: