Gotta Vent

[DaForce]

While very interesting, that article shows an example of inter-species evolution. The bird did not turn into another animal

LOL. I guess he wants real-time rendering too.

[beestee]

Since scripture seems to be valuless in your eyes, I will quote scientists and their research:

Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in th past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth's primordial atmosphere was "reducing." That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, 'none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.' How solid was Miller's presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?

In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: "These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed...No direct evidence has yet been found." - Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: "Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions...Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it." - Technology Review, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: "Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller's assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere...suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere...Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."

Why, then, do many still hold that earth's early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, "laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution...would be largely inhibited by oxygen" and because compounds such as amino acids "are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen."

Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing.

There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

[studioDIM]

There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

They represent the ingenuity and the means to speed up an otherwise extremely long process.
There are emergent behaviors in human beings, animals, insects and clay pancakes, showing how simple it would be to discover "evolution" even in unanimated matter.
Evolution from a Darwinian standpoint might need adjustment, as did genetics from the time of Mendel and his peas.
It is however a HUGE step to discard evolution entirely, as if coupled with the observable emergent behaviours (ie. a bird taking a place in a flock has NO instructions regarding it in his DNA, and it could never have. The DNA is a general, very adaptable ruleset, which under different conditions spontaneously drives a living being to the most efficient solution to solve a problem.), it is clear evolution was NOT entirely at random.
It rather behaved like a rock falling into a valley from the top of a hill: however many attempts one does, he will ALWAYS find it at the bottom of the valley, under earth conditions (gravity, temperature, pressure, and so on).

Does it look like a self-sustaining assumption to some of you?
It WELL should.
That's how life behaves.
Critical masses, activation barriers, spontaneous reactions (rather like light coke and mentos. no holy spirit to drive chemistry.) and entropy are something we experience every day.

Why would we not understand the whole world, then?
Because of a simple equation between the possible number of permutations within our neuronal population's configurations, and the number of possible permutations amongst the universe's matter.
We're PART of it, hence can't contain the lot in its raw form.
We rather need to simplify, put contouring conditions to problems, discretize quantities with some inherent error factor and so on.
It sure is prone to mistakes.
It sure as hell is more informed and paced than tossing observable, scientifical, politically and morally unbiased facts for unfathomable, politically and morally biased divulgant theories.

Of course, in a free world, everyone can BELIEVE whatever one pleases.

Lele

[visualride]

We rather need to simplify, put contouring conditions to problems, discretize quantities with some inherent error factor and so on.

Read: Science experiment.

This thread is fun to read and participate in because of this poetic waxing and waning. Keep it up.

[studioDIM]

Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in th past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth's primordial atmosphere was "reducing." That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

Let's suppose these people you quoted are right.
Is it not true, AND observable, that there would be a GRADIENT of oxygen concentration under the sea level?
Also, life evolved in a LIQUID state, not a gaseous one, for a very simple reason: molecules and atoms in the solid state are way too ordered and chemicals can hardly travel within those; in gases, on the contrary, they are too far apart, and the cinetic energy required to make the "meetings" sufficiently probable would be so high it would probably result in degeneration of every complex structure.
In liquids, however, there is the right amount of room between molecules, and a certain propension to create concentrations and layers of similar compounds (much like water, oild and gasoline separate, on a varying scale and degree), hence favouring exchanges and reactions.
So, couple this with the gradient of oxygen concentration just below sea level, and the athmosphere could have been as full or as empty of oxygen as you want it.
Water is H2O: two hydrogen atoms and a one oxygen one.
Statistics DEMANDS that in such a solution there has to be some O2 and H2 in gaseous state.
Forget atmosphere.

Lele

[RErender]

I do not arguing against evolution per se, it is evidential that the earth is evolving and has for billions of years where we differ is in that I believe in a underlying guiding force, our God, who set into motion and interacted with His creation overtime. We believe the "Big Bang" was God pointing his finger. Genesis is not so much an allegory as it is the story of God molding the Earth in it's infancy, the "days" of the creation are not 24 hr periods they are the great epochs. What really is hard for me to believe is that you can truly believe that all this just happened by chance.

[beestee]

They represent the ingenuity and the means to speed up an otherwise extremely long process.

So all of the other elements of the experiment can be tangibly comparable, but because one element proves otherwise, it has to be justified through circular reasoning.

Schrodinger's cat comes to mind.

Assumptions are going to have to be made whether you put all of your faith in science or if you put all of your faith in God. Difference being, some of us do not want to put the majority of our trust in man. Nobody lives long enough these days to prove everything that they believe to themselves. We have to rely on either man or God to form our beliefs and understandings, I choose to believe that man is corrupt.

[visualride]

What really is hard for me to believe is that you can truly believe that all this just happened by chance.

People do amazingly stupid things all the time and die from it, but people continue to do them because the dead people can't speak up and yell "Stop!". Using this reasoning, we think that since our world evolved in a way that seems incredibly unlikely, it couldn't have happened by chance. With a universe filled with more stars than grains of sand on Earth, amazing things can, and will eventually happen by chance. We just see things from our own perspective.

With that said, I also find it unlikely that we evolved before any other intelligence. In fact other species in our galaxy probably got a billion year jump on us. Who knows if they didn't become what we think of as God.

[jujubee]

our God, who set into motion and interacted with His creation overtime

Whos god? Your god? How about all the other "gods" people believe in. Surely you are the only one that has been correct because some book and minister/priest tells you how to believe.

How about the Greek Gods? I'm sure they thought they were right. Osiris and the Egyptian gods? Baal? Nirvana (Buddhists don't have a god btw)? Krishna? What about Toltec worship, Aztec, Mayan, and Incan cultures? What about the Native American folklore of the Hare on the Turtle's back? Assuredly they all thought they had the answers and frowned upon other people's beliefs.

So what makes you so self-righteous and correct?

You say you know 'god's' existence but you truly don't. There will always be that lingering doubt (god-given or not) somewhere in the back of your mind which makes you human. The difference between me an you is that I am not afraid to listen to this doubt.

[flipside]

With that said, I also find it unlikely that we evolved before any other intelligence. In fact other species in our galaxy probably got a billion year jump on us. Who knows if they didn't become what we think of as God.

Wow, they must have vray 1.5 then!

[visualride]

They're olding out on us. We want our 1.5!

[DaForce]

Well said juju.... took the thoughts right out of my head.

[jujubee]

In fact other species in our galaxy probably got a billion year jump on us.

I keep hoping they will land in the park behind my house. Even if it's to kill me - at least I will finally know and that will be the pinacle of my life. But even if they don't kill me and I manage to get a good photo or two, no one will believe me cause of Vray.

[RErender]

our God, who set into motion and interacted with His creation overtime

Whos god? Your god? How about all the other "gods" people believe in. Surely you are the only one that has been correct because some book and minister/priest tells you how to believe.

I have not always been so strong in my beliefs, I have studied all the major religions and isms, I have thought long about the evidence and have settled on the God of the Bible as the best fit for all of it, along with anecdotal evidence of supernatural and what science does and does not explain it makes sense to me..

How about the Greek Gods? I'm sure they thought they were right. Osiris and the Egyptian gods? Baal?

The Bible speaks of gods and other principalities, these are likely beings that followed Satan when he rebeled against God. Physics points to dimensions other than our percieved 4, the question is what goes on in these dimensions.

So what makes you so self-righteous and correct?

Just like you I have my conclusions of the given evidence, obviously someone needs to be right not all answers are true. I am not trying to force my views on anyone. Me and the others are just laying out some of the reasons why we believe what we believe. How have I come of as self-rghteous? No one has attacked you for your beliefs interesting how you and the aother feel the need to insult as part of your arguments. Why are you so threatened by my beliefs?

You say you know 'god's' existence but you truly don't. There will always be that lingering doubt (god-given or not) somewhere in the back of your mind which makes you human. The difference between me an you is that I am not afraid to listen to this doubt.

I am not a fearfull man, I have spent time in many risky situations, I drive too fast, ride mortycycles and bungie chord. I have put myself between a gun and a stranger more than once. I am not afraid to believe in what I have come to accept to be true.

[Da_elf]

Re: Gotta Vent

....
It has to do with a thread where ipraiseg was asked to take the words "Always thanks JesusChrist" out of his signature. Apparently someone thought that "This is not an appropriate forum for that sorta stuff." He further wrote, "Thank you for removing it from your signature. Just a safety precaution.".....
Craig

gee. after seeing how this thread has become a theological arguement i believe that removing the signature was correct and the matter should have stayed dead. Both vlado and peter have in the past discouraged theological and political discussions for just these reasons. maybe siggraph has them too busy to notice