The Great News Of The Gospel

[crowTrobot 2]

What NASA then exposed is that the conditions used to do this experiment were in fact wrong. These were not the conditions of early earth and so the experiment now holds no real weight in the scientific community

i've ask you 4 times for a reference where i can read about this NASA experiment (other than creationist literature).

no not for a christian b/c we point to what the bible says as the christian explanation.

the bible saying god did it is NOT an explanation. it is exactly the same as any other creation myth.

[Mattnxtc 0]

There are many variations on this same experiment using many different combinations of gases, and similar results come from most permutations of gases (see the above link).The real point is, though, that under certain conditions, it is possible to create amino acids and other complicated molecules in less than the billion years that you listed. It doesn't matter how ideal these conditions are, since we have the entirety of the universe to find the most ideal conditions. This is a form of the weak anthropic principle, as Crow T Robot alluded to above.

and you still miss the point...when they use the condition and elements available during the early earth...they cannot reproduce the results...Sure when you put the ideal situation you may get some though still a very small amount..but nowhere near what is necessary for life. Yes under conditions you can produce just about anything..but if those conditions arent available then how can u produce the result. Say i live in a time where there are no oranges...even if i wanted orange juice I couldnt have it. But if you simulate a scenerio where i do have oranges then we now have a situation where i can have orange juice...The problem is that isnt available to me outside of the scenerio...So the research while fascinating isnt valid

[crowTrobot 2]

and you still miss the point...when they use the condition and elements available during the early earth...they cannot reproduce the results...

we don't know what exact conditions were like on the early earth, and even if they were such that life couldn't possibly form here life could have arrived on a comet or asteroid after forming somewhere else.

[Mattnxtc 0]

good response. all i said is nobody can prove the universe is or isn't infinite, and it's egocentric to assume it is (or isn't). by egocentric i mean that your assumption, and related assumptions about complexity necessarily equaling design stem directly from your (high) estimation of the significance of your own existence.

If you put on a marathon in the middle of the race...do you jsut assume it is infinite? Of course not..u can track it back if you wish to the starting line...Yet when this logic contradicts that of the universe people come up with other alternatives to avoid being wrong

i've ask you 4 times for a reference where i can read about this NASA experiment (other than creationist literature).

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...ogy/miller.htmlhttp://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.htmlhttp://leiwenwu.tripod.com/experiment.htmi think that should be sufficient for even you crow

the bible saying god did it is NOT an explanation. it is exactly the same as any other creation myth.

and? not sure what you are tryin to say...the Bible says God created us and we are here...hmmm

[LongLiveYorke 38]

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html

Here's a quote from a link that you posted:"The current literature shows that scientists working on the origin and early evolution of life are well aware of the current theories of the earth's early atmosphere and have found that the revisions have little effect on the results of various experiments in biochemical synthesis. Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions"Thanks for the link, it backs up my point nicely.

[crowTrobot 2]

If you put on a marathon in the middle of the race...do you jsut assume it is infinite? Of course not..u can track it back if you wish to the starting line...Yet when this logic contradicts that of the universe people come up with other alternatives to avoid being wrong

you're trying to apply your limited perspective of time based on your finite life to the entire universe - we do not know if everything that exists is constrained within our time - our time may have began with the big bang, but there is no way to know what lies outside its constraints. for that matter we don't know if everything that exists is even spacially finite - for all we know there could be an infinite number of finite universes.note also that even if our universe IS all there is, inflation theory predicts it can potentially be so incredibly large that it is *effectively* infinite, with our visible universe being just a tiny part of the whole.http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...ogy/miller.htmlhttp://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.htmlhttp://leiwenwu.tripod.com/experiment.htmthanks, i'll check those out. the second one is a creationist site, but i'll read it anyway lol.

and? not sure what you are tryin to say...the Bible says God created us and we are here...hmmm

so what makes genesis special compared to other creation myths? you said the bible was an "explanation", and implied other creation myths weren't.

[Mattnxtc 0]

you're trying to apply your limited perspective of time based on your finite life to the entire universe - we do not know if everything that exists is constrained within our time - our time may have began with the big bang, but there is no way to know what lies outside its constraints. for that matter we don't know if everything that exists is even spacially finite - for all we know there could be an infinite number of finite universes.note also that even if our universe IS all there is, inflation theory predicts it can potentially be so incredibly large that it is *effectively* infinite, with our visible universe being just a tiny part of the whole.http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...ogy/miller.htmlhttp://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.htmlhttp://leiwenwu.tripod.com/experiment.htmthanks, i'll check those out. the second one is a creationist site, but i'll read it anyway lol.so what makes genesis special compared to other creation myths? you said the bible was an "explanation", and implied other creation myths weren't.

im actually applyin logic but eh..believe what you want...it seems that ur response to every logic statement is that my limited mind nonsense...ull eventually have to take a stand on somethingI didnt read fully the natcensci site but it was a book review arguing for a text book on it...So I want to add this site in...seems to be the best of all the sites as it is well documented. http://www.facingthechallenge.org/urey3.htmthe rest is just u tryin to twist words...The bible explains the order of the universe..sorry didnt know i needed to be word perfect with you...

[crowTrobot 2]

im actually applyin logic but eh..believe what you want...it seems that ur response to every logic statement is that my limited mind nonsense...ull eventually have to take a stand on something

i doubt that since i'm agnostic lol. i never said your mind was limited, just your perspective.

[brvheart 1,751]

no need to read further after this. you just demonstrated my point about the egocentric assumptions your reasoning is based on. we don't "know" the universe isn't infinite. there are some very good arguments that it may be infinite.

let's hear them... because a major component of evolution is red shift. that is, that the universe is constantly expanding. Which by definition means the universe is finite.""The most important result of cosmology, the understanding that the universe is expanding, is derived from redshift observations and quantified by Hubble's Law. Extrapolating this expansion back in time, one approaches a gravitational singularity, a rather abstract mathematical concept, which may or may not correspond to reality. This gives rise to the Big Bang theory, the dominant model in cosmology today. The age of the universe from the time of the Big Bang, was estimated to be about 13.7 billion (13.7 × 109) years, with a margin of error of about 1 % (± 200 million years), according to NASA's WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe). However, this is based on the assumption that the underlying model used for data analysis is correct. Other methods of estimating the age of the universe give different ages.A fundamental aspect of the Big Bang can be seen today in the observation that the farther away from us galaxies are, the faster they move away from us. It can also be seen in the cosmic microwave background radiation which is the much-attenuated radiation that originated soon after the Big Bang. This background radiation is remarkably uniform in all directions, which cosmologists have attempted to explain by an early period of inflationary expansion following the Big Bang.""REDSHIFT

[timwakefield 68]

let's hear them... because a major component of evolution is red shift. that is, that the universe is constantly expanding. Which by definition means the universe is finite.""The most important result of cosmology, the understanding that the universe is expanding, is derived from redshift observations and quantified by Hubble's Law. Extrapolating this expansion back in time, one approaches a gravitational singularity, a rather abstract mathematical concept, which may or may not correspond to reality. This gives rise to the Big Bang theory, the dominant model in cosmology today. The age of the universe from the time of the Big Bang, was estimated to be about 13.7 billion (13.7 × 109) years, with a margin of error of about 1 % (± 200 million years), according to NASA's WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe). However, this is based on the assumption that the underlying model used for data analysis is correct. Other methods of estimating the age of the universe give different ages.A fundamental aspect of the Big Bang can be seen today in the observation that the farther away from us galaxies are, the faster they move away from us. It can also be seen in the cosmic microwave background radiation which is the much-attenuated radiation that originated soon after the Big Bang. This background radiation is remarkably uniform in all directions, which cosmologists have attempted to explain by an early period of inflationary expansion following the Big Bang.""REDSHIFT

Hawking lecture"[Neil Turok and I] realized it was possible for the universe to come into existence, at a finite size, but nevertheless, be either a finite, or an infinitely large universe now. My talk will be about this idea, and new developments that have occur since then." - Stephen Hawking

[LongLiveYorke 38]

let's hear them... because a major component of evolution is red shift. that is, that the universe is constantly expanding. Which by definition means the universe is finite.

You're right, Braveheart. There are many different theories in modern cosmology and a lot of them border more on philosophy than proper physics. The point is that we don't know for sure the geometry of the universe, and any assertions of its form would be merely speculation. So, for sure, it would be silly to base a theory on only one form of the universe, for such a theory would hold little weight with the present knowledge and certainty of the shape of the universe.Getting back on topic, the real point about the size and shape of the universe is whether our evoking of the anthropic principle holds any merit. If the universe indeed were infinite (in space and time), the evolution of life through mere coincidence and chance, no matter how small the probability would be on an individual scale, would approach 1. But I think that, ignoring the style of the universe outside of what we call the visible universe, we can make pretty strong assertions.No one, not I nor anyone else, has the brain capacity to fathom the sheer size of even the visible universe. The amount of galaxies and the amount of stars within each of those galaxies is so large that analogies to understand the size become meaningless. Considering theories of inflation, the size of even a finite universe, I would argue, is so large that evoking the anthropic principle indeed is valid. The experiments described in above posts lead one to believe that it is not impossible for life's components, even under the most specific and tweaked conditions, to emerge within the estimated age of the universe. The point that I am trying to argue is that, given the size of the visible universe, it would be difficult to imagine that these conditions do not exist enough times to drive the probability of the spontaneous emergence of life toward unity.

[Mattnxtc 0]

The experiments described in above posts lead one to believe that it is not impossible for life's components, even under the most specific and tweaked conditions, to emerge within the estimated age of the universe. The point that I am trying to argue is that, given the size of the visible universe, it would be difficult to imagine that these conditions do not exist enough times to drive the probability of the spontaneous emergence of life toward unity.

Lets understand though exactly what the experiment did show though. Under ideal conditions yes this experiment showed that some things can be generated. Even still though this causes a growing number of problems1. These ideal situations did not exist. Scientists know this..thats why they discredit the experiment in terms of early earth evolution. The experiment still has merit just not in this field2. As the experiment shows...both left and right handed amino acids were made. Well only the left ones are used in in the building of protiens. So now we have an even smaller number to work with3. Next lets assume we now need 100 of these left ones to form together perfectly to just form one protien molecule. This means that no right handed amino acids can interfere, the left handed ones must form in the right manner to form the protien. Now if all this happens then you now have just 1 protein cell4. Then you have to hope that maybe 200 can be formed so that just one cell can be formed. 5. Now this is whats necessary for just a simple cell...Now imagine it on the scale of DNA or RNA and you see why scientists have been reduced to saying that the universe is infinite. B/c without it being infinite they have no credibility for thier randomness theories

[MDXS 0]

no not for a christian b/c we point to what the bible says as the christian explanation. But Buddhism doesnt answre this question at all... So we have a religion that fails to account for how we came to be. Do you see the problem with it?

Nope, not really. I don't see what having a snazzy creation myth has to do with how I live my life.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Nope, not really. I don't see what having a snazzy creation myth has to do with how I live my life.

um...this doesnt have much to do with what was said?

[timwakefield 68]

Lets understand though exactly what the experiment did show though. Under ideal conditions yes this experiment showed that some things can be generated. Even still though this causes a growing number of problems1. These ideal situations did not exist. Scientists know this..thats why they discredit the experiment in terms of early earth evolution. The experiment still has merit just not in this field

I think you are missing much of Yorke's point. As far as we know, we are the only life in the entire universe. We cannot assume otherwise. So the spontaneous generation of life has all of the possible conditions across the 100 billion observable galaxies to find the right conditions. Early earth conditions cannot be known exactly, what CAN be known is that at one point the planet was barren, and now it has life.

5. Now this is whats necessary for just a simple cell...Now imagine it on the scale of DNA or RNA and you see why scientists have been reduced to saying that the universe is infinite. B/c without it being infinite they have no credibility for thier randomness theories

What are these "randomness theories?" I don't know what you mean....and if we assume that the universe IS finite (which is still widely believed by scientists), we know that there are more than ten billion trillion stars in the universe. A lot can happen on the planets circling ten BILLION TRILLION stars. Again, life does not need to be likely for it to occur. Because we have never met any aliens, we may postulate thusly (if we wish to show how unlikely spontaneous generation MAY be): the chances of life spontaneously generating are one in ten billion trillion. We are that one.

[timwakefield 68]

no not for a christian b/c we point to what the bible says as the christian explanation. But Buddhism doesnt answre this question at all... So we have a religion that fails to account for how we came to be. Do you see the problem with it?

A few things:"Kolkata, Tuesday, November 25, 2003 (REUTERS) - Tibetan spiritual leaderDalai Lama today said Buddhism and science shared a common aspect of inquiryfor truth and therefore scientific education has been introduced in a numberof Buddhist monasteries in south India.""So far the Dalai Lama says he has learned nothing from the West that challenges Tibetan Buddhist doctrines. 'On the contrary, we find scientific knowledge and findings very helpful,' he observes. Some of these ideas come from the realms of quantum physics and cosmology. In Tibetan Buddhism, for example, the role of the observer cannot be separated from the observed: an idea central to quantum mechanics, notes Wallace, who studied physics at Amherst College. With regard to cosmology, an ancient Buddhist text depicts the universe as an oscillating one, describing expansion and collapse in a manner that recalls some versions of the big bang theory, according to Wallace." - Scientific American, July 1991

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Lets understand though exactly what the experiment did show though. Under ideal conditions yes this experiment showed that some things can be generated. Even still though this causes a growing number of problems1. These ideal situations did not exist. Scientists know this..thats why they discredit the experiment in terms of early earth evolution. The experiment still has merit just not in this field2. As the experiment shows...both left and right handed amino acids were made. Well only the left ones are used in in the building of protiens. So now we have an even smaller number to work with3. Next lets assume we now need 100 of these left ones to form together perfectly to just form one protien molecule. This means that no right handed amino acids can interfere, the left handed ones must form in the right manner to form the protien. Now if all this happens then you now have just 1 protein cell4. Then you have to hope that maybe 200 can be formed so that just one cell can be formed. 5. Now this is whats necessary for just a simple cell...Now imagine it on the scale of DNA or RNA and you see why scientists have been reduced to saying that the universe is infinite. B/c without it being infinite they have no credibility for thier randomness theories

Your skepticism is indeed valid. There is no way of knowing the percentages involved in the spontaneous formation of proteins, cells, etc. There is no way of knowing the amount of suitable worlds that we have to work with. Thus, we can not know the percentage of time that a "universe" will produce life. But it seems that you would agree that the probability of the formation of the building blocks of life is greater than 0 and less than 1 (to quote Dumb and Dumber: "So you're saying there's a chance!").To make a totally circular and somewhat idiotic argument, I would claim that the existence of our life demonstrates that the probability in our universe was high enough to create at least one planet with life. If the probability is indeed between 0 and 1 and life indeed exists, I would use Occam's Razor to eliminate the need for god in the equation at all. Feel free to ignore this argument, as I'm sure that I don't have to tell you.On a more philosophical note, I find it difficult to believe that our universe is the one and only universe if it is indeed finite. Using a totally intuitive argument, it seems to go against the intrinsic symmetry that we find throughout nature. Why would there be only one unique universe ever? It would make more sense in my mind if, even if this universe was strictly finite, there were many different universes throughout "existence," even if they are totally unattached from one another. I have no reason to back this up other than, as Stephen Colbert would say, "I feel it in my gut." Anyway, this is by no means science, but rather my own ramblings.

[timwakefield 68]

Your skepticism is indeed valid. There is no way of knowing the percentages involved in the spontaneous formation of proteins, cells, etc. There is no way of knowing the amount of suitable worlds that we have to work with. Thus, we can not know the percentage of time that a "universe" will produce life. But it seems that you would agree that the probability of the formation of the building blocks of life is greater than 0 and less than 1 (to quote Dumb and Dumber: "So you're saying there's a chance!").

Does my post at the end of the previous page make sense?It seems probable to me that life does exist on other planets, but if one wishes to postulate that the chances of spontaneous generation are as small as 1 in 1X10^22, one may do so, since we know there are that many stars, but know only that this star has life. Again, that is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000 chance....is that small enough Mattnx?

[Mattnxtc 0]

Does my post at the end of the previous page make sense?It seems probable to me that life does exist on other planets, but if one wishes to postulate that the chances of spontaneous generation are as small as 1 in 1X10^22, one may do so, since we know there are that many stars, but know only that this star has life. Again, that is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000 chance....is that small enough Mattnx?

its probably not even close..i havent done the math myself though

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Does my post at the end of the previous page make sense?It seems probable to me that life does exist on other planets, but if one wishes to postulate that the chances of spontaneous generation are as small as 1 in 1X10^22, one may do so, since we know there are that many stars, but know only that this star has life. Again, that is a 1 in 10000000000000000000000 chance....is that small enough Mattnx?

Yeah, your post does make sense. There are many attempts to come up with suitable numbers, such as the Drake Equation. You basically said what I was trying to say in my first paragraph above (see: Dumb and Dumber). Again, no one knows for certain the numerical values that we are discussing, and there are many who make the probability very small using a "Rare Earth" argument. However, it appears that the universe is so very vast that these numbers can be as small as you listed above and still have meaning.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Thanks for the response. It said that 100,000 people per year become Islam, or convert from Christianity to Islam? Just trying to make sure.