by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Viv, I'm confusing nothing. You are NOT the authority on the matter although you clearly believe you are. What's your degree in?
If the Origin of Life is not important why did Darwin spend so much time on it? Why did he write to is colleges about it in various letters.
I know you don't want it to matter because it is a problem for the Evolutionary theory but it absolutely matters.
Whatever it was (Primordial soup, Clay, Electricity, Panspermia...whatever) it absolutely matters.
1. Show me where I said "a theory" is a guess. In fact I said the opposite several posts back.
You consistently use theory in the wrong sense and say wrong things about it, whether or not you said it was a guess in those exact words. Here are a few examples of your wrongness.
Ruling things out as you build your theory comprised of other facts is absolutely part of the scientific process of defining a theory
many theories just like this one are ultimately proven wrong
I get it you don't want to address this very key issue because there's no answer hence it frustrates you and your firm belief of Evolution, probably because you don't like hearing that it is only a theory.
Literally every one of those statements is wrong. Once again, a theory is not a hypothesis. A theory is a well substantiation explanation for events supported by multiple lines of evidence, observation and experimentation. It is subject to change as new information becomes available, of course, but when you say things like what you said above, it shows you've no real idea what you are talking about.
Not one person here has had a single prolific thing to say about this problem.
Cofty has answered you several times.
No matter how many times I say it I see the same post over and over.
Well, you keep saying wrong things. C'est la vie.
I get it you want me to accept well it just happened somehow but don't worry about that. No thanks!
Ah, I see the problem. No, no one particularly cares if you accept it (and no one is asking you to just accept it, there are reams of evidence for you to review if you choose to do so), you are merely being corrected on the wrong things you write in a public comment and discussion forum.
I get that it angers you because you can't explain this process any more than anyone else. It is what it is. Maybe someone day we'll know until then I personally can't accept any final resolution.
Please remain honest. No one is angry at you. Pity would probably be a more apt, description. Perhaps amused as well.
Viv, I'm confusing nothing. You are NOT the authority on the matter although you clearly believe you are. What's your degree in?
I agree, I am not an authority. However, UC Berkeley IS, which is why I quoted them back to you. Also check out these:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/intro_01
http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
If the Origin of Life is not important why did Darwin spend so much time on it? Why did he write to is colleges about it in various letters.
Who ever said it wasn't important? Please stop making things up just because you confused abiogenesis with evolution.
I know you don't want it to matter because it is a problem for the Evolutionary theory but it absolutely matters.
Huh? Are you pretending to know things you can't possibly know again?
Many here (myself, Cofty and Snare, to name a few) think it's an incredibly important and fascinating field of study.
Oh, and just so you can know what "theory" means....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/
" A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."
Given our knowledge of every phenomena around us, the only way God can be inserted in the whole thing is, as others have said it already, is the God who created the laws of Physics. And if he has any role after that, he is making sure that they are not violated. Everything else, including suffering and evolution, is subject to those inviolable laws. Thank God for the consistency and therefore the predictability of phenomena.
If I may add an unrelated comment.
I like the new Vivian. I haven't given as many "likes" to one person as I have today.
Hadriel I have offered to have a discussion with you about the origin of life at least 3 or 4 times. All I ask is that you first define your question/objection.
If you know what the charge is that caused RNA to become DNA again you'll get a Nobel Prize
What do you mean by "the charge"?
I want to know what kicked off those amino acids caused chaining of DNA. I can't be more clear.
Amino acids don't cause chaining of DNA. You really couldn't be less clear.
Do I think we will know what this charge was that began the proto-chaining of life in my lifetime? NO
Again - "charge"? "proto-chaining of life"?
You seem to throw around sciencey words devoid of context.
You have changed your objection at least four times. The worrying thing is that you don't even realise you have changed it which probably makes a useful conversation impossible.
Of course abiogenesis is important. NOBODY is saying otherwise.
However the fact of evolution in no way depends on solving the origin of life. Even it turned out that Jesus made the first cell out of angel farts evolution still stands beyond all reasonable doubt.
You seem to be contradicting yourself about evolution. Contrast and compare...
"I have no issue with LUCA" - This is a firm affirmation of evolution and common ancestry.
"there's no answer hence it frustrates you and your firm belief of Evolution, probably because you don't like hearing that it is only a theory" - This is worthy of Ken Ham
Do you have any idea where you stand at all?
What books that present the scientific evidence FOR evolution and/or the origin of life have you read?
I like the new cofty - new to me anyway - that post above has had me rotfl and is a keeper
but on a more serious note I came across a new word today RIBOZYMES - any relevance? - perhaps to you Hadriel and to Kate as these seem to act as catalysts and like glue.
was reading this article and had to look up ribozymes
Even it turned out that Jesus made the first cell out of angel farts evolution still stands beyond all reasonable doubt.LMAO!! Love it!!
Cofty let's not be coy here.
You know what I'm talking about here.
I'm not going to iterate the entire process but the theory is in very short we're talking about RNA and its condons translating to DNA (nucleotides NOT proteins not related) and the amino acid chaining.
If you have nothing better to do you can experiment with the translation of this process below:
http://www.attotron.com/cybertory/analysis/trans.htm
Let's not put words in my mouth nor act as though I'm uninformed I've pretty much had it with that noise, I'll simply ignore you.
I've already said what my position is and no Cofty you are categorically wrong. LUCA is not contrary to origin of life.
"We know a lot about LUCA and we are beginning to learn about the chemistry that produced building blocks like amino acids, but between the two there is a desert of knowledge," Carter said. "We haven't even known how to explore it." - Charles Carter PhD.
As Dr. Carter eludes the building blocks are what we're after. Even if we know about RNA, ribosomes the eventual chaining of the amino acids which result in proteins and ultimately DNA is very important.
So I categorically disagree with your statement. regarding LUCA.
The charge is what caused the chaining to start, what caused the biochemical reaction that resulted in amino acids chaining and building proteins. Not to mention there is a substantial jump from RNA to DNA itself.
Clear enough?
Now explain to me the charge what caused the event. Happenstance, God, a Leprechaun, a Martian how'd it happen?
If you can't explain that process you cannot say with anything definitive as to that early bacteria like RNA started chaining and ultimate became DNA.
If the "origin" were not important why the hell is everyone trying to solve it???
I will not respond to any post twisting words, done with that. Talk to me about what I describe or I'm not interested. You cannot make me or anyone believe what you likely cannot prove. If you can I'm all ears.
So funny ppl are lazy and simply don't read. please leave God out of it. I'm not concerned at all with that.
I don't give a flying F if a fuzzy galactic super bunny started it all or a craps like dice shoot by sheer happenstance,
doesn't matter my point is if you can't define that origin you cannot form a concrete opinion, an opinion based on what you know sure, but not an absolute one no one can.
Let's not put words in my mouth nor act as though I'm uninformed I've pretty much had it with that noise, I'll simply ignore you.
Let's not. You put the uninformed words in your mouth. No need to get snippy with others because it became plainly obvious to all.
So I categorically disagree with your statement. regarding LUCA.
Case in point. Viv's Law strikes again.
Now explain to me the charge what caused the event. Happenstance, God, a Leprechaun, a Martian how'd it happen?Viv's Law strikes again. You confusing evolution with abiogensis.
If you can't explain that process you cannot say with anything definitive as to that early bacteria like RNA started chaining and ultimate became DNA.
If the "origin" were not important why the hell is everyone trying to solve it???
No one said it wasn't. For someone who complains about being misunderstood, you have repeatedly attempted to make false claims about others.
The only question is ... why?
doesn't matter my point is if you can't define that origin you cannot form a concrete opinion, an opinion based on what you know sure, but not an absolute one no one can.
Huh? You're logic breaks down to "if you don't know something, you can't form an opinion on it". Well.... duh?
