Re: Origins and Mental Activity

On 2007-11-01, Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:49:37 -0700, Grandbank <zeteticdds@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:34 pm, Zoe <muz...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

(snip)

Can you take that chemical chain
outside the context of the article and place it wherever you think it
should go in the early universe?

(snip)



There is no reason to place this type of organic molecule in the early
universe. Where did you get that idea? Are you confusing "early
universe" with "relatively mature earth at the time complex organic
molecules were forming"? If that is the case, what was the point of
your talking about the big bang?

I started at a point soon after the big bang in order to ascertain
whether or not there were any claims out there that sugars,
phosphates, and nucleotides had been found in supernovas.

Of course they haven't, for the same reason you don't find them in
ordinary flames that occur at much lower temperatures.

Now that it seems clear that no one thinks that such chains originated
from supernovas, maybe we can move to the early earth where it is now
being claimed that such chains must have formed.

The early earth, being rather cooler than supernovas, indeed might be
a better environment for such molecules to form.

In any event, I can see no reason
the physical enivronment that led to abiogenesis wouldn't fit your
undoubtedly muddled definitions of "organization" and "system".

the suggested physical environment of the early earth was one in which
water abounded (after the oceans fell out of the skies, according to
your FAQ).

So, now you have two hurdles to jump over:

1. Present evidence that basic chemistry can line up chains of sugars
and phosphates with alternating and matching nucleotides, outside of a
genetic system.

This sentence would seem to be asking to show you a genetic system outside
of a genetic system. Why that isn't reasonable is left as an exercise
that you should ponder deeply.

2. Present evidence that any such chains would not decompose in a
watery setting.

Given that you have essentially _no_ understanding of chemistry, what
evidence would you find convincing?

Perhaps you should read Febble's demonstration that natural selection
fits Dembski's definition of an intelligent agent to help you
understand the importance of careful definition in such matters:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-in-the-uk/

All in all though, wouldn't it be easier to just say "I love Jesus"
and get it over with instead of trying to disingenuously moonwalk your
way backwards into the position you're actually starting from in the
first place?

Grandbank....I love Jesus. And one result of that is a deep interest
in His creation. This same Jesus told humans that He was God in human
form, that He is the same God of the Old Testament, and that He
created all things, fully formed.

Now, do you see why evolution and Christianity is incompatible for me?
One position says that God played little or no part in life on earth

No. It doesn't say that. It only says that if you take a particularly
childish view of Christianity.

-- if there even is a God. The other says that there is a God Who
created all things; Who cares about His created beings who chose to
use their free will to go wrong; Who came to earth as a man, lived
among us, died in our place because His laws could not be changed
without undermining the integrity of the universe; who arose again
from death; and who will return again -- quite possibly in your and my
lifetime now -- in order to make this earth over anew.

Oh dear lord.

Mark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Religion
    ... >>>There'd be little reason for the Universe either (He knows the process, ... Mr Dashwood, I do not know how you intend 'ultimately'... ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Octagon Earthworks alignment with moon likely is no accident
    ... In the time it takes the earth to present its ... But for whatever reason, his mental...situation will likely ... pull a Rosanne Rosannadanna. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?
    ... I once read somewhere that as of the dawn of our history (starting from ... graph showing the total living population of the earth, ... I don't see any reason to believe that ANY system that we come up will ... I forget, the age of the universe, is what, 11-->20 billion years? ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?
    ... I once read somewhere that as of the dawn of our history (starting from ... graph showing the total living population of the earth, ... I don't see any reason to believe that ANY system that we come up will ... I forget, the age of the universe, is what, 11-->20 billion years? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?
    ... I once read somewhere that as of the dawn of our history (starting from ... graph showing the total living population of the earth, ... I don't see any reason to believe that ANY system that we come up will ... I forget, the age of the universe, is what, 11-->20 billion years? ...
    (sci.crypt)
Loading