Other than the faith-holding that "abiogenesis happened somewhere" I don't disagree with the state of non-knowledge being asserted at the ol' soi disant "Brain Trust".
How you can take a sensibly agnostic position on the competing claims that are entirely unsupported in evidence and then go to definitive statements about the origin of life on Earth is nonsensical Not to mention any such definitive statement is obviously premature. It's entirely likely that, at least in so far as how life on Earth started, such declarations will always be premature, no matter how many jillions of years the question is studied Without the actual resolvable remains of that first organism being found and definitively identified as such - and good luck with that, by the way - the origin of life on Earth will forever be unknown.
Any definite declaration about the origin of life on Earth is and is likely to always remain a statement of faith, no less so than the various non-scientific explanations are. Only it's generally faith that is constructed out of the fondest wishes of atheists. They can't admit that they insert their faith directly into science but they do.
Personally, every single time I think about the problem for a solution out of random-chance combinations of molecules that somehow began to metabolize,
- that somehow contained the internal chemistry to motivate it to reproduce for the first time, giving rise to the first organism that was the first one that was the product of biological reproduction,
- that that happened perfectly the first time so as not to kill the original and/or its offspring AND THAT IT JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE HAPPENED ON EXACTLY THE KIND OF UNPRECEDENTED STRUCTURES AND CHEMISTRY TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN
- THAT THE OFFSPRING HAD THE SAME PROPERTIES AS THE FIRST ONE SO AS TO CONTINUE METABOLIZING AND REPRODUCING
- AND I CAN'T SEE HOW THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED OUTSIDE OF A CONTAINING MEMBRANE IN WHICH THE NECESSARY CHEMICAL COMPONENTS TO MAKE AND PERMIT THAT TO HAPPEN IN WHICH THE RIGHT CHEMICALS WERE EITHER GENERATED OR COLLECTED, CONCENTRATED AND MAINTAINED
- AND HOW THAT CONTAINING MEMBRANE WOULD HAVE FORMED, SPONTANEOUSLY BY NON-BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL-PHYSICAL COMBINATIONS THROUGH RANDOM CHANCE AND THAT IT JUST HAPPENED TO CONTAIN JUST THE RIGHT CHEMICAL COMPONENTS FOR ALL THIS TO HAPPEN
. . . Well, I think there is every reason to suspect that you would need to have had some non-random CONSCIOUS, THINKING BEING involved to INTENTIONALLY whittle down the incredible series of improbabilities for it to have happened within the past four billion years, and if not here, then wherever it happened.
I suspect the only way to make the probabilities work within the known age of the universe four billion years ago is through some intentionality being involved. Ideological assertions that live by a resort to astronomically remote probabilities can just as easily die by a resort to astronomically remote probabilities.
I think, given those very real problems, that believing the traditional materialist-atheist faith in how it happened is far more far fetched than believing that God did it through intention.
Now, Simps, tell me what's wrong with what I just said.
Hey, Sparkles -- dig this.
ReplyDeleteBill Wyman, Charlie Watts, and Ian Stewart (from you know what band) backing up their hero Howlin' Wolf.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Gm94m77Ic
Face it schmucko -- no better rhythm section ever played this music. Which is why the Rolling Stones were the greatest white blues group of all time.
And here we have it, Simps conspicuously NOT addressing the post. He can't, he's too stupid and never developed an ability to think.
DeleteDig it? Oh, Simps, you're so groovy when you talk like that. Why don't you go do the Frug with the rest of the Geritol and galantamine set at Duncan's.
"And here we have it, Simps conspicuously NOT addressing the post."
ReplyDeleteWho gives a shit where life in the universe came from. What matters is who invented Chicago blues.
And here's Simps still conspicuously NOT addressing the post. I did say they never address things, they put up lines to agree with each other over.
DeleteTedium is the house mood at Duncan's.
Anybody here care about Sparky's views on cosmology?
ReplyDeleteNo? Yeah, I didn't think so.
:-)
Stupy, abiogenesis isn't the same thing as cosmology.
DeleteI have no idea who most of the people who read my blog are, I don't usually look at the statistics on traffic but I can say that the things I've written about abiogenesis have had higher than average hit numbers.
Not everyone is as stupid as you are. Which is fortunate because if they were things would be a lot stupider than they are
Tell me again how The Rolling Stones ripped off everything they knew from Stevie Ray Vaughan,😀
ReplyDeleteAs I never said that, I can't tell you that again. I only said that he and his bands were better at playing the blues. You couldn't argue with that so you were the one who claimed I said that.
DeleteIt's your MO, Simps. You can't argue with something, you claim something else was said. I've come to think that it's one of the mental habits of atheists through observing how often you guys do that.
You specifically said that the Stones were derivative of Stevie Ray. Which is kind of amazing since the Stones started recording in 963, when Vaughan was a nine year old who had never been in a recording studio.
DeleteAnd the idea that he ever had a rhythm section as good as the Stones in the clip that I posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Gm94m77Ic
is proof positive that you're both deaf AND stupid.
And Simple Simels still hasn't addressed the post and the issues he doesn't know from the most common verbs in the !Xoo language.
DeleteNot only did I never say that, I pointed out with links to everything I've ever said, online, about Stevie Ray Vaughn when you told the same lie last November.
Monday, November 20, 2017
Nothing Simps Says Should Be Believed Without Confirmation, The Simplest Distinctions Can't Make It Through His Trump Like Mind
What is the difference between Beatles, Stones etc, and Minstrelry? Minstrels never convinced anybody they were black, either. Leroi Jones
Literally everything I've ever said online about Stevie Ray Vaughn is contained in two posts. You can read them and the comments and see that Simps is lying about what I said.
He apparently doesn't realize that Mick Jagger was notorious for copying black (and white) musicians well after they released their first album, which is pretty funny considering he's supposed to be a pop music expert. Simps really never did master the idea of how time works. Apparently he figures Mick and his old stones never did anything but repeat their first album, over and over again. As the article at the link shows, they stole lots of stuff after that.
Update: Hey, if he keeps it up at this rate, the lies he's dropped on me are going to outnumber the names he's dropped. He's the worst name dropper I've ever seen.
The closest I got to saying what you claim I did was to note that Mick and his old Stones copied American blues, Black and White. No doubt stealing stuff from the best but still stealing it. His arrogant claim "These legendary characters wouldn't mean a light commercially today if groups were not going round Britain doing their numbers." is an admission of exactly what I said. And then there's his flagrant racism and sexism.
Mick and his old Stones, no wonder you're such a fame fucker for them, Simps, what with the rocks in your head.
"abiogenesis isn't the same thing as cosmology."
ReplyDeleteUh, that's the point.
That you clearly don't know the difference is the point.
DeleteYour practice of trying to pretend that you were making a point by exposing your ignorance only works with people who agree with you and are either dishonest enough to go along with you or who are as ignorant, dishonest and superficially stupid as you are. It doesn't work with anyone who would understand the issues sufficiently to have a legitimate point of view on them worth caring about.