home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.agnosticism      A religion for those who hate religion?      213,516 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 212,735 of 213,516   
   Dale to seqklogw@gmail.com   
   Re: no evidence for abiogenesis?   
   29 Apr 16 19:18:09   
   
   XPost: alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: dale@dalekelly.org   
      
   On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-7, Dale wrote:   
   >   
   >.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I   
   >.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even   
   >.> non-sentient one celled organisms   
   >   
   >OK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNA   
   >are two entirely different classes of chemicals. There are   
   >no amino acids in DNA; there is no DNA in amino acids.   
      
   I didn't specify path   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the   
   >> biogenesis of the scientist   
   >>   
   >   
   >.> another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,   
   >.> could have come from biogeneis   
   >   
   >Beg pardon?  Life does not create the chemical elements.   
   >Those existed before life, and a number of them were necessary   
   >for life to exist.   
      
   repeatable? what if life always existed and there was no genesis?   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >> and an assumption of abiogenesis is   
   >> made in current experiments   
   >>   
   >> such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and   
   >> probabilities   
   >>   
   >   
   >.> life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence   
   >   
   >True...but if you want to generalize that to something like   
   >"Life always and only comes from life", then you're saying the   
   >universe is eternal.  Among other things.   
   >   
      
   if I had to make a guess ...   
      
   >   
   >.> you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,   
   >.> even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and   
   >.> come back, the scientist still made the observer   
   >   
   >I really don't think that collapse of the wave function has   
   >much relevance here.   
      
   there is no other explanation, Many Worlds and Transactional fail   
   statistics   
      
   >   
   >   
   >Seth   
   >   
   >   
   >> --   
   >> Dale   
   >> http://www.dalekelly.org   
   --   
   Dale   
   http://www.dalekelly.org   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca