Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[TagliatelliMonster]

So then, according to you, the fable of evolution is very much about animals!

Not a fable and not just animals, but all life.

As I just said in the very post you are replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's also completely dead. As you note, it was a political/social strategy and the Dover ruling put an end to that. It only persists in the same way as young-earth creationism and flat-earth geocentrism....something people argue about in internet forums.

But otherwise, it's effectively dead.

In that sense, it was never alive in the first place.

But no... the discovery institute still very much exists. Just like answers in genesis with their retarded creation museum and ark encounter. They really don't care about having lost trials and what not.

They have had their arses handed to them for decades, but they relentlessly persist in their dogmatism and make-belief, sadly.

 

[shmogie]

It's fascinating to watch certain people exhibit behaviors that are very typical of their group. Here, we clearly see black/white thinking from a creationist on display, in that when it comes to origins research the scenarios are either completely proven or no better than blind faith. There can be no ground between those two ends of the spectrum.


That tends to happen when a group of people behave in silly and stupid ways. Just like the saying....Don't like being called stupid? Then stop saying stupid things.

You imply this middle ground exists. What is there, and what does it mean ?

Methinks the abiogenesis faithful say stupid things, and defend the stupidity with more of the same.

Always the assumption that great progress is being made, always the same confident assertion, when most have no idea of the research.

I mention results from OOL investigators, like Koonans threshold, and none of the believers even read it, or try and refute it. They truly aren´t interested, the dogma says, and that is the extent of it. Of course they will read nothing from a scientist who is a creationist, that is a given, yet they don´t even bother to read the research of abiogenesis believers, and what exactly has been achieved, at least I do that.

Like you, they are big on scorn defending the dogma, not the research.

Typical behavior of dogmatists. They are separated from reality in their cocoon built on hoped fors, not facts.

One could say that of me, yet I take the time to look at the reality of what people are doing to establish their belief, I have a very basic understanding of the 9 hypotheses in play today. I can see that there is very little evidence for any of them.

The experts on the dogma here aren´t even aware of the calls for changes in the organization of the research, or those OOL researchers who feel the biochemistry approach is non productive, and who want a concentration of thought on new avenues of research.

There is unease in the OOL community, and a lot of frustration.

To the dogmatists, this doesn´t exist. All of these happy scientists are working away knocking out a piece of the abiogenesis puzzle on a frequent regular basis. It is a done deal, science proves how life came into being.

 

[Ouroboros]

The fable of evolution is about animals. Animals changing into man for example.

He was just pointing out your misuse of the word "fable". You could use "myth", "story", "legend", or other words, but a fable is a story where animals are talking... like the snake in Genesis. That's an example of a fable.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ah, Christians have believed that the universe was created in an instant. Terminology is irrelevant.

It's very relevant. The big bang theory isn't about the instant, it's about the development of the universe afterwards.

The heart of the BB is the alleged singularity...

Incorrect. I don't think many cosmologists expect the literal singularity to survive the unification of General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory.

Christians have always believed 2 of the 3, while the vaunted minds of science denied it.

Christians believed in six days of creation (in a totally absurd order) followed by the magic garden with the talking reptile and the prohibited produce.

The fundamentals of creation are the same.

Not in the least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, Christians have believed that the universe was created in an instant. Terminology is irrelevant.

The heart of the BB is the alleged singularity, the point of infinite denseness, that burst forth with massive energy/mass and everything there is. First cause, energy/mass, expansion.

Christians have always believed 2 of the 3, while the vaunted minds of science denied it.

The fundamentals of creation are the same.

That is extremely false. Some Christians have found that they can live with the Big Bang. Many still reject it. A " fully formed " universe was there standard.

 

[shmogie]

Please.........................
Who are you trying to fool?




Are you aware that the big bang theory is not a theory of origins of the universe, but rather of development of the (mostly early) universe?

The origins of the universe are unknown at this point.

I am aware that a singularity has been proposed as a point of infinite denseness, that for an unknown reason began the rapid expansion.

Mathematical models in retrograde break down as all laws break down about one Planck time from the beginning of the bang.

I am surprised you don know this, it is pretty basic to some BB models.

 

[shmogie]

It's very relevant. The big bang theory isn't about the instant, it's about the development of the universe afterwards.



Incorrect. I don't think many cosmologists expect the literal singularity to survive the unification of General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory.



Christians believed in six days of creation (in a totally absurd order) followed by the magic garden with the talking reptile and the prohibited produce.



Not in the least.

So, there was no bang, there was no singularity, there was no beginning to the expansion, there was no massive release of energy. OK. Doesn´t sound like the BB to me, no bang.

Believe as you choose

 

[Subduction Zone]

You imply this middle ground exists. What is there, and what does it mean ?

Methinks the abiogenesis faithful say stupid things, and defend the stupidity with more of the same.

Always the assumption that great progress is being made, always the same confident assertion, when most have no idea of the research.

I mention results from OOL investigators, like Koonans threshold, and none of the believers even read it, or try and refute it. They truly aren´t interested, the dogma says, and that is the extent of it. Of course they will read nothing from a scientist who is a creationist, that is a given, yet they don´t even bother to read the research of abiogenesis believers, and what exactly has been achieved, at least I do that.

Like you, they are big on scorn defending the dogma, not the research.

Typical behavior of dogmatists. They are separated from reality in their cocoon built on hoped fors, not facts.

One could say that of me, yet I take the time to look at the reality of what people are doing to establish their belief, I have a very basic understanding of the 9 hypotheses in play today. I can see that there is very little evidence for any of them.

The experts on the dogma here aren´t even aware of the calls for changes in the organization of the research, or those OOL researchers who feel the biochemistry approach is non productive, and who want a concentration of thought on new avenues of research.

There is unease in the OOL community, and a lot of frustration.

To the dogmatists, this doesn´t exist. All of these happy scientists are working away knocking out a piece of the abiogenesis puzzle on a frequent regular basis. It is a done deal, science proves how life came into being.

Koonin's (note spelling, and didn't you call him "Eric" as well?) "refutation" of abiogenesis appears to be based on a strawman. At least according to your version. Frankly we don't know what he believes since you could not even get his name right. But I did find That Eugene Koonin was the author of the book you sited:

Eugene V. Koonin, PhD

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, there was no bang, there was no singularity, there was no beginning to the expansion, there was no massive release of energy. OK. Doesn´t sound like the BB to me, no bang.

Believe as you choose

Wow! Still amazingly confused. There was no "Bang" in the Big Bang. You probably do not even know where the name came from.

 

[tas8831]

Mathematical models in retrograde break down

Phew - so you will never try to use probability arguments against abiogenesis. That is a relief!

 

[shmogie]

Abiogenesis factually happened.
Once there was no life, and then there was. Aka abiogenesis: the coming into being of life where there was no life before that, as opposed to biogenesis, where life comes from previous life.

Do you disagree that at some point in the past, life came into existance, one way or the other?

You seem to be confusing the fact that life came into being SOMEHOW in the past, with hypothesis on how exactly that happened.

That it happened is a fact.
How it happened is being researched and unknown at this point.

I have been honest about this the entire time.
At no point did I ever state something else then this.

If you disagree, I invite you to quote me where I supposedly said something else.



ID is biblical creationism disguised in a labcoat (cfr cdesign proponentsists)
"irreducible complexity" is one of the many fallacious arguments that exist within that creationist framework. And as I already told you, it's nothing but an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

Both terms come straight out of the unscientific biblical creationist playbook of the Discovery Institute.



Abiogenesis is a field of research within which several competing hypothesis exist that are being investigated and pursued, none of which are conclusive at this point.


All this has already been explained to you on several occasions.

Your explanations are dotty, don´t you get it ? Weaseling means nothing no matter how many times you do it.

Abiogenesis is not a statement that life occurred somehow.

It is a very specific term for the natural process of non living matter becoming a living organism.

You telling me something that I know is an error is a joke when you keep repeating it.

You keep saying several hypotheses, do you know how many or what they are ? Do you know the state of the research for each ?

 

[ratiocinator]

So, there was no bang, there was no singularity, there was no beginning to the expansion, there was no massive release of energy.

The fact is that we can only deduce what happened back to the point at which our theories break down - so quite possibly no singularity. A start of the expansion, yes. A "massive release of energy", well no, not really.

And as I said the big bang theory isn't about the very start:

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution." [my emphasis] -- Big Bang​

So now you've misrepresented what I've said, what the big bang theory says, and what the bible says - well done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Always the assumption that great progress is being made,

Progress IS being made.
You cited Miller Urey. That's progress.

Amino acids are building blocks of life. Complex molecules.
Finding out that they can and will form naturally under certain conditions is huge.
And that's just one example from 65 years ago.

Why is it wrong to call that progress?

If the goal is to find out how life can come into being, isn't it then obviously progress if you find out how one of the important building blocks can come into being?

Why do you think it isn't progress?

Like you, they are big on scorn defending the dogma, not the research.

What dogma?

I don't have the interest nore the qualifications to defend any of the research being done.
I'm content letting actual abiogenesis researchers doing their work.

Typical behavior of dogmatists. They are separated from reality in their cocoon built on hoped fors, not facts.

Your accusations make no sense at all. What is there to be dogmatic about?
Origins of life are an unknown and scientists are pursueing / exploring hypothesis attempting to explain it.

What else is there to say?
Life came about somehow and researchers are trying to find out how. You won't find the answers in bronze aged books. If we solve this, we'll solve it through science. Not through prayer or reading ancient texts from sheep herders who didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun.

One could say that of me, yet I take the time to look at the reality of what people are doing to establish their belief, I have a very basic understanding of the 9 hypotheses in play today. I can see that there is very little evidence for any of them.

Hence why there are several competing hypothesis being explored and why research is ongoing.
What is the problem? Do you object to research in an attempt to solve this puzzle?

There is unease in the OOL community, and a lot of frustration.

Yes, science is hard.

Theoretical physicists are frustrated to. They've been trying to unify gravity with the other forces ever since Einstein and the best they've accomplished is the intellectual masturbation theory of strings for which they need to invent 7 additional dimensions just to make the math work.

So what? They can only do their best.

To the dogmatists, this doesn´t exist. All of these happy scientists are working away knocking out a piece of the abiogenesis puzzle on a frequent regular basis. It is a done deal, science proves how life came into being.

Nobody has said this. Not even once.
Nobody here has claimed that science has proven how life cam into being.
Not a single person.

 

[shmogie]

Phew - so you will never try to use probability arguments against abiogenesis. That is a relief!

Apples and oranges.

 

[tas8831]

Methinks the abiogenesis faithful say stupid things, and defend the stupidity with more of the same.

And you are a creationist, yes?

Always the assumption that great progress is being made, always the same confident assertion, when most have no idea of the research.

I mention results from OOL investigators, like Koonans threshold, and none of the believers even read it, or try and refute it.

I think you mean Koonin? I have read a few of his papers, but I find that much of his more recent stuff is more speculative.
You seem very sure that Koonins is correct about this. I wonder - what do you think of this:

Lacking any substantive evidence to make their case, creationists offer a few selective quotes from real scientists to give their arguments authority. For example, noted National Institutes of Health evolutionary biologist Eugene V. Koonin was recently quoted by a program officer with the leading intelligent design organization (The Discovery Institute) as saying that the modern synthesis of evolution has “crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.” The implication was that Mr. Koonin would agree that there is a scientific debate over evolution that deserves to be taught in the schools.

But when I talked to Koonin, he told me this interpretation was simply wrong. Creationists, he said, “delight in claiming that whenever any aspect of ‘(neo)Darwinism’ is considered obsolete, evolution is denied. Nothing could be further from the truth.” Koonin explained that what is “crumbling” in his view is a half-century-old approach to thinking about evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is “a much broader, richer and ultimately more satisfactory constellation of data, concepts, and ideas.” Evolution is alive and well, while creationist understanding of it is apparently stuck in the Eisenhower era.​

I'm betting you are not so impressed. Funny how frequently this is the case.

Of course they will read nothing from a scientist who is a creationist, that is a given,

I have read many books and papers by creationists and creationists with scientific training. I have 3 or 4 books by creationists sitting behind me right now. Funny stuff, for the most part. Odd that most of them, once they get their degree, run right to their favorite creationist organization for employment. Almost as if they are only getting the degree to try to fool lay creationists into thinking they have some kind of authority or something..

yet they don´t even bother to read the research of abiogenesis believers, and what exactly has been achieved, at least I do that.

How much abiogenesis research have you read? Am I safe to conclude that the only reason you are familiar with this work of Koonans[sic]is because you saw it quoted on some creationist website?

There is unease in the OOL community, and a lot of frustration.

To the dogmatists, this doesn´t exist. All of these happy scientists are working away knocking out a piece of the abiogenesis puzzle on a frequent regular basis. It is a done deal, science proves how life came into being.

Then surely you can produce the totally objective scientific research from creation scientists that supports their favored creation myth? And that does not consist entirely of attacking evolution, or claiming Darwin gave us Hitler or some such fallacious nonsense?

I'm betting no, but we'll see.

 

[shmogie]

Progress IS being made.
You cited Miller Urey. That's progress.

Amino acids are building blocks of life. Complex molecules.
Finding out that they can and will form naturally under certain conditions is huge.
And that's just one example from 65 years ago.

Why is it wrong to call that progress?

If the goal is to find out how life can come into being, isn't it then obviously progress if you find out how one of the important building blocks can come into being?

Why do you think it isn't progress?



What dogma?

I don't have the interest nore the qualifications to defend any of the research being done.
I'm content letting actual abiogenesis researchers doing their work.



Your accusations make no sense at all. What is there to be dogmatic about?
Origins of life are an unknown and scientists are pursueing / exploring hypothesis attempting to explain it.

What else is there to say?
Life came about somehow and researchers are trying to find out how. You won't find the answers in bronze aged books. If we solve this, we'll solve it through science. Not through prayer or reading ancient texts from sheep herders who didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun.



Hence why there are several competing hypothesis being explored and why research is ongoing.
What is the problem? Do you object to research in an attempt to solve this puzzle?



Yes, science is hard.

Theoretical physicists are frustrated to. They've been trying to unify gravity with the other forces ever since Einstein and the best they've accomplished is the intellectual masturbation theory of strings for which they need to invent 7 additional dimensions just to make the math work.

So what? They can only do their best.



Nobody has said this. Not even once.
Nobody here has claimed that science has proven how life cam into being.
Not a single person.

You are wrong. At least one poster said exactly that.

You love Miller Urey, a failed experiment, why ?

Creating amino acids, 50% right handed 50% left handed. Life requires only left handed molecules.

Miller admits that it was interesting, but a poorly designed experiment in which the environmental assumptions were dead wrong.

Love it though, your choice.

 

[tas8831]

Miller Urey ? That is a bizarre example of evidence for abiogenesis.

The Miller-Urey experiments were actually run to test Oparin's hypothesis on a reducing atmosphere.

A few amino acids, in an atmosphere considered completely wrong today.

The experimental conditions have been altered many times, and the outcomes are pretty much always the same - organic molecules associated with living things are produced.. Even when altered in unexpected ways - Miller himself ran a decades-long experiment by placing HCN and ammonia in water and freezing it. Decades later, it was discovered that again, bio-organic molecules had formed.
These are things that detractors (e.g., creationists) had declared all along could never happen. Yet, they did.

And then there is this:

Stanley Miller, the chemist whose landmark experiment published in 1953 showed how some of the molecules of life could have formed on a young Earth, left behind boxes of experimental samples that he never analyzed. The first-ever analysis of some of Miller's old samples has revealed another way that important molecules could have formed on early Earth....

In the new study, scientists analyzed samples from an experiment Miller performed in 1958. To the reaction flask, Miller added a chemical that at the time wasn't widely thought to have been available on early Earth. The reaction had successfully formed peptides, the new study found. The new study also successfully replicated the experiment and explained why the reaction works.

"It was clear that the results from this old experiment weren't some sort of artifact. They were real," said Jeffrey Bada, distinguished professor of marine chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the UC San Diego. Bada was a former student and colleague of Miller's.​

Amino acids aren´ life,

Nor is the dust of the ground, no matter which deity breathes into it.

they carry no information,

Define "information" in a biologically relevant way.

very specific acids

Now amino acids are 'very specific', too. After I pick up a couple of things off the floor, they become 'very specific' as well.

Miller in a recent interview admits the experiment was a failure..

Link/citation please. He died in 2007, by the way.

 

[shmogie]

And you are a creationist, yes?

I think you mean Koonins? I have read a few of his papers, but I find that much of his more recent stuff is more speculative.
You seem very sure that Koonins is correct about this. I wonder - what do you think of this:

Lacking any substantive evidence to make their case, creationists offer a few selective quotes from real scientists to give their arguments authority. For example, noted National Institutes of Health evolutionary biologist Eugene V. Koonin was recently quoted by a program officer with the leading intelligent design organization (The Discovery Institute) as saying that the modern synthesis of evolution has “crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.” The implication was that Mr. Koonin would agree that there is a scientific debate over evolution that deserves to be taught in the schools.

But when I talked to Koonin, he told me this interpretation was simply wrong. Creationists, he said, “delight in claiming that whenever any aspect of ‘(neo)Darwinism’ is considered obsolete, evolution is denied. Nothing could be further from the truth.” Koonin explained that what is “crumbling” in his view is a half-century-old approach to thinking about evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is “a much broader, richer and ultimately more satisfactory constellation of data, concepts, and ideas.” Evolution is alive and well, while creationist understanding of it is apparently stuck in the Eisenhower era.​

I'm betting you are not so impressed. Funny how frequently this is the case.


I have read many books and papers by creationists and creationists with scientific training. I have 3 or 4 books by creationists sitting behind me right now. Funny stuff, for the most part. Odd that most of them, once they get their degree, run right to their favorite creationist organization for employment. Almost as if they are only getting the degree to try to fool lay creationists into thinking they have some kind of authority or something..


How much abiogenesis research have you read? Am I safe to conclude that the onyl reason you are familiar with this work of Koonans[sic]is because you saw it quoted on some creationist website?

Then surely you can produce the totally objective scientific research from creation scientists that supports their favored creation myth? And that does not consist entirely of attacking evolution, or claiming Darwin gave us Hitler or some such fallacious nonsense?

I'm betting no, but we'll see.

Of course I can´t produce the evidence you ask for, that is a given. Why you turn the argument back to that is an attempt at some kind of comparison, yet I have never made the claim that that evidence exists.

The point being that it does not exist in any meaningful way for abiogenesis either.

Some interesting things have been done in designed experiments in a controlled environment, yet all of them in a cumulative fashion are infinitely small toward the goal and what they mean is not understood in the context of the abiogenesis process.

You are right about the spelling, and no I did not learn of Koonins threshold from a creationist source, just the opposite, It was from a review of his book on an abiogenesis site.

I then did more research on his threshold, which is chapter 12 of the book.

I suggest you become familiar with it. The reviewer was surprised but could find few flaws in the science of the idea, of course, those will come.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are wrong. At least one poster said exactly that.

You love Miller Urey, a failed experiment, why ?

Creating amino acids, 50% right handed 50% left handed. Life requires only left handed molecules.

Miller admits that it was interesting, but a poorly designed experiment in which the environmental assumptions were dead wrong.

Love it though, your choice.

Sadly I refuted shmogie one time too many. He could not handle it and employed the ultimate ostrich defense. Here he once again demonstrates that his knowledge of abiogenesis is stuck in the 1950's.
First off, the atmosphere that was used was not "dead wrong". It was a likely early Earth atmosphere. It was probably not the atmosphere at the time of abiogenesis. So what did scientists do? Did they go "Woe is me! The atmosphere was wrong and we can never do that experiment again!" ? No, or course not. They reran the experiment with a different atmosphere. In fact it has been run with several atmospheres. Guess what? They still made amino acids.

I don't know why he keeps using an argument refuted over fifty years ago and then pretends to be up to date on the hypothesis. It makes him look incredibly dishonest.