It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I thought the point was to create laboratory experiments to re-create abiogenesis?
If an underlying cosmic principle is in play, with regards to the emergence of life, it should be repeatable under lab conditions.
An Unintelligent, Undesigned universe, should be no match for intelligent minds.
Life has to come from pre existing life.
What would the probability of my wife getting pregnant be, if my wife was taken out of the equation?
So when it's a likelihood that supports your views it's great and it's science. If it's a likelihood that does not support your views, it's nonsense and creationism.
reply to post by Astyanax
'You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,' England said, calling the emergence of life from inanimate matter 'as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.' - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
The next step is to devise experiments that will test them under lab conditions. That work is, apparently, about to begin. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Your post is gibberish. If you want a reply say something meaningful.
I was curious earlier about the creationist response to this paper. Now we have it: incomprehension, bluster, nonsense and ill temper
When your wife falls pregnant, you know it is likely that a child will be born within nine months, but that doesn't give you a formula for making babies from their chemical components. You still have to make them the old-fashioned way.
to replace the moral compass in this:
dusty1
Life has to come from pre existing life.
MarsIsRed
dusty1
Life has to come from pre existing life.
That's erroneously presented as a statement of fact, yet based on no evidence.
Everything we perceive, such as the dissolving of coffee granules in hot water to the dye used in your socks are the product of chemical interactions. There is zero reason to assume that life is any different, and every reason to assume it's the same.
If your replace the word 'life' with 'chemistry', we'd all be working from the same page. However, if someone assumes life has some 'magical' attributes, it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation, in the scientific sense.
I simply don't get the stubbornness of some people when it comes to accepting the truth.
dusty1
If we were near the center of the universe, there would be no need for exotic energy or matter.
Every place in the universe is technically the center.
There's nothing magical about science.
It is an idiom that can mean to solve a problem in an unexpected way or simply to produce something from nothing, as if by magic.
It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results
dusty1
But that contradicts the Cosmological Principle that we "Cannot be in a special place in the universe".
We "cannot" possibly be near the center of the universe,
Therefore all points in the universe "must" appear to be the center.
That is why we "need" a mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy.