27 Jun 23
One more piece of the puzzle just dropped into place:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/webb-telescope-carbon-molecule-detection-scn/index.html
“Astronomers have detected a crucial carbon molecule in space for the first time using the James Webb Space Telescope.
The compound, called methyl cation, or CH3+, was traced back to a young star system located 1,350 light-years away from Earth in the Orion Nebula, according to NASA.
Carbon compounds are intriguing to scientists because they act as the foundation for all life as we know and understand it. Methyl cation is considered a key component that helps form more complex carbon-based molecules.”
@moonbus saidI acknowledge all the things that are needed for life exists, that doesn’t help you. I will grant any amount of time you want, that doesn’t help you. It’s the information properties that setups and drives all the material through complex specified functionally that you have no answer for.
One more piece of the puzzle just dropped into place:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/webb-telescope-carbon-molecule-detection-scn/index.html
“Astronomers have detected a crucial carbon molecule in space for the first time using the James Webb Space Telescope.
The compound, called methyl cation, or CH3+, was traced back to a young star system located 1,350 ...[text shortened]... t. Methyl cation is considered a key component that helps form more complex carbon-based molecules.”
The only thing presented here so far the vast majority of the time, are complaints against religion, no one offers positive reasons to accept a mindless process could do all we see in life. Except for the argument they would not do something the way life currently does it, even though it works.
27 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidIt was you who brought a 'scientist' into this discussion in your OP, and the only reason you did that is because he is also a Christian. We are perfectly justified in asking you how you reconcile the two, which of course you cannot do. Science is science and mythology is mythology, and never the twain shall meet.
I still believe in a young earth, but that does not have anything to do with this thread now does it? How is it that when science questions are asked theology answers in the negative are brought out to answer them as you have continued to do, and if theology questions get asked, science gets brought out? Do you guys ever stay on topic?
@kellyjay saidYou have been given the answer several times. You just don't like, or understand, it; probably both.
I acknowledge all the things that are needed for life exists, that doesn’t help you. I will grant any amount of time you want, that doesn’t help you. It’s the information properties that setups and drives all the material through complex specified functionally that you have no answer for.
The only thing presented here so far the vast majority of the time, are complain ...[text shortened]... t for the argument they would not do something the way life currently does it, even though it works.
@moonbus saidOkay, please point out the answer, you have made charges about Chemists, but none were shown by you talking to the points in opposition to Tours points, you have denied feedback loops, and you do a lot of talking about spiritual issues in the science forum when a science question is asked, nothing substantive on the topic using science, logic, or reason. You have displayed your distaste for religious ideas when they intertwine with science. Pardon me if I think this is just more smoke you are attempting to blow, with a touch of a little insult at the end for color.
You have been given the answer several times. You just don't like, or understand, it; probably both.
28 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidI do not reject your and the esteemed professor’s proposal because I reject religion out of hand. I reject the proposal because it is not a testable hypothesis.
Okay, please point out the answer, you have made charges about Chemists, but none were shown by you talking to the points in opposition to Tours points, you have denied feedback loops, and you do a lot of talking about spiritual issues in the science forum when a science question is asked, nothing substantive on the topic using science, logic, or reason. You have displayed y ...[text shortened]... is just more smoke you are attempting to blow, with a touch of a little insult at the end for color.
The claim that a mind, whether divine or any other, is necessary to account for the origin of life is not a testable hypothesis. There is no conceivable scientific experiment whereby all the chemicals we now suspect to be necessary to the origin of life are put into a beaker, and the same chemicals plus mind are put into another breaker, and then both beakers are shaken up, and we see whether life occurs in both of them or only in one of them. This is not a testable hypothesis. That is the reason why I reject the claim of Professor Tour that a mind must be assumed to account for the origin of life. It has nothing to do with rejecting religion. It has to do with what is a testable or a not testable hypothesis.
Regarding the appearance of many diverse and complex life forms, we do not have two natures to compare, one with mind and the other without mind. This also is not a testable hypothesis.
If you wish to be taken seriously at the science forum, then present us with a testable hypothesis.
28 Jun 23
@moonbus saidDo you think we cannot tell the difference between something directed by a mind and where there was no direction, no plan, and no goals as it was directed by mindlessness? Seriously, you have not even attempted to make a positive proposal for the only question I've asked here, you have spewed things that have nothing at all to do with the question or made claims about other chemists you have not produced, and when I explained to you the nature of how feedback loops you have even challenge them only again rejected them without addressing the points. You are huge on rejecting claims but not engaging in why with details that have something to say about the topic. Other topics you dislike you attempt to bring in have nothing to do with the one here. I just want to know why you keep coming back into this one when you have nothing to add to it outside of attempting to turn the questions into religious arguments while throwing in insults as you do it.
I do not reject your and the esteemed professor’s proposal because I reject religion out of hand. I reject the proposal because it is not a testable hypothesis.
The claim that a mind, whether divine or any other, is necessary to account for the origin of life is not a testable hypothesis. There is no conceivable scientific experiment whereby all the chemicals we now suspec ...[text shortened]...
If you wish to be taken seriously at the science forum, then present us with a testable hypothesis.
All of our attempts to make life have been due to our mindful efforts, we add one thing before we add another, and we put inhibitors where we think we can make one connection occur because without the inhibitor they are free to connect just any ole way leaving the necessary connection not done. We make sure our work is done in an environment we think is friendly to what we want to do, we keep our materials stored in safe places so they don't degrade. You do not think these through, do you?
@KellyJay
There is no evidence that a mind is at work in chemical reactions. There is no evidence that a mind is at work when a cell divides or when chromosomes pair up. There is no evidence that a mind is involved in photosynthesis.
There is no conceivable experiment for switching mind on and off to see whether that is the essential factor in life.
28 Jun 23
@indonesia-phil saidI brought him because of the topic and what he had to say, if you think it matters that he is a Christian then your focus is purely on religion, not the topic.
It was you who brought a 'scientist' into this discussion in your OP, and the only reason you did that is because he is also a Christian. We are perfectly justified in asking you how you reconcile the two, which of course you cannot do. Science is science and mythology is mythology, and never the twain shall meet.
@moonbus saidI just told you that when we attempt to duplicate the process we think occurred that brought life into being we follow very careful protocols to ensure what we know is needed can be done and you are so willfully blind. No small wonder you didn't listen to Tour's whole talk, you simply don't want to hear what you want to deny justified in ways you cannot speak to.
@KellyJay
There is no evidence that a mind is at work in chemical reactions. There is no evidence that a mind is at work when a cell divides or when chromosomes pair up. There is no evidence that a mind is involved in photosynthesis.
There is no conceivable experiment for switching mind on and off to see whether that is the essential factor in life.
28 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidThere's a much simpler explanation. We are living in a simulation. In the other simulation, the turtles are in charge.
I just told you that when we attempt to duplicate the process we think occurred that brought life into being we follow very careful protocols to ensure what we know is needed can be done and you are so willfully blind. No small wonder you didn't listen to Tour's whole talk, you simply don't want to hear what you want to deny justified in ways you cannot speak to.
28 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidOf course it matters that 'he is a Christian', because as you well know you only brought your pretend scientist here because 'he is a Christian.' Had he been a Muslim, or Hindu, or Atheist. you would not have posted your OP. You are not in fact interested in the 'topic' at all, i.e. sensible, rational, scientific discussion on a Science Forum regarding the beginning and continuation of life on earth, so please stop trying to pretend that you are, everyone here can see through your shallow pretense.
I brought him because of the topic and what he had to say, if you think it matters that he is a Christian then your focus is purely on religion, not the topic.
28 Jun 23
@indonesia-phil saidMore garbage, nothing to do with the topic just trash 🗑 talk. This has to be the only reason you reject mind over mindlessness nothing else ever comes from you, you are a broken record. No science, logic, only your dislike of religion, not a very sure foundation. I imagine lots of strong feelings nothing else.
Of course it matters that 'he is a Christian', because as you well know you only brought your pretend scientist here because 'he is a Christian.' Had he been a Muslim, or Hindu, or Atheist. you would not have posted your OP. You are not in fact interested in the 'topic' at all, i.e. sensible, rational, scientific discussion on a Science Forum regarding the beginning an ...[text shortened]... so please stop trying to pretend that you are, everyone here can see through your shallow pretense.
29 Jun 23
@KellyJ
We dislike religions because they are ALL manmade, not a god in sight.
If there IS a god or gods, they are keeping hands off.
Other than that, your buddy uses science as a weapon to try to prove creationism is real which it isn't.
You must know the 7 day creation tale is just that, not only a myth but plagiarised as well from a much earlier 7 day creation tale from ancient Egypt.
@kellyjay saidI and other posters here have provided links to hard evidence of the existence of organic molecules elsewhere in our solar system, and also in deep space. The conclusion, obvious to anyone who does not have a religious agenda to defend, is that the basic chemistry of life is neither supernaturally mysterious nor improbable.
More garbage, nothing to do with the topic just trash 🗑 talk. This has to be the only reason you reject mind over mindlessness nothing else ever comes from you, you are a broken record. No science, logic, only your dislike of religion, not a very sure foundation. I imagine lots of strong feelings nothing else.
You on the other hand have provided not one iota of evidence of the operation of mind, divine or otherwise, in any natural process. Nor have you provided a schema for an experiment which would detect the operation of mind in any natural process.
The smoke and mirrors are all on the side of those who claim something for which they have zero evidence and no experimentally testable hypothesis.