'Primordial Soup' Ousted from the Origin of Life?!?

Science at its Best!

Probing, challenging old ideas, applying new techniques, looking for a better answer. Even if this one isn't exactly it either, it's another route that's been probed. May prove to be the best answer--or maybe not. But we keep trying.

Whereas creationism...

Today the ‘soup’ theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays

While I think that this model of the beginning of life is plausible, there was one point really got my goat:

"[soup] there is no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can’t exist"

So the sun isn't a sustained energy source now? Last time I checked photochemistry was a pretty powerful beast that drives much of current life. It seems odd that the same ball of fusing gas couldn't have done the same for the primordial soup...

Likewise, chemical energy could also have provided initial energy; with a switch to other forms (photochemical, etc) coming later. The whole energy bill of life on earth didn't need to be present at the beginning; all that was needed was enough to get the ball rolling.

And while not immediately relevant to the above, I've never understood this kind of "conflict" in science. The primordial soup hypothesis is hardly incompatible with this hypothesis, or with the hypothesis that much of the starting material formed in space. Hell, if I had to bet (and there was a way to prove it), I'd bet that life arose from a combination of space-derived organics, "primordial soup" chemistry and the geothermal chemistry discussed here. If anything, they complement each other nicely, with elements of life hard to explain with one model (i.e. the formation of complex organics from the fairly simply gasses coming out of geothermal vents) with materials coming from another of the models (i.e. space-ices are full of complex organics).

mcmillan said: Looks like an interesting paper and I’ll have to take a closer look when I have some more time, but this sentence made me groan:

Today the ‘soup’ theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays

This isn’t a brand new idea that’s just been proposed and is overturning the previous hypothesis. At least in general terms it’s been floating around and being evaluated by scientists, not “over turn[ing] in a pioneering paper” in one day.

"For 80 years it has been accepted..."

Something of an oversimplification. I remember attending a series of lectures by Leslie Orgel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Orgel

at Haverford College in about 1974 in which Orgel argued against the "soup" because it would have been too dilute. He suggested instead that prebiotic chemistry started with organic components dissolved in raindrops, falling on hot rock. If I remember correctly he called this "sizzle instead of soup".

The point being that there have always been a large number of possible scenarios for the origin of life. No one is or was wedded to the soup hypothesis.

This is yet another case where "science by press release" really does us a disservice, and may be in the running for the worst science press release of the year. The paper does nothing to "oust" the so called primordial soup, it does add another potential energy source to the prebiotic system but its just another version of the hydrothermal energy systems that have been around for years. The press release (and, sadly, the paper), ignores a number of energy systems powering the so called "soup".

And it was Oparin who started the whole soup thing off, although Haldane did come up with it as well.

Here's why they reject the primordial soup scenario:
"The reason that all organisms are chemiosmotic today is simply that they inherited it from the very time and place that the first cells evolved -- and they could not have evolved without it," said Martin.

"Far from being too complex to have powered early life, it is nearly impossible to see how life could have begun without chemiosmosis," concluded Lane. "It is time to cast off the shackles of fermentation in some primordial soup as 'life without oxygen' -- an idea that dates back to a time before anybody in biology had any understanding of how ATP is made."

I like the picture of Campbell's soup, BTW. :)

Bilbo said: I like the picture of Campbell's soup, BTW. :)

Bilbo said: Here's why they reject the primordial soup scenario: "The reason that all organisms are chemiosmotic today is simply that they inherited it from the very time and place that the first cells evolved -- and they could not have evolved without it," said Martin. "Far from being too complex to have powered early life, it is nearly impossible to see how life could have begun without chemiosmosis," concluded Lane. "It is time to cast off the shackles of fermentation in some primordial soup as 'life without oxygen' -- an idea that dates back to a time before anybody in biology had any understanding of how ATP is made."

stevaroni said:

Bilbo said: I like the picture of Campbell's soup, BTW. :)

Campbells Primordial soup; It's "Mm Mm goo"

Bilbo said: I like the picture of Campbell's soup, BTW. :)

"life arose from gases..." that would seem somewhat a bold assertion...

The article is open access and available here

Also check out Wickramasinghe's 1974 book "Diseases from Space." Well, I'd probably say don't check it out, just know that it exists. Sorry, but I'm not inclined to believe that anything that could form in space, save for perhaps some "pathogen" consisting of only six nucleotides, is saavy enough to compete with the vertebrate immune system or the natural defenses of any terrestrial life. Wickramasinghe (also an author on this paper) apparently suggests that radioactive elements in comets could keep the water in their cores liquid for a million years or more--wonder what that would do to the comet itself at the outset, when said radioisotopes would have been the most abundant...

There's also the clay-based life theory (originated?) by Graham Cairns-Smith. It has some similarities to this paper's ideas, without the black-smokers references, since I think most of his work was done before the tectonic plate concept had been accepted.

Sensationalism much?

Definitely a potential boon for text book publishers, save for Texas and Louisiana.

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a ‘primordial soup’ of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later.

Today the ‘soup’ theory

has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

harold said: The almost obsessive-compulsive journalistic convention of making a hackneyed declaration that a "major theory" has been "overturned by mavericks" strikes again. I don't mean to come down to hard on potentially well-meaning science reporters, but if they could just let go of that "lone maverick genius overturns all of accepted science" meme, they could do a far better job.

The only beef I have with the can is that the primordial soup was probably a few amino acids, not all 20.

..."no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can’t exist"

Be still my beating heart.

Lion (IRC)

You're kidding, right? This argument has been going on for years! The idea that any one study is going to be a slam dunk for one theory of abiogenesis is absurd. Unless you have a time machine, all theories are going to be highly speculative. We're going to need many, many independent lines of evidence excluding other theories and supporting one before we are even close to settling this debate.

Terrible, terrible science reporting.

Are there actual college courses in science journalism where you learn to do this sort of breathless hype? (Though it seems at least partly the authors' fault in this particular case.)

Lion IRC said: ..."no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can’t exist" Be still my beating heart. Lion (IRC)

For crying out loud, this isn't even a research paper, it's all speculation. Nothing wrong with that, the article is clearly marked "Problems and Paradigms," but this is completely distorted through "science by press release" as Ian noted. It's the sort of ignorance that made people believe that Stephen Meyer's review paper, published by dint of editorial misconduct in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, represented "ID research."

If it isn't new, it isn't news. Sad, but that's journalism.

I, too, heard about this idea at least twenty years ago. I don't know of anything about it that overturns anything - it just offers another possible scenario for the origin of life by natural means, with the proviso (which applies to all such scenarios) that it will be very difficult to show that this is what actually happened, until an experiment can be run for some millions of years.

By which time, I guess, it will be old news.

But if creationists think that this means that black smokers = God, the hot rocks are in their heads.

Second (or third or fourth) the rage this stupid reporting puts me in. In the case of "Darwin was Wrong!!!!!!" articles that are shit out every month even by National Geographic (cover says "Darwin was a retard!" inside says "Oh we found something slightly unexpected that actually still strongly supports common descent, so never mind I guess"), I always assumed it was a ploy to sell mags to creotards - ever hopeful for vindication. But how does this soup business play with them? So pointless, insipid, transparent, and obnoxious...
-

IDists go on about how schools should teach alternative hypotheses for the "origin of life". We've discussed plenty of them so far!

Lion IRC said: ..."no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can’t exist"

Possibly OT here, but relevant in many posts:

For anybody interested, I just learned a great trick (Thanks to Paul Gilster at Centauri-dreams.org) You can use HTML tags to insert subscripts: the tags are sub and /sub, (each between a "less than" and a "greater than" sign). So you can get CO₂ instead of CO2. For superscripts, the tags are sup and /sup, e.g. 10⁴

Well it stands to reason that the old theory is dubious. After all, if we all evolved from soup, why is there still soup?

(And don't get me started on the laws of thermos-dynamics...)

Which came first, the chicken or the soup?

This is utter bullshit. My apologies if this has been addressed upthread somewhere, but I just had to respond immediately without reading all of the (well-crafted and cogent, I'm sure) responses.

This 'new' scenario has been around for a long time. It is even covered in Campbell's biology text (the most popular intro biology college text in North America), and I covered it in my class today. I don't know of anyone in the last 25 years who has not considered chemotrophy to be the most likely primitive metabolism.

Unless the authors can clearly state exactly what is new and different from the old ideas, they and their PR agents should be shot at sunrise every day for the rest of their natural lives.

'chemotrophy' should be chemolitrophy.

See how wrong this must be to get me to make that kind of mistake?

Well, Sciencedaily is busy with all sorts of negative articles that debunk certain abiogenesis theories....

1) What Came First in the Origin of Life? New Study Contradicts the 'Metabolism First' Hypothesis
2) New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life

and the 'Minimal Cell'....rather complex:
First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected

BTW, could anyone just give a brief meaningful difference between the 'Metabolism First' Hypothesis and the chemiosmosis hypothesis?
Thanks.

And which hypothesis do you guys think has the best chance? There are people that are waiting for an actual theory to support that is backed up with sound, plausible prebiotic chemistry. The RNA world seems like the most plausible not?

It seems surprising to me that this is news. The physics and chemistry fundamentals of this stuff have been known at least since the early parts of the 20th century.

There almost always has to be a rich mix of energy exchanges, energy cascades, catalysis, “pumping” of energy states, places where pumped systems can be shuttled in order to settle into states that would be improbable or broken up in the more energetic environments.

The discovery of extremophiles was probably one of the most encouraging confirmations that life can originate from physics and chemistry because it allowed thinking to extend beyond the extremely narrow energy range of liquid water at standard atmospheric pressure. And, as I recall, we have always known that searching for the exact recipe would be like searching for a specific needle in a mountain of needles.

As we explore more places, as technology makes exploration more efficient, when we look into places we haven't been able to get to until now, about all we are doing is confirming repeatedly that the kinds of process that have been envisioned and discussed for many years do indeed occur in nature. These are confirming data points along the path that will very likely lead to our finally hitting on the relatively few cascades and processes that lead to life. I think it is quite likely there will be more than one way this can happen.

This isn’t the only announcement that gives the appearance of scientists discovering some “unforeseen” process or proposing some new process that no one has thought of before. All of this stuff has been around for almost a century. But as with a number of other ongoing research activities in science, the press doesn’t keep up or know about the history. Reporters have a tendency to overhype, oversimplify or put unjustified interpretations on things scientists never said.

I and most of my colleagues always dreaded the press when they came around to check on what we were doing; and we would often cringe at the resulting article in some newspaper or annual report. I suppose that makes us seem like cranky curmudgeons, but our best efforts to have the reporter get it right always came out looking dumb.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Of course we were all created out of soup. It's in my ancient textbook. Claiming that we evolved from hydrothermal vents and not a goopy soup is quite frankly blasphemy. You may claim that I am a textbook fundamentalist or that my interpretation is too literal, but I take this issue on faith because my book says so. If all the evidence we against the "soup theory" I would have to reject it out right because of my moral and religious convictions. I'll, of course, pray that you all may see the light so gracefully granted by the chunky creator.

JDM said: You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Of course we were all created out of soup. It's in my ancient textbook.

Tex said: This 'new' scenario has been around for a long time. It is even covered in Campbell's biology text...

It is a true saying (well I've said it) every graduating class successfully overthrows the textbooks they read on origin issues.

It is being reported that a correction is in order.
What of the evidence? What of the science (scientific method) that was carefully done before worthy conclusions were drawn?
Why such error? if wrong about this why is anything solid in origin subjects?

This is a common thing I see in origin issues. What is aggressively insisted to be scientifically based and beyond criticism is overthrown by a single person.
This is what creationists find and demonstrate to the public about the quality and quantity of evidence being applied to great conclusions on past and gone events.

They still got it wrong but maybe now wronging in a more right direction.

Byers is a fanatic and a crank who never reads anything anyone says, because listening to the voices in his head is so much more satisfying. Pay no attention. It's no use telling him.

Hi all - If you'd like to read a copy of the paper, to judge it for yourselves, you can find it here:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123264090/PDFSTART

Or you can email me for a copy.

Cheers, Ben

Mike Elzinga said:

JDM said: You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Of course we were all created out of soup. It's in my ancient textbook.

Wow! You have the original textbook (cookbook) of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? And it was noodle soup, wasn’t it.

Hydrothermal vents are an interesting subject and seems to me like a hot candidate for OOL mechanisms.

I just want to mention a TV program I happened to watch recently. Unfortunately, it collided with other activities in the house so I saw only a part of it.

But what I saw was a U.S. scientist on Hawaii preparing some pieces of lava before subjecting them to volcanic heat. The idea was that the OOL processes he was looking for were more likely to happen in volcanoes, at temperatures in the 70°C region.

Just thought I'd mention it. Have just read Iris Fry's "The Emergence of Life on Earth" but it is already ten years old. That's a long time, isn't it?

I found this paper from 2006 very interesting too: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10696.full.pdf+html

David Cerutti said: Wickramasinghe (also an author on this paper) apparently suggests that radioactive elements in comets could keep the water in their cores liquid for a million years or more--wonder what that would do to the comet itself at the outset, when said radioisotopes would have been the most abundant...

Harrumph! I ain’t no kin to no geochemical gradient!

Kevin B said:

Mike Elzinga said:

JDM said: You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Of course we were all created out of soup. It's in my ancient textbook.

Wow! You have the original textbook (cookbook) of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? And it was noodle soup, wasn’t it.

Are you trying to provoke a recurrence of the Antipasti Controversy?

As I read it, they are not claiming the soup did not exist. They simply prefer to focus on the bowl, or the spoon.

Ignorant but potentially educable lay people are now going to be told by creationists that “those crazy scientists ‘concede’ that ‘soup theory’ has ‘been wrong for eighty years’”, and “evolution is just another theory like soup theory”. In fact, a creationist will show up soon and display that line of reasoning. You heard it here first.

Be still my beating heart.

This is a common thing I see in origin issues. What is aggressively insisted to be scientifically based and beyond criticism is overthrown by a single person. This is what creationists find and demonstrate to the public about the quality and quantity of evidence being applied to great conclusions on past and gone events.

harold said: Lion and Byers have been the only active creationists of late, so that may be it, or there may be more.

Ben Norman said: Hi all - If you'd like to read a copy of the paper, to judge it for yourselves, you can find it here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123264090/PDFSTART Or you can email me for a copy. Cheers, Ben

BTW, you guys are so much fun, I should have been visiting here a long time ago. And I am an IDist. But nobody's perfect.

Ian Musgrave said: This is yet another case where "science by press release" really does us a disservice, and may be in the running for the worst science press release of the year.

Robert Byers said: It is a true saying (well I've said it) every graduating class successfully overthrows the textbooks they read on origin issues.

Robert Byers said: It is a true saying (well I've said it) every graduating class successfully overthrows the textbooks they read on origin issues. It is being reported that a correction is in order. What of the evidence? What of the science (scientific method) that was carefully done before worthy conclusions were drawn? Why such error? if wrong about this why is anything solid in origin subjects? This is a common thing I see in origin issues. What is aggressively insisted to be scientifically based and beyond criticism is overthrown by a single person. This is what creationists find and demonstrate to the public about the quality and quantity of evidence being applied to great conclusions on past and gone events. They still got it wrong but maybe now wronging in a more right direction.

Robert Byers said: It is a true saying (well I've said it)

Robert Byers said: It is a true saying (well I've said it) every graduating class successfully overthrows the textbooks they read on origin issues. It is being reported that a correction is in order. What of the evidence? What of the science (scientific method) that was carefully done before worthy conclusions were drawn? Why such error? if wrong about this why is anything solid in origin subjects? This is a common thing I see in origin issues. What is aggressively insisted to be scientifically based and beyond criticism is overthrown by a single person. This is what creationists find and demonstrate to the public about the quality and quantity of evidence being applied to great conclusions on past and gone events. They still got it wrong but maybe now wronging in a more right direction.

JDM -

My apologies for omitting you and your Pastafarian Fundamentalist brethren from the list.

This is another example of a fairly good scientific article being grossly exaggerated by a press release hack.

The article itself is a good literature review. This is not a rejection of "80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life." The intrainment of fluids in marine hydrothermal vents would draw "soup" into the vent system. Two recent articles in Science give a good description of this:

D. Coumou, T. Driesner, and C. A. Heinrich
2008 "The Structure and Dynamics of Mid-Ocean Ridge Hydrothermal Systems"
Science 321: 1825-1828 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1159582] (in Reports)

Giora Proskurowski, Marvin D. Lilley, Jeffery S. Seewald, Gretchen L. Früh-Green, Eric J. Olson, John E. Lupton, Sean P. Sylva, and Deborah S. Kelley
2008 "Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field" Science 319: 604-607 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1151194] (in Reports)

The interaction of minerals and organics has been an active area for decades, and there is even articles specifically about hydrothermal vent minerals. For example:

Philipp Baaske, Franz M. Weinert, Stefan Duhr, Kono H. Lemke, Michael J. Russell, and Dieter Braun
2007 "Extreme accumulation of nucleotides in simulated hydrothermal pore systems" PNAS | May 29, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 22 | 9346-9351

Martin, William, Michael J. Russell
2002 "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells" Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences Vol.358, No.1429:59-85 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1183

The money quote in "On the Origins of Cells" is "We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. "

That was written 9 years ago.

There are other problems with the press release language as well. The author assumes that the new article is THE ANSWER!!1111!!1!

While they obviously couldn't cite all the relevant work, I was surprised they missed;

Smith, J.V.
1998 "Biochemical evolution. I. Polymerization on internal, organophilic silica surfaces of dealuminated zeolites and feldspars" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95(7): 3370-3375; March 31

It was after all directly relevant to their "new" theory, and only 12 years old.

Now that my irritation is vented somewhat, I will say that the authors did do a fine job explaining their "metabolism first" argument.

I, and many others, will be glad, and now pat ourselves on the back.

I do think that the overall effort would be improved if Nick Lane and his colleagues recognized that there were many sources of complex, abiotic CHON (S,Fe,K,Ca,S,Mg) molecules and complex environments that forced them to interact.

Ian Musgrave said: This is yet another case where "science by press release" really does us a disservice, and may be in the running for the worst science press release of the year. The paper does nothing to "oust" the so called primordial soup, it does add another potential energy source to the prebiotic system but its just another version of the hydrothermal energy systems that have been around for years. The press release (and, sadly, the paper), ignores a number of energy systems powering the so called "soup". And it was Oparin who started the whole soup thing off, although Haldane did come up with it as well.

This isn't really that new of an idea is, it? Anyone know what the paper really says?

Ben Norman said: Hi all - If you'd like to read a copy of the paper, to judge it for yourselves, you can find it here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123264090/PDFSTART Or you can email me for a copy. Cheers, Ben

Bilbo said:

Ben Norman said: Hi all - If you'd like to read a copy of the paper, to judge it for yourselves, you can find it here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123264090/PDFSTART Or you can email me for a copy. Cheers, Ben

Thanks for the offer, Ben. How do we get your email address? Or could you copy and paste the abstract?

Slightly OT, but in a similar vein:

On NPR this morning, on (I think it was called) "The Five Minute Naturalist", there was a discussion of the newly completed genome of the Purple Sea Urchin (which, from my distant memory of Marine Ecology, is Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis [LOVE that name!]). In the context of the article, they said something along the lines of "Meet your new cousin, the sea urchin", which surprised me because I remember at least from my graduate paleo days that Echinoderms and Chordates are both Deuterostomes. So even NPR will oversimplify these things.

I really wish that the media would not act as if well known facts, with a few additions, are major new discoveries.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: It is a true saying (well I've said it)

LMAO!!!

"We were made in the image of our noodly creator"

But why couldn't my creator been spaghetti instead of ravioli?

In view of the lack of closet space in the human intellect, it's no wonder we're all in love with oversimplification; but the tendency of folks to categorize issues under only two rubrics, regular ol' evolution and biogenesis, sometimes mystifies things. Fact is, we don't know how many stages and mechanisms were involved in the transition between the original hot rocks and the current three-realm regime of archaea, bacteria, and eucaryota. It would hardly be surprising if it turned out that the transition between lifelessness and life involved quite a few twists and turns, and it hardly helps that the evidence is 4.6 billion years old. I'm not counseling despair--I expect that a better understanding of the diversity of contemporary life will make the problem more tractable and the arguments with the creationists and ID types are just irrelevant--but if there were ever an issue about which to expect the unexpected, this problem is it.

Jim Harrison said: ... it's no wonder we're all in love with oversimplification; but the tendency of folks to categorize issues under only two rubrics, regular ol' evolution and biogenesis, sometimes mystifies things.

OT: I'm fascinated by the finding of what colors dinosaurs / protobirds had:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05dino.html?ref=science

Wow! You have the original textbook (cookbook) of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

There's a Primordial Pasta hypothesis? I never heard that in any of my biology classes.

Thank you, it's very amazing description it might be very hospitable for students. For example last year when I had a difficult of time at the end of semester with a ceaseless flow of academic assignments and mission, I had a astounding idea to buy it somewhere and than use plagiarism checking. I was so crippled that I did not care for what can begin when my academic work was written by flipside person. To my admirable surprise, research paper was worthy the price I paid for it. I was so charmed with the quality and now everytime i use this service.

KristaIp said: To my admirable surprise, research paper was worthy the price I paid for it. I was so charmed with the quality and now everytime i use this service.

In view of the lack of closet space in the human intellect, it’s no wonder we’re all in love with oversimplification; but the tendency of folks to categorize issues under only two rubrics, regular ol’ evolution and biogenesis, sometimes mystifies things.

Fact is, we don’t know how many stages and mechanisms were involved in the transition between the original hot rocks and the current three-realm regime of archaea, bacteria, and eucaryota. It would hardly be surprising if it turned out that the transition between lifelessness and life involved quite a few twists and turns, and it hardly helps that the evidence is 4.6 billion years old. I’m not counseling despair–I expect that a better understanding of the diversity of contemporary life will make the problem more tractable and the arguments with the creationists and ID types are just irrelevant–but if there were ever an issue about which to expect the unexpected, this problem is it.

KristaIP -

Low rent cheating is common enough, but it's nothing to be proud of. I never had to do it.

veritas36 said: OT: I'm fascinated by the finding of what colors dinosaurs / protobirds had: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05dino.html?ref=science

Of course, the story was familiar in part because intelligent-design advocates, and others, have long pointed out inadequacies in the soup concept. --- Klinghoffer, 2-5-1010.

FL said: (it's time) to discuss the weak spots and blank spots and assorted failures of those textbook claims.

FL said: Brief comments: (1) The ScienceDaily article clearly points to the need for pro-science people to support critical-thinking-based science education standards, such as the science standards of Louisiana and Texas.

It is appropriate to adopt state science standards that legally allow science teachers to discuss not only the claims presented in the biology students' textbooks, and their strengths, but ALSO to discuss the weak spots and blank spots and assorted failures of those textbook claims.

It's time to focus on Science Education, not Darwin Indoctrination.

(2) David Klinghoffer briefly discusses the ScienceDaily situation here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/primordial_soup_would_you_beli.html#more

Of course, the story was familiar in part because intelligent-design advocates, and others, have long pointed out inadequacies in the soup concept. --- Klinghoffer, 2-5-1010.

Totally true. FL

Yeah. As predicted, the creationists gather the quotes with glee.

Never mind that this has been speculated about in scientific journals for well over thirty years. Never mind that there's absolutely nothing here but one more possible way that life began out of half a dozen others at least, and the only real controversy is which way, or combination of ways, actually delivered life.

Never mind that. It's all information, y'see. Everyone knows what information is. No, don't listen to those fancy-pants theorists. They're just trying to protect their turf. It's really simple. Everyone knows you gotta know stuff to have information, so to put information into life, somebody hadda know stuff. I mean, it stands to reason.

I'm sorry, I can't write ignorant foolish mendacity without dropping into dialect.

For those who came in late, in the last post I'm summarising the DI's argument, from the link FL provided. He's useful for some things, I guess.

It is appropriate to adopt state science religious standards that legally allow science religion teachers (e.g. pastors and priests) to discuss not only the claims presented in the biology students' textbooks various versions of the xian bible, and their strengths, but ALSO to discuss the weak spots and blank spots and assorted failures of those xian claims. It's time to focus on Religious Education, not Xian Indoctrination.

Yup, and I for one will be coming to your church, FL, to teach your flock about Islam, and how xianity is just a lie and a bastardization of the true faith!

I'll be pushing for laws in each state to make it so I can force your pastor to discuss each and every religious controversy and counter to xian indoctrination!

I'm sure the world will be a better place.

don't you think?

the story was familiar in part because intelligent-design advocates, and others, have long pointed out inadequacies in the soup concept.

did they point out the same inadequacies in the sulfide chemistry/underwater vent origins model?

gee, why not?

what about the methane/sulfide chemistry surrounding cold seeps origin theory?

no?

you guys are so full of shit it's laughable.

Can I do that in a public school, FL. Are you cool with a real discussion of the comparative strengths of your “theory”?

Oh goody, do we also get to go through the weak spots and blank spots of Intelligent Design?

I have to say, Steve, that wasn't the smartest line to play.

you sure got the predicted response though.

Your friend Darwin said it best: a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

been there, done that. facts sifted, none made it into the scientific literature on your side.

EOS

Yup, and I for one will be coming to your church, FL, to teach your flock about Islam, and how xianity is just a lie and a bastardization of the true faith!

FL said:

Can I do that in a public school, FL. Are you cool with a real discussion of the comparative strengths of your “theory”?

Of course I am. There is no rational reason to do any differently. Put it all on the table in the public school science classroom, and let the chips fall where they may among the science students. Your friend Darwin said it best: a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. I'm willing to go there. You are too, I trust?

Dave Luckett said: Yeah. As predicted, the creationists gather the quotes with glee. Never mind that this has been speculated about in scientific journals for well over thirty years. Never mind that there's absolutely nothing here but one more possible way that life began out of half a dozen others at least, and the only real controversy is which way, or combination of ways, actually delivered life. Never mind that. It's all information, y'see. Everyone knows what information is. No, don't listen to those fancy-pants theorists. They're just trying to protect their turf. It's really simple. Everyone knows you gotta know stuff to have information, so to put information into life, somebody hadda know stuff. I mean, it stands to reason. I'm sorry, I can't write ignorant foolish mendacity without dropping into dialect.

And geometry teachers should teach hyperbolic as an alternative to Euclidean geometry!

Henry J said: And geometry teachers should teach hyperbolic as an alternative to Euclidean geometry!

Stanton said: Can you explain why, then, a literal reading of the English translation of the Book of Genesis can not be used to further the understanding of anything about life, or history, nor can it be used to benefit people or industry?

But why just ID and Evolution? Why not young earth creationism, various Hindu, Islamic, ancient Norse, Eastern, Middle-Eastern, American, Australian stories - not to mention more recent fare like Urantia? On what basis do we limit the discussion to ID versus science, especially since ID has no more claim to accuracy than any other creation myth? As I hope this makes clear, there is evolution, and then there is a bunch of creation stories. As has been demonstrated any number of times, ID is just Christian creationism stripped of God talk - but even there, it is not the only seemingly secular contender. While there might be a place for an truly objective survey of religious origin stories in school (which would therefore not include evolution), there is no credible scientific alternative to evolution. High School science students must be taught that fact.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't chemicals found at underwater geothermal vents simply a DIFFERENT type of primordial soup?...I am beggining to suspect that the folks at science news daily purposedly gave that heading to keep the ongoing battle alive...also wasn't this in the science channel years ago?

FL said:

Can I do that in a public school, FL. Are you cool with a real discussion of the comparative strengths of your “theory”?

Of course I am. There is no rational reason to do any differently. Put it all on the table in the public school science classroom, and let the chips fall where they may among the science students. Your friend Darwin said it best: a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. I'm willing to go there. You are too, I trust?

Nature is regulated not only by a microscopic rule base but by powerful and general principles of organization. Some of these principles are known, but the vast majority are not. New ones are being discovered all the time …If a simple physical phenomenon can become effectively independent of the more fundamental laws from which it descends, so can we. (R.B. Laughlin)

FL wrote:

"Put it all on the table in the public school science classroom, and let the chips fall where they may among the science students."

Right. The chips have already fallen. You got only cow chips. Now what FL? Why aren't you content with where the chips have fallen? The evidence for evolution has convinced virtually every scientist. No evidence for creationism has ever been found. Is it possible that you will still whine and moan about teaching about cow chips no matter what the evidence says? How many times do you want to fling your cow chips?

As I have told your good buddy Robert, if you want to teach creationism is science class in this country you must have three things - citizenship, a teaching certificate and a lesson plan. Assuming that the first is no problem, you should start working on the second. When you have that you can show us the third. Until then you will remain impotent. If you ever do get that far, we'll see you in court.

FL wrote: “Put it all on the table in the public school science classroom, and let the chips fall where they may among the science students.”

But why just ID and Evolution? Why not young earth creationism, various Hindu, Islamic, ancient Norse, Eastern, Middle-Eastern, American, Australian stories - not to mention more recent fare like Urantia?

ID does not rely on, nor require, nor assume, anybody’s claims from any religious texts

FL said: In contrast, ID does not rely on, nor require, nor assume, anybody's claims from any religious texts.

FL said: In contrast, ID does not rely on, nor require, nor assume, anybody's claims from any religious texts. More importantly, as Texas and Louisiana have directly demonstrated, you can have new, critical-thinking-based state science standards without even mentioning ID or creationism at all.

FL said: In contrast, ID does not rely on, nor require, nor assume, anybody's claims from any religious texts.

More importantly, as Texas and Louisiana have directly demonstrated, you can have new, critical-thinking-based state science standards without even mentioning ID or creationism at all.

The ScienceDaily article about the dumping of "primordial soup", simply points to the serious need for such support. Science-Education must be allowed to trump Darwin-Indoctrination in the public school science classrooms. FL

Mike Elzinga said: It’s all about filibustering science, never about learning real science.

I hate to interrupt the usual ranting about ID to post on topic, but I have a serious question for the experts here.

Is there an explanation in the chemiosmosis theory as to why abiogenesis isn't still ongoing today? What has changed about the founding conditions in the oft-pictured vents that has inhibited abiogenesis for 3 billion years?

fnxtr said: I can't believe anyone swallows this stuff, even if they do love Jesus.

Tumblemark said: I hate to interrupt the usual ranting about ID to post on topic, but I have a serious question for the experts here. Is there an explanation in the chemiosmosis theory as to why abiogenesis isn't still ongoing today? What has changed about the founding conditions in the oft-pictured vents that has inhibited abiogenesis for 3 billion years?

Tumblemark said: I hate to interrupt the usual ranting about ID to post on topic, but I have a serious question for the experts here. Is there an explanation in the chemiosmosis theory as to why abiogenesis isn't still ongoing today? What has changed about the founding conditions in the oft-pictured vents that has inhibited abiogenesis for 3 billion years?

Mike Elzinga said: It may also be the case that the conditions in which the recipe took place no longer exist on this planet, but the evolving products of that recipe continue to survive because the environment is more benign than it used to be.

Tumblemark said: Is there an explanation in the chemiosmosis theory as to why abiogenesis isn't still ongoing today? What has changed about the founding conditions in the oft-pictured vents that has inhibited abiogenesis for 3 billion years?

Mike Elzinga said:

Tumblemark said: I hate to interrupt the usual ranting about ID to post on topic, but I have a serious question for the experts here. Is there an explanation in the chemiosmosis theory as to why abiogenesis isn't still ongoing today? What has changed about the founding conditions in the oft-pictured vents that has inhibited abiogenesis for 3 billion years?

There is no reason to think that it could not be happening somewhere on this planet. But because we don’t know the recipe, we don’t know where to look. There are some interesting extremophiles that may give some hints of where these conditions occur. It may also be the case that the conditions in which the recipe took place no longer exist on this planet, but the evolving products of that recipe continue to survive because the environment is more benign than it used to be.

FL said:

But why just ID and Evolution? Why not young earth creationism, various Hindu, Islamic, ancient Norse, Eastern, Middle-Eastern, American, Australian stories - not to mention more recent fare like Urantia?

Because the latter items require, rely on, and assume, accepting certian claim(s) from this or that particular religious text as being true. This is true for both YEC and OEC as well. In contrast, ID does not rely on, nor require, nor assume, anybody's claims from any religious texts. More importantly, as Texas and Louisiana have directly demonstrated, you can have new, critical-thinking-based state science standards without even mentioning ID or creationism at all. *** I was asked by the poster if it was okay for him to teach the weaknesses or problems of non-Darwinian alternatives (such as ID, of course) in public school. My answer to him wass simply "Yes". That's the right answer, the only rational answer. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, like Darwin said. But I did not call for teaching ID in my previous post. I simply called for everybody to support Pro-Science-Education science standards, such as those currently adopted in Texas and Louisiana. The ScienceDaily article about the dumping of "primordial soup", simply points to the serious need for such support. Science-Education must be allowed to trump Darwin-Indoctrination in the public school science classrooms. FL

fnxtr said:

FL said: In contrast, ID does not rely on, nor require, nor assume, anybody's claims from any religious texts. More importantly, as Texas and Louisiana have directly demonstrated, you can have new, critical-thinking-based state science standards without even mentioning ID or creationism at all.

Your Liars-for-Jesus friends don't say "the C word" because they just don't have the balls to admit they're bible-thumping goofballs, just like you, FL. "You can't promote any religion in state-funded schools," says the law. "Okay," says the creationist coward, "this isn't religion, it's... um... creation science! Yeah, that's it! No, wait... Intelligent Design... No? Can't do that either? Okay, teach the controversy! Strengths and Weaknesses! Academic Freedom!" I can't believe anyone swallows this stuff, even if they do love Jesus.

harold said: Creationists are always trying to change the subject - trying to claim that what we KNOW isn't true, because we don't know something else, at least not to the same degree.

Evolutionary biologist and team member William Martin added, “Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings[,] the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life. But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life.” It seems that evolutionists themselves have done an excellent job finding problems with other evolutionists’ origin-of-life tales. None of the speculative ideas, however, have explained away the need for a leap of faith—to believe that just the right molecules organized in just the right way by chance, assembling themselves into an organism capable of reproducing itself.

I loved this bit:

"It seems that evolutionists themselves have done an excellent job finding problems with other evolutionists’ origin-of-life tales."

Uh-huh. So this sekrit all-powerful bunch of cabalists who want to suppress the truth and all that, they test and criticise their own ideas, and they do it right out there where everyone can see them, instead of doing it the proper religious way, and have a heresy followed by a schism followed, if possible, by a religious war.

Shameful!

I hope you all find the real beginning of life, "GOD"

I'm believe it's wrong to make fun of someone else's faith, so I won't do that. You worship at the altar of Mother Earth, I just hope you find the true beginning, and meaning of life someday before it's too late.

IBelieveInGod said: I hope you all find the real beginning of life, "GOD" I'm believe it's wrong to make fun of someone else's faith, so I won't do that. You worship at the altar of Mother Earth, I just hope you find the true beginning, and meaning of life someday before it's too late.

What about the work over the past few years about life starting in ice?

I have read many posts on this site, and wouldn't characterize this as a true science site, but rather a site that makes fun of those who happen to believe in creation and a Creator. If some theory doesn't fit your idea of what is acceptable to you, then you make fun of it, and the scientist who proposed such theory.

I would think that a true science site would be open-minded to all possibilities of the beginning of life, including the possibility of a creator. To only accept that all things happened by natural causes by nature only, is to put your faith in Mother Earth.

EVOLUTIONISTS NOW THINK LIFE EVOLVED ON A HOT ROCKS IN WATER. IF THAT WAS TRUE YOU COULD MAKE A CHICKEN BY PUTTING A ROCK IN BOILING WATER--WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS! YOU CAN'T EVEN MAKE ATP SYNTHASE BY DOING THAT YET THEY THINK CHEMIOSMOSIS HAPPENS ON THESE UNDERWATER ROCKS JUST BECAUSE THEY GET HOT. WHERE DOES THE MEMBRANE COME FROM? DOES THE PROTON GRADIENT AUTOMATICALLY CREATE LIFE? IF SO, CAN WE MAKE A CHICKEN WITH ONLY A PROTON GRADIENT? I MIGHT TRY THAT TOMORROW AND IF IT WORKS I MIGHT CONSIDER THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTIONISM.

Consider, Ibeleive, Yum's on your side, and this is someone who thinks that the theory of evolution is wrong because hot rocks in water don't make chickens.

And we shouldn't make fun of this why?

IBelieveInGod:

First, you need to find out what is meant by a scientific theory. ID is not a theory. Biblical and other creation stories could lay claim to being called a theory, but all of them have failed virtually every test made of them.

Secondly, the theory of evolution, just like the germ theory and theories on the nature of light, elementary particles, the great vowel shift and all others, makes absolutely no mention of a creator or creators. They are neither excluded nor included. Any exclusion exists only in your mind.

IBelieveInGod said: I have read many posts on this site, and wouldn't characterize this as a true science site, but rather a site that makes fun of those who happen to believe in creation and a Creator. If some theory doesn't fit your idea of what is acceptable to you, then you make fun of it, and the scientist who proposed such theory. I would think that a true science site would be open-minded to all possibilities of the beginning of life, including the possibility of a creator. To only accept that all things happened by natural causes by nature only, is to put your faith in Mother Earth.

It has been shown by many scientific medical studies that praying actually improves the healing process, this is observable and testable. Now, I know that we would look at this from two different assumptions, I believe that God actually answers prayer, and many here would assume some other cause for these results.

If some theory doesn’t fit your idea of what is acceptable to you, then you make fun of it, and the scientist who proposed such theory.

I would think that a true science site would be open-minded to all possibilities of the beginning of life, including the possibility of a creator.

fnxtr said: “Okay,” ... “this isn’t religion, it’s… um… creation science! Yeah, that’s it! No, wait… Intelligent Design… No? Can’t do that either? Okay, teach the controversy! Strengths and Weaknesses! Academic Freedom!”

According to a theory accepted for 80 years, life came about from a "primordial soup" tell me how this is observable and testable? Yet it is called a theory?

FL said: Put it all on the table in the public school science classroom, and let the chips fall where they may among the science students.

"I" wrote:

"...I believe that God actually answers prayer, and many here would assume some other cause for these results."

Still not scientific theory of your won to propose? Guess that's why you only criticize concepts for which there is some evidence.

As for prayers being answered I would like to test that hypothesis. I pray that you will see the light and realize that science has answered many important questions regarding the origin of life. These answers to not require one to abandon belief in a god. Demanding that science have all of the answers is silly. Preferring fairy tales and myths that are obviously contrary to evidence is sillier. Forcing these beliefs on others at tax payer expense is illegal. I pray that you will stop trying to force people to choose between science and religion. Let's see if my prayers will be answered.

How is it observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup?

How is it observable and testable that life came about from, "(H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores.”?

How is it observable and testable that a magical sky-daddy poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago? Especially when all the data ever seriously collected shows this is wrong? Is your creator a deceiver that just made everything look millions of years old? Welcome to Last Thursdayism.

Look, go ahead and believe in your particular idea of god, have faith in your redeemer, turn the other cheek, give your cloak also, all the good things the teacher advised.

Just don't pretend two pages of ancient campfire tales is science. It isn't, never was, and never will be, and trying to convince anyone that it is anything but myths, told by people who didn't know what we later learned, will just make your faith look foolish. Cue St. Augustine...

Where have I claimed that what I believe is science? I never said that the Bible is science have I? But, that doesn't mean that I don't believe the Bible to be true, I believe it to be the word of the Living God. You don't have the believe that, but just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that He doesn't exist!

I happen to believe that God as the creator of the universe and life is more acceptable then the big bang theory and primordial soup theory. And just because science has not found a way to test the supernatural now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There was a time when scientist would have been laughed at by other scientists just for proposing the idea of atoms and molecules. There was a time when it was not possible to test and observe atoms and molecules, but did it mean that they didn't really exist?

I have never seen anywhere in my Bible where life was created 6000 years ago. The Bible says life was created in 6 days, but what is a day with God?

How is it observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup?

How is it observable and testable that life came about from, “(H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores.”?

I have asked this before, but nobody seems able to answer. Isn't this taught in our public schools?

IBelieveInGod said: It has been shown by many scientific medical studies that praying actually improves the healing process, this is observable and testable. Now, I know that we would look at this from two different assumptions,

It has been shown by many scientific medical studies that praying actually improves the healing process, this is observable and testable.

IBelieveInGod said: It has been shown by many scientific medical studies that praying actually improves the healing process, this is observable and testable. Now, I know that we would look at this from two different assumptions, I believe that God actually answers prayer, and many here would assume some other cause for these results.

"I" wrote:

"Where have I claimed that what I believe is science? I never said that the Bible is science have I?"

Why do you think that unscientific things are interesting in a discussion of science? Why do you think that unscientific things should replace science? Why do you think that my prayers were not answered?

So, are you saying that the primordial soup theory was not actually a theory? Read the story that we have been commenting about! Don't you see what you are saying here? According to your own post, scientists will never be able to determine how life came about from non-living matter.

You say that there are natural explanations for such things as Storms, earthquakes, plagues, lightning, all that. But, if God created life that is self replicating, then why wouldn't he also design the earth in such a way as to be self sustaining, including weather patterns, etc...? Is it your contention that because God doesn't control everything through supernatural means, that He doesn't exist? If God created everything, wouldn't He have also create the natural causes that exist?

I didn't say that just because scientists don't know what happened to cause first life to come into existence, that it had to have been God. I just happen to believe God created life.

DS said: "I" wrote: "Where have I claimed that what I believe is science? I never said that the Bible is science have I?" Why do you think that unscientific things are interesting in a discussion of science? Why do you think that unscientific things should replace science? Why do you think that my prayers were not answered?

IBelieveInGod said: So, are you saying that the primordial soup theory was not actually a theory?

According to your own post, scientists will never be able to determine how life came about from non-living matter.

IBelieveInGod said: ...According to your own post, scientists will never be able to determine how life came about from non-living matter. ...

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

tumblemark: Is there an explanation in the chemiosmosis theory as to why abiogenesis isn’t still ongoing today? What has changed about the founding conditions in the oft-pictured vents that has inhibited abiogenesis for 3 billion years?

Ibelievein Kent Hovind and AIG: I would think that a true science site would be open-minded to all possibilities of the beginning of life, including the possibility of a creator. To only accept that all things happened by natural causes by nature only, is to put your faith in Mother Earth.

Aren’t we discussing the beginning of life, when there is no way to observe or test how life actually came into existence. Wouldn’t that be discussing unscientific things?

IBelieveInGod said: I just happen to believe God created life.

Is it your contention that because God doesn’t control everything through supernatural means, that He doesn’t exist?

IBelieveInGod said: I have read many posts on this site, and wouldn't characterize this as a true science site, but rather a site that makes fun of those who happen to believe in creation and a Creator. If some theory doesn't fit your idea of what is acceptable to you, then you make fun of it, and the scientist who proposed such theory.

I would think that a true science site would be open-minded to all possibilities of the beginning of life, including the possibility of a creator.

To only accept that all things happened by natural causes by nature only, is to put your faith in Mother Earth.

IBelieveInGod said: I didn't say that just because scientists don't know what happened to cause first life to come into existence, that it had to have been God. I just happen to believe God created life.

IBelieveInGod said: It has been shown by many scientific medical studies that praying actually improves the healing process, this is observable and testable.

Now, I know that we would look at this from two different assumptions, I believe that God actually answers prayer, and many here would assume some other cause for these results.

Dave Thomas said:

IBelieveInGod said: ...According to your own post, scientists will never be able to determine how life came about from non-living matter. ...

Just because we post a news item featured in Science Daily does not mean "everyone" at Panda's Thumb agrees with/accepts/"believes" that story. Further, just because Science Daily reports a news item, does not mean that the report is a definitive statement of everything Science has ever said, or Will say, on the topic... Further, this:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

All you need in life are ignorance and confidence. Then success is certain.

IBelieveInGod said: According to a theory accepted for 80 years, life came about from a "primordial soup" tell me how this is observable and testable? Yet it is called a theory?

IBelieveInGod said: How is it observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup?

How is it observable and testable that life came about from, “(H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores.”?

I have asked this before, but nobody seems able to answer. Isn't this taught in our public schools?

Aren't we discussing the beginning of life, when there is no way to observe or test how life actually came into existence. Wouldn't that be discussing unscientific things?

IBelieveInGod said: How is it observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup?

Robin said:

IBelieveInGod said: How is it observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup?

I think you have a rather misguided understanding of the Scientific Method. An hypothesis does not have to be observable and testable to be presented or even accepted scientifically. A good scientific hypothesis is one that provides a plausible explanation for some phenomenon AND provides a means to falsify the explanation via test. The Primordial Soup hypothesis is such AND lo and behold it looks like it may well be falsified now that science has the tools to test many more aspects of such chemical environments.

How is it observable and testable that life came about from, “(H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores.”?

See above. The reason such is proposed is summarized in the article provided. The crux is that given the molecular chemical properties found in such environments, it is plausible that such conditions could lead to the creation of organic molecules.

I have asked this before, but nobody seems able to answer. Isn't this taught in our public schools?

The hypothesis is taught in schools. See above for why such is valid.

IBelieveInGod said: I agree that a hypothesis doesn't have to be observable or testable, so why is it taught in the schools? If it can be taught as an hypothesis, they\n why can't other hypothesis be taught such as creation, ID, or any other hypothesis?

DS said:

Aren't we discussing the beginning of life, when there is no way to observe or test how life actually came into existence. Wouldn't that be discussing unscientific things?

Studies of abiogenesis are science. Your made up religious crap isn't. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Now, why didn't you answer my prayers? You said they would be answered. Why didn't your god answer my prayers? Your hypothesis has been falsified.

According to a theory accepted for 80 years, life came about from a “primordial soup” tell me how this is observable and testable? Yet it is called a theory?

I agree that a hypothesis doesn’t have to be observable or testable, so why is it taught in the schools? If it can be taught as an hypothesis, they\n why can’t other hypothesis be taught such as creation, ID, or any other hypothesis?

Dave Thomas said:

IBelieveInGod said: I agree that a hypothesis doesn't have to be observable or testable, so why is it taught in the schools? If it can be taught as an hypothesis, they\n why can't other hypothesis be taught such as creation, ID, or any other hypothesis?

If you wanted to mention the creation "hypothesis" in a class on philosophy, or comparative religions, that's perfectly fine. Such hypotheses can be taught in schools, provided the subject is appropriate. However, you can not just start teaching any old hypothesis in a SCIENCE class. To be science, any scientific hypothesis must be testable. Stanley Miller once hypothesized that electric sparks in a 'soup' of chemicals could produce biological compounds known as 'amino acids' where none existed previously. If you want to quibble that Miller's experiments are not relevant to the formation of life, because they assumed a reducing atmosphere or some such, that's fine - then you should be prepared to test YOUR hypothesis, presumably in a non-reducing atmosphere, etc. Bottom line, if you want to call it "science," there had better be some way to test the hypothesis involved. Also, if you want to quibble that science must be "observable," e.g. you're trying to get away with claiming that anything that ever happened before "witnesses" has no evidential support, you are again missing the boat. Consider the hypothesis that a meteor doomed the last of the dinosaurs. While we can't observe the Chicxulub meteor's impact again, we can test the hypothesis - for example, do sediments from the end of the Cretaceous period (and end of the dinosaurs) show a layer of heavy metals like iridium, known to be rare except in certain rocks, like meteors? We test all kinds of hypotheses that can't be "observed" in a tidy little lab. Even if no one saw the butler commit the crime, we can "test" the hypothesis of the butler's guilt - are his fingerprints on the murder weapon? His DNA underneath the victim's fingernails? And so forth. So you see, simply calling something a "hypothesis" doesn't mean it becomes part of Science Class. Capiche?

Just Bob said:

IBelieveInGod said: How is it observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup?

How is it observable and testable that you "came from" your own mother? Do you think you could prove that ABSOLUTELY? You could prove it to me and to others here "beyond a reasonable doubt" certainly--we're reasonable people. But can you prove it 100%, absolutely? Birth certificate? Hah! Easy to fake. Eyewitnesses? Any crime investigator knows that eyewitness testimony is remarkably unreliable, especially concerning emotionally charged events. Your own "mother's" testimony? She could be lying, or mistaken (maybe you were switched at birth), or deluded, or maybe you were created last Thursday, and everyone's memories of you, plus physical evidence, were created then to give you the "appearance of age." DNA tests? Do YOU accept the DNA evidence that all life on Earth descends from a common ancestor? No? Then why should we accept the validity of DNA as proving your ancestry? And how can you absolutely prove that the lab, or the technicians, or you yourself haven't faked that evidence? No, it's not "observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup," or any other possible source of abiogenesis. But to scientists who study these matters--even very religious ones--it's REASONABLE to believe that it did. Just like it's reasonable to believe that the woman who you CLAIM gave birth to you, actually did. You're the best informed on that matter, so it's reasonable to assume you're right. Now, there are many experts here and in the broader world of science who know way more than you or I do about the likely means of abiogenesis, so why isn't it reasonable to assume, in lieu of evidence to the contrary, that they know what they're talking about?

harold said: IBelieveInGod -

According to a theory accepted for 80 years, life came about from a “primordial soup” tell me how this is observable and testable? Yet it is called a theory?

That comment really ticks me off. The first thing I did on this thread was to point out that this isn't a theory. It's unfortunate that a journalist (who certainly should have known better) used that term. Also, no-one is making fun of anyone's religion. People are criticizing hypocrisy and science denial. Most religious people don't deny science.

I agree that a hypothesis doesn’t have to be observable or testable, so why is it taught in the schools? If it can be taught as an hypothesis, they\n why can’t other hypothesis be taught such as creation, ID, or any other hypothesis?

ID/creationism is not a valid hypothesis. ID/creationism contradicts the theory of evolution. The evidence supports the theory of evolution. Sorry if you don't like that, and have been misled about it. "ID", as promulgated by Behe and Dembski, has internal logical errors and can never even be a valid hypothesis. Many Young Earth Creationist claims did, at one time (circa 1800), represent logically coherent and testable hypotheses. However, they were tested and found to be wrong. Now they are no longer relevant. None of this has anything to do with religion, except to the extent that religions which contradict scientific reality are by definition wrong. However, there are plenty of other religions to choose from.

Robin said:

IBelieveInGod said: How is it observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup?

I think you have a rather misguided understanding of the Scientific Method. An hypothesis does not have to be observable and testable to be presented or even accepted scientifically. A good scientific hypothesis is one that provides a plausible explanation for some phenomenon AND provides a means to falsify the explanation via test. The Primordial Soup hypothesis is such AND lo and behold it looks like it may well be falsified now that science has the tools to test many more aspects of such chemical environments.

How is it observable and testable that life came about from, “(H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores.”?

See above. The reason such is proposed is summarized in the article provided. The crux is that given the molecular chemical properties found in such environments, it is plausible that such conditions could lead to the creation of organic molecules.

I have asked this before, but nobody seems able to answer. Isn't this taught in our public schools?

The hypothesis is taught in schools. See above for why such is valid.

ibelievein Ken Ham and AIG: No, it’s not “observable and testable that life came about from a primordial soup,” or any other possible source of abiogenesis.

raven repeating the point you ignored: Wrong again. We can get a good idea from knowing the early earth’s composition and model systems in the lab. We have already created a Primordial self replicating RNA molecule predicted by some Abiogenesis theories. By some definitions, this is the creation of life, abiogenesis. It was created using in vitro evolutionary techniques and it also itself evolves. More to the point, thanks to the space telescopes we have identified 450 or so extrasolar planets. We know there are many more we can’t yet detect. It seems that just about every star has a planetary system. Someday we should be able to look at lots and lots of planets and see if life has arisen, what stage it is, what is its chemical composition and so on. We’ve only been doing this for 200 years seriously. Why say never when a thousand years from now, we may be hunched over puddles somewhere far off watching Abiogenesis in action. The history of science is that whatever we can think up that doesn’t violate known physical laws, we can and eventually will do. Saying we don't know something now means we will never know it is a foolish god of the gaps fallacy.

IBelieveInGod said: Okay, then why isn't creation taught as a hypothesis in science class if primordial soup hypothesis is taught?

scienceagogo Now, however, two Scripps Research Institute scientists have taken a significant step toward confirming the viability of the RNA World model. For the first time, they have synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves indefinitely without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. Reporting their work in Science, Scripps' Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce explained how their breakthrough began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The ultimate goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication. This involved synthesizing a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that then underwent a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA. Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that was a very efficient replicator. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication. "It kind of blew me away," says Lincoln.

I vote this the most silly argument I have ever read!!! I know you can't be serious, so it's not worth responding to this.

IBelieveInGod said:

harold said: IBelieveInGod -

According to a theory accepted for 80 years, life came about from a “primordial soup” tell me how this is observable and testable? Yet it is called a theory?

That comment really ticks me off. The first thing I did on this thread was to point out that this isn't a theory. It's unfortunate that a journalist (who certainly should have known better) used that term. Also, no-one is making fun of anyone's religion. People are criticizing hypocrisy and science denial. Most religious people don't deny science.

I agree that a hypothesis doesn’t have to be observable or testable, so why is it taught in the schools? If it can be taught as an hypothesis, they\n why can’t other hypothesis be taught such as creation, ID, or any other hypothesis?

ID/creationism is not a valid hypothesis. ID/creationism contradicts the theory of evolution. The evidence supports the theory of evolution. Sorry if you don't like that, and have been misled about it. "ID", as promulgated by Behe and Dembski, has internal logical errors and can never even be a valid hypothesis. Many Young Earth Creationist claims did, at one time (circa 1800), represent logically coherent and testable hypotheses. However, they were tested and found to be wrong. Now they are no longer relevant. None of this has anything to do with religion, except to the extent that religions which contradict scientific reality are by definition wrong. However, there are plenty of other religions to choose from.

So, tell me what makes one hypothesis valid and another not? If you can't observe or test either one, then why is only one valid?

This troll is taunting and taking up bandwidth. It’s his “Christian” thing to do.

IBelieveInGod said: Okay, then why isn't creation taught as a hypothesis in science class if primordial soup hypothesis is taught?

What about creation has failed numerous tests?

STOP! MOVE ALONG - JUST A LITTLE TROLL CONTROL As you can see, I've sent IBIG to the Bathroom Wall. Engage with him there all you like! But not here, por favor. I gave him a chance to define what he meant by "Creation", and he evaded with RNA/whatnot. For crying out loud - his handle was "I BELIEVE IN GOD". For someone like that to pussyfoot with the definition of 'creation' is disingenuous. Thus, to the Bathroom Wall with him. Sorry about the Collateral Damage - I hope you'll understand. And, it's not like your comments get Disappeared - they just get a new room, with a cheaper wallpaper that's got some cracks and pee stains. Cheers, Dave

Dave Thomas said: Oops - got a little carried away there

Dave Thomas said: Oops - got a little carried away there After posting this:

STOP! MOVE ALONG - JUST A LITTLE TROLL CONTROL As you can see, I've sent IBIG to the Bathroom Wall. Engage with him there all you like! But not here, por favor. I gave him a chance to define what he meant by "Creation", and he evaded with RNA/whatnot. For crying out loud - his handle was "I BELIEVE IN GOD". For someone like that to pussyfoot with the definition of 'creation' is disingenuous. Thus, to the Bathroom Wall with him. Sorry about the Collateral Damage - I hope you'll understand. And, it's not like your comments get Disappeared - they just get a new room, with a cheaper wallpaper that's got some cracks and pee stains. Cheers, Dave

I was trying to send yet another of IBIG's inane meanderings to the Bathroom Wall, when I apparently selected the whole raft of comments by accident. And wouldn't you know, while there's a way to send the raft to the Bathroom Wall", there's no way to fetch them back. My apologies. Consider it a scenery change for the discussion with IBIG. Cheers, Dave

Greg Myers said: But why just ID and Evolution? Why not young earth creationism, various Hindu, Islamic, ancient Norse, Eastern, Middle-Eastern, American, Australian stories - not to mention more recent fare like Urantia? On what basis do we limit the discussion to ID versus science, especially since ID has no more claim to accuracy than any other creation myth? As I hope this makes clear, there is evolution, and then there is a bunch of creation stories. As has been demonstrated any number of times, ID is just Christian creationism stripped of God talk -

Mike Elzinga said:

Tumblemark said: I hate to interrupt the usual ranting about ID to post on topic, but I have a serious question for the experts here. Is there an explanation in the chemiosmosis theory as to why abiogenesis isn't still ongoing today? What has changed about the founding conditions in the oft-pictured vents that has inhibited abiogenesis for 3 billion years?

There is no reason to think that it could not be happening somewhere on this planet. But because we don’t know the recipe, we don’t know where to look. There are some interesting extremophiles that may give some hints of where these conditions occur. It may also be the case that the conditions in which the recipe took place no longer exist on this planet, but the evolving products of that recipe continue to survive because the environment is more benign than it used to be.

Dave,

Another clean up is required on aisle four. Thanks for your efforts.

To everyone else,

Why don't we make this easier on Dave and respond to or discuss the BIG idiot only on the bathroom wall?

DS said: Dave, Another clean up is required on aisle four. Thanks for your efforts. To everyone else, Why don't we make this easier on Dave and respond to or discuss the BIG idiot only on the bathroom wall?

Dave,

Thanks so much. Please feel free to ban the IBIG address if he continues to violate the rules.

ID is the Logos Theory of St. John

FL said: If Dembski's particular ID hypothesis survives testability/falsification, THEN a person might reasonably infer Dembski's particular statement on the philosophical or theological level (especially if he or she is familiar with the Bible). FL

FL said:

ID is the Logos Theory of St. John

The 3-point ID hypothesis found in Dembski's 1999 book Intelligent Design does not require or pre-assume ANY religious or theistic claim...If Dembski's particular ID hypothesis survives testability/falsification...

FL said:

ID is the Logos Theory of St. John

The 3-point ID hypothesis found in Dembski's 1999 book Intelligent Design does not require or pre-assume ANY religious or theistic claim from the biblical Gospel of John (not even the existence of God.)

If Dembski's particular ID hypothesis survives testability/falsification, THEN a person might reasonably infer Dembski's particular statement on the philosophical or theological level (especially if he or she is familiar with the Bible). FL

Dave Thoms, IBelieve does not appear to be getting your hints. Can you flush his inanity yet again, please?

Stanton said: Dave Thoms, IBelieve does not appear to be getting your hints. Can you flush his inanity yet again, please?

FL said: The 3-point ID hypothesis found in Dembski's 1999 book Intelligent Design does not require or pre-assume ANY religious or theistic claim from the biblical Gospel of John (not even the existence of God.) If Dembski's particular ID hypothesis survives testability/falsification, THEN a person might reasonably infer Dembski's particular statement on the philosophical or theological level (especially if he or she is familiar with the Bible). FL

What IBelieveInGod really said: Heads, I win!!!!!!!! Tails, you loooooooooooooooooose!!!!oneone

What if nobody responded to him?

Really, doesn't he have his 10 posts by now? IBIG, just print out the page, apply for the class credit and go away already.

Stanton said: Dave Thomas, given as how IBelieve insists that he has a privilege to babble nonstop here, in spite of your hints to the contrary, perhaps it would be best to limit IBelieve's posting abilities to the Bathroom Wall?

what is the difference between a life form that is living, and one that is ceased to be alive?

IBelieveInGod said: what is the difference between a life form that is living, and one that is ceased to be alive?

No you aren't getting what I'm referring to. What is the difference between a living life form and a non-living life form. Does the DNA change when a life dies?

Tell me what makes life actually alive? Do you really know what life really is?

IBelieveInGod said: Tell me what makes life actually alive? Do you really know what life really is?

I spent some time explaining to IBIG that there was no hard, sharp, bright line between living and non-living, and that scientists argue (from evidence!) about which side various organisms in various states belong on. Stevaroni supplied him with some actual examples of where the status is arguable. This is not to deny that there are a great many things that are unambiguously alive, and a great many things that are unambiguously not alive.

So his question makes no sense at all, but I think he's trying another version of "you don't know everything, so therefore you know nothing" on us.

No, IBIG, we don't know everything. We do know some things though. Among the things we know are "living things evolved" and "all life is commonly descended" and "science must seek natural explanations for natural phenomena". You (apparently) deny these, which demonstrates nothing but your ignorance and prejudice. Too bad for you.

IBelieveInGod said: No you aren't getting what I'm referring to. What is the difference between a living life form and a non-living life form. Does the DNA change when a life dies?

stevaroni said: What, specifically, are you looking to probe with your DNA question?

I and none of you can really explain what life really is. It's not just a bunch of chemicals that have come together in the proper way, because if that were true then you could just create life like baking a cake, it's not even because something contains DNA. DNA is the information contained within the cell, similar to the operating system of a computer, but like a computer without power and a functioning CPU the computer will not work even if the hard drive contains all of the information needed to operate (operating system). Even if something has living cells within it's body structure, does not make it a living creature, i.e. dead humans contain living organisms within their bodies, i.e bacteria, parasites, yet none here would ever state that the dead person was really alive. So, what really is life?

My contention is and has always been that there is absolutely no way to verify any hypothesis that attempts to explain how the very first living thing came about by only naturalistic means. There is also no way to actually falsify any such hypothesis. Yet the hypothesis of the primordial soup is still being taught in our public schools, they can't teach creationism or ID, but they are free to teach the myth of the primordial soup hypothesis. You would say that creationism/ID are not science, but I would ask, "what makes the primordial soup hypothesis science"?

Many of you have criticized Dembski for not attempting to falsify his hypothesis, and I really don't know if he has or not, but the truth is that no hypothesis of origin of first life could never be falsified. It is just not possible, and it would be dishonest to say that one could falsify any such hypothesis.

Yep. Pretty much what I said. "You don't know everything about life, so therefore you don't have any idea about it at all".

Sigh. Once more with feeling.

Whether anyone can define 'life' in sufficient detail to satisfy you has nothing to do with it. Life exists, and it can be investigated, and possibly explained, by science, and science may be taught in schools. But creationism isn't science, and it can't be taught in schools. Why isn't it, and why can't it be?

A scientific hypothesis is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that can be tested against evidence, with a view to ruling it out - falsifying it. It is true that the various scientific hypotheses about the origin of life are difficult to test, because the evidence is scant, and not enough is known. They are at the cutting edge of science. Nevertheless, and despite your claim to the contrary, these hypotheses are potentially falsifiable by experiment, and that's exactly what scientists are working to do. They are therefore scientific hypotheses, and may be covered in science class, with the proper disclaimer that no conclusions have yet been reached.

But if you don't provide any evidence at all, which you haven't, or if your evidence or reasoning fails scientific scrutiny - which is the case with Dembski and with all the attempts at evidence that creationists come up with from time to time - then you don't have a hypothesis. It's merely an assertion.

Further, if your real reason for making this assertion is "I believe that God is the Creator", or, "I have faith" or "The Bible says so", or some such, then this must mean that the assertion is intrinsically, necessarily religious in nature.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. For over a century now the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that Congress may not use the resources of the State in any way whose main purpose or actual effect is to promote any particular religion, or religion in general. An assertion that is intrinsically and necessarily religious in nature cannot therefore be taught as fact in the public schools.

That's why creationism is not science, and that's why it can't be taught in the public schools.

“You don’t know everything about life, so therefore you don’t have any idea about it at all”.

Like I told this idiot earlier, abiogenesis is considered a science because people take the time to do scientific experiments with it, and thus, deserves to be taught in science classrooms. Creationism, as put forth by Creationists, on the other hand, is nothing but anti-science religious propaganda, and does not deserve to be taught in a science classroom.

But, IBelieve was not, is not here to discuss abiogenesis, or definitions of life versus dead: he's here to lecture us on how he's apparently always right, and how he knows so much more than any of us or any of those stupid scientists because

uh,

he believes in God.

Having said this, perhaps it would be best to kill this thread, as IBelieve is just going to start up again (and again) with his same, screechy but inane Heads, I win; tails, you lose! rant.

Well, I falsified the hypothesis that god answers prayer. Now I pray to satan that IBIG will go away. That seems to be the only effect these foolish posts have had on anyone.

Maybe I should pray to Dave Thomas instead. Yea, that's it. Now there is a guy who knows how to get things done. He will ban the boob to the bathroom wall forever. God apparently is incapable of doing that. Or maybe Joe Pesci. Yea that's it. That'll work even better.

WHAT MAKES PRIMORDIAL SOUP SCIENCE? THE CAN IS RIGHT THERE FOR ALL TO SEE!

stevaroni wrote:

"In those cases the DNA of an organism can be almost untouched. In fact, there’s good reason to suspect that, in the unlikely event that you could find some really well preserved ancient DNA, say from frozen mammoth sperm, or insect eggs preserved in amber, it might even be viable."

So far, the world record for sequencing ancient DNA is a 40 million year old magnolia leaf. The entire mitochondrial genome of Neanderthal DNA has also been sequenced. The age of the DNA is not the important thing. The important thing is how it is preserved. Studies such as these provide a new dimension to studying the past history of life on earth.

I guess some I BIG idiot just didn't read the literature. Imagine that.

ben said:

“You don’t know everything about life, so therefore you don’t have any idea about it at all”.

"...and therefore, any goofy unsubstantiated claim about life is just as valid as any of the findings of science."

IBelieveInGod said: I and none of you can really explain what life really is.

..It's not just a bunch of chemicals that have come together in the proper way, because if that were true then you could just create life like baking a cake...

So, what really is life?

My contention is and has always been that there is absolutely no way to verify any hypothesis that attempts to explain how the very first living thing came about by only naturalistic means.

Yet the hypothesis of the primordial soup is still being taught in our public schools, they can't teach creationism or ID, but they are free to teach the myth of the primordial soup hypothesis.

You would say that creationism/ID are not science, but I would ask, "what makes the primordial soup hypothesis science"?

The best way to avoid having words put into your mouth is to keep your mouth shut.

IBelieveInGod said:

ben said:

“You don’t know everything about life, so therefore you don’t have any idea about it at all”.

"...and therefore, any goofy unsubstantiated claim about life is just as valid as any of the findings of science."

Your quote is not from me, and it was not my contention. Don't try to put words in my mouth, it is so dishonest! logical fallacy!!!

stevaroni said: And hey - Michael Vettner's DNA is now publicly available as the human genome project, and, theoretically, will be around online long after Mike is gone.

Dave Luckett said: A scientific hypothesis is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that can be tested against evidence, with a view to ruling it out - falsifying it. It is true that the various scientific hypotheses about the origin of life are difficult to test, because the evidence is scant, and not enough is known. They are at the cutting edge of science. Nevertheless, and despite your claim to the contrary, these hypotheses are potentially falsifiable by experiment, and that's exactly what scientists are working to do. They are therefore scientific hypotheses, and may be covered in science class, with the proper disclaimer that no conclusions have yet been reached.

Dave Luckett said: A scientific hypothesis is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that can be tested against evidence, with a view to ruling it out - falsifying it. It is true that the various scientific hypotheses about the origin of life are difficult to test, because the evidence is scant, and not enough is known. They are at the cutting edge of science. Nevertheless, and despite your claim to the contrary, these hypotheses are potentially falsifiable by experiment, and that's exactly what scientists are working to do. They are therefore scientific hypotheses, and may be covered in science class, with the proper disclaimer that no conclusions have yet been reached.

But if you don't provide any evidence at all, which you haven't, or if your evidence or reasoning fails scientific scrutiny - which is the case with Dembski and with all the attempts at evidence that creationists come up with from time to time - then you don't have a hypothesis. It's merely an assertion.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. For over a century now the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that Congress may not use the resources of the State in any way whose main purpose or actual effect is to promote any particular religion, or religion in general. An assertion that is intrinsically and necessarily religious in nature cannot therefore be taught as fact in the public schools.

ben said:

IBelieveInGod said:

ben said:

“You don’t know everything about life, so therefore you don’t have any idea about it at all”.

"...and therefore, any goofy unsubstantiated claim about life is just as valid as any of the findings of science."

Your quote is not from me, and it was not my contention. Don't try to put words in my mouth, it is so dishonest! logical fallacy!!!

It's not dishonest, it's a paraphrase of what you're essentially claiming. Even if we were alleging you had actually said that, it wouldn't be a logical fallacy, it would just be wrong. The fallacious thinking is yours, i.e. that alleged problems with one hypothesis (evolution in this case) comprise evidence for some other hypothesis (creationism).

IBelieveInGod said: Many of you have criticized Dembski for not attempting to falsify his hypothesis, and I really don't know if he has or not

but the truth is that no hypothesis of origin of first life could never be falsified. It is just not possible, and it would be dishonest to say that one could falsify any such hypothesis.

"I and none of you can really explain what life really is."

Hey, you claimed to be the ONLY person here who can actually define life!

Please, please do that!

As an exercise in reasoning, I used to ask my students to define "human being" in such a way that ALL humans would be included, and NONE would be excluded. None ever succeeded.

I've exercised a few neurons on thinking about an all-inclusive, and properly exclusive definition of life. My contention is that it can't be done. Some things are so clearly alive that there's no argument, and some so clearly nonliving. But there's a twilight zone in there such that if you draw a clear line, knowledgeable people can argue that you've left some things on the wrong side of the line (viruses? prions? amphibians frozen solid? etc.).

But IBIG can do it!

So let's have it!

IBelieveInGod said: I'm sorry but is has not be for over a century. The founders of the constitution did not want a national church or a national religion, but if you read the constitution you will also read the that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, which has been violated many times by our government. But, to the point creationism isn't a religion, as this belief is not exclusive to one religion. I've never said that schools should teach the Genesis account of creationism. Creationism/ID is the idea that everything we see has a design to it, which is evidence of a designer. When you see a TV, do you question whether someone created it? When you see a piano, do you question whether someone made it or not? I see evidence of intelligent design in everything I see, and you would have admit that the human body is amazing and more sophisticated then any computer or device known to man.

IBIG wrote:

"...creationism isn’t a religion, as this belief is not exclusive to one religion."

I see. So if it part of many religions, then that means it is not religion. Got it. Man you don't have to put words into this guys mouth, the ones that come out of it are bad enough already.

So when are you going to start teaching creationism in public school science classes? We're waiting.

Here is what the constitution clearly states in the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

The US Constitution clearly states, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", how is teaching creation at individual school districts congress making law? It does not say that religion is not allowed in public schools does it? or that religion has no place in public forums either does it? What it means is that congress shall not pass a law making a religion the national religion that all it says. The Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling, it is clearly a case of legislating from the bench, which is a total disregard for the constitution that you use to keep creationism out the schools.

DS said: IBIG wrote: "...creationism isn’t a religion, as this belief is not exclusive to one religion." I see. So if it part of many religions, then that means it is not religion. Got it. Man you don't have to put words into this guys mouth, the ones that come out of it are bad enough already. So when are you going to start teaching creationism in public school science classes? We're waiting.

The scientists are demonstrating amino acids and polypeptide chains created by natural means. They are discussing "self-replication" and "RNA" and "chemical pathways" and "reaction energies". They're modelling chemical environments and comparing them to what is known of the ancient earth. They're searching for the signatures of earliest life in the rocks, and having some success. They're debating the possibilities of RNA to DNA. Above all, they're getting closer and closer to demonstrating a fully self-replicating, self-sustaining organism in the laboratory. As a result of these researches, this body of data, this evidence, and this knowledge, the scientists think that life began by natural causes from natural means that they will discover in time.

Meanwhile creationists say, "God did it."

IBIG thinks that these are equivalent in status. They are not. The first is a scientific hypothesis. It is the product of research, data gathering, and reason. Deny it as IBIG will, there is evidence for it, though the evidence is not conclusively for any specific proposal. The other is a religious doctrine. It is backed by dogma, with no evidence at all.

The Supreme Court has always held that the United States Government, and since the passage of the fourteenth amendment, the governments of the various states, may not use State resources to promote a religion or a religious doctrine. It is true that it was not until the 1960's that the court devised a definition of religious intent or purpose and decided, correctly, that creationism was religion; but the general principle goes back into the nineteenth century and before.

It does not violate any person's freedom of religion that the State may not sponsor or promote a religion, in the schools or elsewhere. To say that it does so is a flat lie.

That creationism isn't peculiar to one religion is irrelevant. It is still a religious doctrine because it is without evidential support, or any support outside the holy books of the various religions, and because by its very nature it posits a creator of divine power.

The rest of IBIG's remarks amount to Paleyism, the argument from specified complexity. It is nonsense. Something complex that fulfils a specified purpose need not have been designed. All that is needed is reproduction with variation and selection, many times repeated. Nothing more. This applies to the human body, and even more amazingly, to the human brain.

I doubt anyone is going to get anywhere with this troll.

The troll’s shtick is to assume his own ignorance applies everyone else and then to argue that because he can’t conceive of any scientific evidence for anything, no one else can either.

Then he just keeps shoveling the crap in huge batches and stands back with the smug satisfaction that he has just confounded a bunch of scientists with his “clever jousting.”

As long as he refuses to learn any science, there is not one handle one can find that might get him to start considering that he is wrong about everything.

This troll is a classic case of prideful ignorance encased a hermetically sealed package.

The troll has just recited the phony story that ID/creationists keep repeating to themselves over and over. This very story and mischaracterization of science also appeared on TV in just the last couple of days.

IBelieveInGod said: No, what I'm saying it is "it's not a religion" which is much different.

Wasn't evolution and spontaneous (generation?) a belief of certain religion also?

How about the Totems.

The Mayan culture began about 600 BC, and its religion incorporated a a belief in evolution that taught that the rain god constructed humans by adding to his previous creations, therefore changing them. So, religion is being taught in the schools right?

This troll is right out of a Jack Chick cartoon.

IBelieveInGod said: He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.

Mike Elzinga said: This troll is right out of a Jack Chick cartoon.

IBelieveInGod said: Here is an excerpt from the book "Evolution Is Religion" ...

Are you saying that someday you will know everything about first life?

Are you saying that you actually have evidence of where first life arose, how it arose, when it arose, how long it lived, how it reproduced, what kind of life it was, what it evolved into, what it's genetic code was, etc...???

The truth is that you don't have any evidence whatsoever of first life and never will. So, when you develop a hypothesis it is based on what you assume happened and not based on what really happened. Your assumptions are based on your presuppositions about life. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. In other words believing in something without evidence. You all believe creation is a myth, demonstrating that you have put your trust, conviction, faith in Abiogenesis without any evidence of it actually occurring.

IBIG wrote:

"Are you saying that someday you will know everything about first life?"

Are you saying that until we do you will ignore everything we actually do know? Are you saying that we really aren't putting words in your mouth?

I prayed to Dave to make you go away. My prayers have been answered. God did not answer them, Dave did. Long live Dave the powerful. Down with IBIG the foolish. Now I don't have to pray to Joe Pesci.

IBelieveInGod said: Are you saying that someday you will know everything about first life?

DS said: IBIG wrote: "Are you saying that someday you will know everything about first life?" Are you saying that until we do you will ignore everything we actually do know? Are you saying that we really aren't putting words in your mouth? I prayed to Dave to make you go away. My prayers have been answered. God did not answer them, Dave did. Long live Dave the powerful. Down with IBIG the foolish. Now I don't have to pray to Joe Pesci.

DS said: IBIG wrote: "Are you saying that someday you will know everything about first life?" Are you saying that until we do you will ignore everything we actually do know? Are you saying that we really aren't putting words in your mouth? I prayed to Dave to make you go away. My prayers have been answered. God did not answer them, Dave did. Long live Dave the powerful. Down with IBIG the foolish. Now I don't have to pray to Joe Pesci.

"[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Isaac Asimov (1989). "The Relativity of Wrong." The Skeptical Inquirer, 14(1), 35-44. Fall 1989.