Post by El Kabong...
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongYou are assuming that God has to judge all life forms at
the same time. How do you get that?
I never assumed that.
You just did assume that.
Post by z***@windstream.netIt just makes logical sense to finish up here on
earth first, before creating more elsewhere.
It's like a man building his own house. He gets it 3/4 done, then
moves on to start something else. That would not be very efficient. So
I don't know why you assume that either. If you have a
garden, do you have to finish growing the tomatoes before
you start the cucumbers?
Morning,
But you would not be running a test in your garden. If you run a test,
you get to the end in order to start another one etc.
Good am/pm to you too.
You seem convinced life cannot exist on 2 planets at the
same time for reasons of faith.
No, that is not what I am convinced of. If God is taken out of the
formula, and if life is found on another planet, life could exist on
zillions of planets and moons throughout the universe. And that would
PROBABLY mean that evolution was working.
Again, it is unlikely that God created new life elsewhere before the
testing is finished here on earth. But let me make it clear, the BIBLE
doesn't say one way or the other! I am just speculating.
You are trying to inject God into a process that doesn't
require him.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongI am not so encumbered.
Was that your whole point, that the bible permits life to
only exist on 1 planet at a time?
No, but I speculate that the earth is the ONLY place to find life
forms at this time until all the tests have come to their completion
here.
That would mean that we are alone in the physical universe at this
time. And so far, it's looking that way.
This is only faith-based speculation, having nothing to
do with science.
Since God created all the natural sciences (Gen 1:1), true science and
the true religion are brothers.
Post by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netSo you are saying when a life form shows up for the first time, it is
abiogenesis, but once it is established, evolution.
You can give any definitions you want.
Words have meanings. If you make up your own, you may as
well be peeing into the wind.
Got to try that sometime.
Post by El KabongI don't need to repeat
what the dictionary (or wikipedia) says.
Post by z***@windstream.netThe FACTS are some force has
created billions of life forms on the earth. From extreme conditions
to ideal conditions.
Abiogenesis is a process, not a force.
If it came from non-living matter, I would call it a force and process
to produce DNA from non-living matter.
You are wrong on too many levels. You won't understand,
Force means mass times acceleration, measured in newtons
or pounds. How many pounds of force is required to make
self-replicating RNA?
Just enough to make it work.
Post by El KabongAlso. Nobody is claiming DNA was first made from
non-living matter. More likely nucleobases, and
eventually RNA. Then life. Probably.
Life at some point had to come from non-living matter, unless it
always was here. And I don't think anyone claims that.
I think I could understand how a pre-microbe may have come to life
after many years of continual changing chemicals and atmospherics,
etc.
But today we have BILLIONS of LIFEforms we can attest to. How do you
go from a microbe to an elephant? Or a microbe to ANY different life
form? Mutations? If that is true, then you need to change its
definition to something like "mutations are positive traits on an
organism and help to produce the diversity of life on this planet".
I am so surprised that high IQ people, like Stephen Hawking, accepted
the theory of evolution over an intelligent creation. Then I guess we
ought to change the definition of IQ as "Idiot Quotient".
Think about it. If we were made of silicon and pulleys and motors and
computer parts etc, most of your high IQ people would say for a
certainty that we were created by someone intelligent. That we just
didn't come together over time by random events.
Now, switch us to biological things, with all the same capabilities
+more, then watch the high IQ ones DENY that we were created by an
intelligence.
But I guess evolution has been drilled into our brains, from most all
our schooling and up to well respected people like Hawking.
Post by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netYet that same force is not present on other
places outside of the earth.
There's no reason abiogenesis couldn't happen somewhere,
whenever conditions are right. We think we have an idea
of what conditions are required, but that's bleeding-edge
science and subject to change.
Since the Bible said God created all the sciences, I am all for true
The bible says no such thing. Science is the human study
of nature, and it was invented by humans.
Negatrons. Humans gave various sciences a name, such as physics and
astronomy etc. But those sciences were always there, and followed
'rules' that no human made.
Post by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netscience. Evolution is not science, just like astrology, men interpret
it to say what they want.
Your speculation is not to be confused with science.
You are just interpreting what you've heard to say what
you want it to say.
That is exactly how evolutionists think about it. They follow their
'IQ' (my definition).
Post by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongNo. For a variety of reasons that are apparently lost on
you, the most likely place to find life on Mars today
would be deep underground. If you read anything about
current developments on the subject, you would know that.
Then why not the same thing here on earth? Why didn't it EXPLODE on
Mars like it did here? You are talking about a mindless, brainless,
not conscience force that is able to produce life. It shouldn't care
where it is doing that.
Earth and Mars are not the same. Conditions are
different. Why do I have to point out the obvious to
you?
You are assuming they are completely different. They are not. Mars can
get up to 70 F. Evolution can then create a microscopic lifeform.
Next, the life form has millions of years to upgrade to battle the
cold conditions on Mars.
Here you go into the weeds again.
Better weeds than what we have, poison ivy.
Post by El KabongEarth and Mars are
completely different.
Not "completely". Now Earth and Saturn could be said to be completely
different.
Post by El KabongIf you don't understand that by
now, reason won't help.
So I guess I have my IQ.
Post by El KabongThen you completely misunderstand evolution, not sure
whether that's deliberate or knowledge-free thinking. You
can't argue against that which you don't understand.
Not really. One can reason on an asteroid coming to hit earth. I
wouldn't know its mass, or the orbit it originally had. I don't know
the composition of the asteroid, or if there are enough forces to
break it up in the atmosphere before it get's to earth.
So one does not always have to know EVERYTHING about a situation, to
be able to reason on it. But sometimes it helps to know more. Take for
example, ghosts. (but that's another subject)
Post by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netBut sadly for many, there is no evidence for that. So for now,
it shows to us to be lifeless.
False conclusion.
Sorry, but what I wrote is a true fact. For all the exploring done on
the surface of Mars, "for NOW it shows to us to be lifeless". Unless
you know something the scientists or I don't.
Post by El Kabong50 years ago, there was no evidence for exoplanets. By
your thinking, people then should have concluded they
must not exist. Right?
A true statement would have been, 'for NOW it shows to us to be no
such planets'. But even a moron could reason that as humungus (or
infinite) as the universe is, there is bound to be some.
So concerning your reasoning, you are jumping across the Grand Canyon.
You draw conclusions based on skimpy evidence.
Post by El KabongNow, thousands have been discovered. We know they exist.
Post by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongExtremophiles can survive boiling water. Does that mean
life could appear in boiling water? Not the same thing.
Good point. But I don't see why it couldn't. If it has the machinery
to defy high temperatures in a liquid, it could have started out the
Life is difficult to kick-start. No one has done it yet.
Boiling water is not ideal for forming nucleobases into
nucleosides, and amino acids into protein, and for lipids
to stick together.
You have to get some basic self-replicating molecules or
objects going first, then the adaptation process can
begin to fit available conditions. The first conditions
have to be accomodating and non-hostile, like the
conditions a newborn baby needs.
Your belief that life could originate on the moon as
easily as the earth is ridiculous.
I don't recall saying that. But we do have to keep one thing in mind.
Who says that evolution must conform to only earth-like conditions.
Supposedly it has this strange power to create LIFE.
Abiogenesis is chemistry, not magic.
Actually abiogenesis is neither. It is wishful thinking by
evolutionists to help support their theory.
Post by El KabongLife itself is chemistry, not magic.
More accurately it is electrochemical.
Post by El KabongThey can only occur where conditions are just right.
Then how did extremeaphiles emerge? Are conditions for an underwater
volcano vent just right?
Post by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netScientists don't
know what life is,
Also false.
Then if you know, you need to educate academia. Until then, we have
such comments as:
"1. Origin of Life:
Incomplete Knowledge: Our understanding of how life originated
from non-life (abiogenesis) is still incomplete. Without a complete
understanding of the exact steps and conditions that led to the first
living organisms, creating life from non-living matter remains
elusive."
(chatGPT)
Post by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netso they can't create it from non-life substances.
That's just a matter of time. Again, exoplanets were
unknown 50 years ago, did that mean they don't exist?
Back then no one should say they didn't exist. Rather, at the present
time, we have not found any.
Post by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.netPost by El KabongPost by z***@windstream.net"People also ask
What is the origin of the extremophiles?
Extremophile | Definition, Types, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
The postulations that extreme environmental conditions existed on
primitive Earth and that life arose in hot environments have led to
the theory that extremophiles are vestiges of primordial organisms and
thus are models of ancient life. Extremophiles are also of research
importance in the field of astrobiology.Aug 20, 2024"
That's one hypothesis, that life may have originated near
"black smoker" vents on the ocean floor. Water there is
hot, but not boiling, and rich in some chemicals.
So, what is life? Does it just float in and evolution attaches it to
an object?
When it leaves a body, what has left?
You misunderstand the nature of life. It's a chemical
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life>
"homeostasis, organisation, metabolism, growth,
adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. All
life over time eventually reaches a state of death and
none is immortal."
But it doesn't have to be ALL of those things. Let's take out
"reproduction". (castration) It is still life.
Let's also take out "growth". (the elderly) It is still life.
Let's also take out "homeostasis" (a person with a high fever and
dehydrated) It is still life.
Let's also take out "response to stimuli". ( congenital analgesia) It
is still life
. Let's take out "adaptation" ( adaptation-resistant) It is still
life.
The only one I see there that a life MUST have is "metabolism".
So if you found a freak of nature that lived without all those things
except metabolism, then life still be quite elusive.
Then what about plant life? Do they have a somewhat different set of
rules?
Sincerely James.
Who has Bible truths:
politicians, clergy, doctors?
Go to jw.org
for answers.
9/10/2024
Post by El KabongI have snipped freely here, as i hate posting hundreds of
lines of quote bloat.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com