[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

If people are not animals...

Your sarcasm detectors seem to be failing, nutronjon.

Also, thanks for the other ideas you shared, but since those are not in any way related to evolution I'm going to ask that you start a new thread if you'd like to continue conversation on those (still interesting) other topics. Many thanks.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by dkv

Evolution is not a law(based on facts). Evolution is a theory.
In general no theory can be proved.
Evidences can only support a theory.. in other words a theory can never be considered a law.
However any new theory can only improve upon the old theory that is why even the old theories can survive.(e.g Newton's theory)

Evolution is a theory based on facts, same as all science ideas. The laws of our theories are universal laws, or at least our best understanding of them, and any laws we make to govern ourselves are supposed to be based on the understanding of universal laws. At least that is what democracy is about, and this it makes very important to use science to understand humans, and then reason through the best laws to regulate large groups of humans.

The original meaning of "moral" was to know the law and good manners. That is to know universal laws, which some considered God laws. I stress this is about science, not religion. That is what makes democracy different from a theocracy, basing laws on nature's laws, not what is writtng in holy books.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Your sarcasm detectors seem to be failing, nutronjon.

Also, thanks for the other ideas you shared, but since those are not in any way related to evolution I'm going to ask that you start a new thread if you'd like to continue conversation on those (still interesting) other topics. Many thanks.

It is your interpetation that made my question sarcastic. The question was asked to stimulate thinking. If not this then what? And please, can you make private comments private, instead of ruining threads with them? I am not the subject of this thread, and no one should be discussing anything about another person who is not the subject of thread.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Even so, that doesn't mean we should not work to counter falsehoods and attempt to educate everyone who stumbles here, leaving a better educated and more informed populace in our wake.

YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis.

Now that's the kind of video students in public and private schools around the world should be shown.

The only way to dispel myth is to talk about it.

You got my unofficial rep points for that find InfiniteNow. I have to rep others before repping you again


CC

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

It is your interpetation that made my question sarcastic. The question was asked to stimulate thinking. If not this then what? And please, can you make private comments private, instead of ruining threads with them? I am not the subject of this thread, and no one should be discussing anything about another person who is not the subject of thread.

Ermm... Let me spell this out for you since you seem to have missed my point the first time.

You completely misinterpreted the video link shared by Galapagos discussing that humans were not animals. It was completely sarcastic, and meant to show how silly people are for suggesting any such thing, and yet you admonished him because you thought that he was expressing this as his own opinion and you couldn't see that he was joking.

You missed the point, and I suggested that your "sarcasm detector" may have malfunctioned.

Also, I said nothing personal about you. I asked that you take your off topic ideas (ones that I actually do find interesting) to another thread, since they were in NO WAY related to evolution.

The same goes for your post #382 about democracy and morals. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this, or where precisely you think I'm attacking you. Thanks.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Now that's the kind of video students in public and private schools around the world should be shown.

The only way to dispel myth is to talk about it.

Yeah, there are a few good ones like that out there, and I quite enjoyed it, too. Freeztar was very right about the thread topic and it not being abiogenesis, but frankly, I'm getting tired of responding to the "challenges" of creationists and ID supporters by referring them to another field/discipline.

Abiogenesis is related to evolution, and it is science, so let's teach them about it when it comes up. The more of their gaps we fill, the fewer places there will be for their god to live.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Your sarcasm detectors seem to be failing, nutronjon.

Also, thanks for the other ideas you shared, but since those are not in any way related to evolution I'm going to ask that you start a new thread if you'd like to continue conversation on those (still interesting) other topics. Many thanks.

Yes, perhaps I should have put a disclaimer on that post.

I am however interested in nutronjon's claims about a "blank slate", and would certainly participate in a thread discussing these claims further:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I think all our human decisions would be much better if we accepted we are animals, with limited brains, that are pretty much like blank slates when we are born. We are born with the potential to learn, not with knowledge and developed skills and talents.

Because I am certain that the opposite is true; that we are not born as blank slates, and that recognizing this could increase the quality of life for many people.

[questor]

If the you-tube repesentation of abiogenisis is correct and we know how to generate life, WHY don't we do it? The text article pointed to 3 possibilties for abiogenisis--which is correct? If we know, why can't we do it? You ask for proof for other ideas, do you accept these theories blindly?
THE QUESTION IS: Do we know how life began or is it still to be determined?
I guess the truth is, that by happenstance, all the building blocks of life just happened to be lying around near each other, and they just happened to join up together in such a way as to create life in its millions of forms.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by questor

If the you-tube repesentation of abiogenisis is correct and we know how to generate life, WHY don't we do it?

We do.

Originally Posted by questor

The text article pointed to 3 possibilties for abiogenisis--which is correct? If we know, why can't we do it? You ask for proof for other ideas, do you accept these theories blindly?

Nope. See below. I think it will become plainly obvious how misinformed/uninformed you truly are on this:


Here's a good overview:

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment: Scientific American



Also, this is a must for anyone truly interested:

The Harbinger. My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists


You can also make life in your own kitchen.

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/fo...n/M5550for.pdf). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15-60 minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution.


Here is more on one type of protocell:

SpringerLink - Journal Article


As per irreducible complexity, that is supposed to be a falsification of natural selection according to ID, but it has been shown that Behe used a strawman version of natural selection and that natural selection can produce any complex biological structure

A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution.




New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells

A team of researchers at Harvard University have modeled in the laboratory a primitive cell, or protocell, that is capable of building, copying and containing DNA.

Since there are no physical records of what the first primitive cells on Earth looked like, or how they grew and divided, the research team's protocell project offers a useful way to learn about how Earth's earliest cells may have interacted with their environment approximately 3.5 billion years ago.

And, just in case you're too lazy to read all of the above, or you feel the need to attack someone for relying on YouTube, here's more fodder for your falsehoods.

YouTube - 3 -- The Origin of Life made easy

Originally Posted by questor

I guess the truth is, that by happenstance, all the building blocks of life just happened to be lying around near each other, and they just happened to join up together in such a way as to create life in its millions of forms.

As much as it pains me to tell you this, questor, your version of the truth is not really an accurate one, as should be abundantly clear by now if you were truly paying attention to the information which has been shared.

[questor]

How are you getting along with the life you made in the kitchen? Does it require a separate bathroom? When does it start kindergarten? Do you think it will grow up to be the smartest member of the family?