I look at it the other way - I find it hard to imagine aliens would communicate in such an odd way and remain quite for so long. It seems to imply that they care about things and yet are not willing to do anything noticable to support them. It is like the problem of evil argument for god except god has more defenses.Originally Posted by Aheadatime
a weird way to look at it. besides, you seem to be ignoring the complexity behind the circles. regardless of how far fetched it sounds to your ears, do you really believe that a human can create something that complex? google 'wiltshire' and youll find hundreds if not thousands of crop circles all just as complex as the one i posted, some even 3 times that large and complex, all done in a single night.
no matter how you look at it, its impossible for a human to have done that. so process of elimination tells you it was either aliens or a top-secret group of individuals with advanced technology going wayyyyyyy out of their way to make it appear as if aliens are communicating with us. i define the latter as more far fetched to be honest.
Copied and pasted to this page so you guys dont have to keep scrolling between pages.
you seem to be disproving an alternate hypothesis not proving your own.
I'm thinking it is actually more likely to be the government conspiracy to make crop circles option than aliens I dont see where the alien option has the advantage afterall it is basically identical except that we know the government exists and cares at least a little about what we think.
But I think the most likely is that the people reporting/deciphering the code are using a bit of artistic license and that they are not as complex as they are suggesting.
Crop circles. Funny. Most of them are proven to be a hoax. Crop circles are a major source of tourism (and thus revenue) in Wiltshire, along with Stonehenge (which we all know isn't worth the 50 hammers), standing stones and other new age stuff. Nice of the aliens to give the good folk of Wiltshire a tourism destination.
The only sensible conclusion is that aliens are already among us...especially on this forum!!!
Wait let me get this straight, after the cover up in Roswell, the hiding of multiple pieces of evidence suggesting UFO sightings, the inability to report on these sightings, and the multiple levels of secrecy within the government, you believe that the government wants us to believe that there are aliens out there, and that their intentions are good?
And im not understanding the artistic license thing. There is no subjective meter for how complex and large these crop circles are. The proof is in the pudding. Just look at it. Read the 'specs' defining how large they are in square yards, and yet how accurate they are. There have also been studies done pertaining to the genetic make up of the crops post-crop circle, and theyve all been modified through electromagnetic currents. You mean to tell me that you seriously believe there is a level of 'subjective' interpretation when defining how complex these circles are, given they were done in the middle of the night with no notice, meaning no lights, noise, etc? Theyre too complex for a group of people to be doing accurately, hastily, and without notice within such a short time span.
Im using the process of elimination to come to the alien conclusion. Youre using preconceived notions of subjectivity to come to your conclusions. You have never thought this to be true, and now that there is something suggesting it, you reject it, as it is overwhelming and seemingly farfetched and too bizarre for you to absorb. This first happened to me when i thougth of aliens coming to earth and messaging us etc, i thought what a bunch of BS, wed know by now, wed communicate back etc. This isnt the case, imo the government controls what is said to them, and what is heard by us, as they for one reason or another dont want direct communication species to species. After our initial SETI message out to space, weve received responses, and these responses remain hidden from the public. The only thing i cant exactly figure out is why.. why would the government try to hide something this revolutionary and history-making from us? And why the hell would we let them? Answer to the latter is people like you, who are just fine not believing in this whole thing, and therefore display no need to demand knowledge from the government.
No credible thought whatsoever eh? Automatic disbelief. So common, im surprised that im surprised at your reaction.
Whatever. Go back to Alpha Centauri, you bug-eyed, six-headed, tentacled freak!
Thrasher, have a go at this.
http://www.greatdreams.com/crop/hoax/hoax.htm
Gaah! Columns, please! Sorry, but if the tinfoil-hat community wants to be taken seriously, it needs to stop producing these circa-1996 websites. It's like showing up to a job interview wearing an ill-fitting and torn up KISS t-shirt. Can't take it seriously.
But okay, I read some of it. One of the researchers is Dr. Haselhoff. Haw haw haw. It's related to CivRev after all!
Aliens with no sense of humor can suck it.
'Last updated 2007'. A bit old, but the info is not. And trying to degrade a possibility with humurous notions halts any real discussion.
I supposed you had to filter through the list of researchers/photographers to find a name that makes you chuckle.
If you dont want a serious discussion thats fine by me. Criticizing the opposition though doesnt work unless youve already won the 'debate', not something to do if you refuse to even engage.
Besides, id be happy to hit up beta centauri. Less pollution and no government there yet
The changes are completely random. The bacteria has no control. The bacteria with good changes lives to pass on the good changes. The bacteria with bad changes die out. Simple.
we have told you before that evolution doesn't answer the question "why?" but the question "how?" the theory of evolution is not incompatible with the idea of a creator. maybe he has made evolution. i don't know.
i also told you why we have a consciousness. because it was beneficial concerning communication. and communication was beneficial to all acts of teamwork, like hunting. and, clearly, a creature having a consciousness has better chances of survival than one without. thus, the former creatures have passed their genes down to the next generations while the latter have not. that's the principle in this theory.
I'm referring to the presentation. It doesn't matter when that site was created. It's hideously ugly. Presentation matters.
Yes, well a quick scan is all they're going to get from me when they can't even be bothered to put text into columns. With no effort on the site designer's part, why should I make any effort?
Actually, I think some of that stuff is cool. I just wish the tinfoil-hat community could put together a decent site that isn't just agony to behold.
Ah, so you know how much pollution and government there is there? I knew it! ALIEN!!!Besides, id be happy to hit up beta centauri. Less pollution and no government there yet
Thrasher thrasher thraser. I want to see you try and argue the 'presentation' on an online college course, or anything significant in life at all. Youll get laughed at, presentation doesnt matter, content and context matters silly goose.
And shhh about the alien thing, ive been trying to hard to act like you humans, i should not have betrayed my identity :O
In this theory they are messing with your head.
If it is the aliens it is clear the aliens are messing with your head.
isnt it funny that an alien might give a coded message saying they oppose deception while they spend all day hiding from us?
and itnt it silly that the aliens would have to use a massive crop circle in order to jsut tell us the first 10 digits of pi or some message about not likeing liers?
Why not blaze it into cheney's forehead with a lazer?
Ah, now there's something I can really sink my teeth into. Presentation is everything. Just because our schools have become extremely lazy and stopped teaching or caring about this kind of thing doesn't mean it is irrelevant in the real world. In the real world where I reside, presentation is everything.
I never saw the post but very astute Zef. 100% correct. Francis Schaeffer as well. If you have a thread reference, I'd be interested to read it, sounds interesting.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Showtek, my intent is not & was not to offend (although provocative maybe), although clearly you have been offended. Just because your dance partner steps on your toes during the waltz doesn't mean that is was intentional. The more passionate the dance, the smaller margin of error so these things happen in heated discussions about controversial topics, which by definition are important topics, a good thing IMO. While I understand writing is such a poor medium for these kinds of discussions which are always best engaged face-to-face IMO, just assume we are all genuinely interested parties speaking our minds & we can all cut each other some slack.
To help with that, I am sorry if you were offended. I stand by what I said & you'll just have to take me at my word that offending you was not the purpose but merely a by-product.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-06-2010 at 05:19 AM.
I am sorry, but if you make statements like that, then it is clear that you have no idea what the theory of evolution is about. There is no 'necessity or need': that is a complete misconception and probably explains why you see things in such a distorted light. I am not asking you to agree with those who accept evolution, but don't promote incorrect concepts about what is involved. Either read enough to criticize on a logical and informed basis, or leave it alone.
Zefelius: either you have created the Mother of all Threads or have brilliantly created a thread that absorbs all non-Civ Rev rants
Any suggested readings for Aheadatime? Or just wanted to rough him up a bit?
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I completely agree. It's kind of mind-boggling actually. I feel like the Karate Kid & Zef is Mr Myagi. Wax on, Wax off... What the heck? all of sudden we're having intense & wild conversations... how did this occur? I don't really know... pretty cool...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I stole this most of this list from another source, but it is a great startAny suggested readings for Aheadatime? Or just wanted to rough him up a bit?
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Genes by Benjamin Lewin
Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayr - My favorite brief, single-volume primer on evolution for non-specialists. Mayr covers the big topics - selection, adaptation, variation, speciation, fossils, evolutionary trees, evo-devo, and human evolution. Mayr was a major figure in mid-20th century evolutionary biology. He was in his 90's when he wrote this book, nevertheless, this book is remarkably clear and up to date.
The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins - In a nod to the Canterbury Tales, Dawkins takes us on a backwards pilgrimage from today to the dawn of life on earth. Along the way we meet other 'pilgrims' of today's species, as we join up at points of common ancestry. Dawkins came up with a brilliant way to tell the story of our evolutionary lineage all the way back.
Summer for The Gods, Edward Larson - This Pulitzer Prize-winning book is one of the best histories of the Scopes trial. Larson also wrote Trial And Error, the most comprehensive survey of evolution, creationism, and the law in the United States.
Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Sean Carroll - one of the best books covering evolution from a molecular and developmental perspective, by one of the top researchers in the field. It is a nice introduction to the genes that make our body plan, and how these genes are versatile enough to generate the diversity of body plans we see among animals.
Human Natures, Paul Ehrlich - This book is very much Ehrlich's personal perspective, but it delves deeply into some older research on human evolution, and the evolution of human intelligence in particular. Ehrlich knows how to grab your attention and keep it.
Darwinism and the Divine in America, Jon Roberts - This historical monograph covers the intellectual history of evolution among religious leaders in America from 1859 to the end of the 19th century. The book is dense, since it written for Roberts' peers in professional history. It tells the fascinating story of how theologians at first gave evolution short shrift, thinking that it was only a temporary scientific fad. When they realized that scientists had accepted the evidence for evolution and that the theory had staying power, they began digging deep to deal with the implications that this new science held for their theology.
Tower of Babel, Robert Pennock - This is the definitive philosophical rebuttal of the claims of intelligent design. Pennock is a philosopher, and engages in-depth the arguments made by creationists in the 1980's and 1990's.
Before the Dawn, Nicolas Wade - Wade, one of the top science journalists for The New York Times, has written a great book on what the latest in paleontology, anthropology, and genetics tells us about recent human evolution.
River Out of Eden, Richard Dawkins - This is a short book that summarizes many of Dawkins' longer and more technical arguments from his book, The Selfish Gene. River Out of Eden contains one of the most compelling chapters I've ever read on evolution, called "God's Utility Function." People may disagree with the argument, but if you really think earth was specifically desgined for humans, you have to deal with Dawkins' argument.
The Creationists, Ronald Numbers - The definitive history of the movement, by an empathetic (not sympathetic) historian. Numbers does a great job detailing the 20th century history of creationism in America, and he deals very well with the internal conflicts of the leaders of the various creationist and theistic evolution movements, many of whom Numbers interviewed.
Evolution vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott - Desgined as a textbook on the subject, Scott lays out the basic issues without getting polemical. The book includes readings from scientists and creationists. This is a great intro to the basics of the cultural (not scientific!) debate.
An finally, if you're really serious about the technical aspects of evolution, I'd recommend Principles of Population Genetics, by Daniel Hartl and Andrew Clark. It doesn't deal with fossils or 'macroscopic' biology; this is book is covers quantitative theories about genes and evolution. If you want to learn the real math behind evolutionary theory, this is a great place to start.
Sure Pedal, I found it. I posted it back in February in Grayson's thread "Interesting Quote from Sid Meier." I compared many of the forum players to philosophers with whom I thought they shared some affinity. Since then there are new forum member, so I apologize to anyone who reads this and feels left out!
Here it is:
"While at the coffee shop today I was distracted in my thoughts and started randomly thinking about the forum and which philosophers some of you guys seem to most resemble, at least in my opinion. Since this thread seems destined for philosophical and psychological disputes, what better place to post my ideas. Unfortunately I didn't immediately think of everyone, but that's only due to my limited mental space so don't feel left out! I could even add others if it comes down to it.... Anyway, here goes:
Because of his great statistical analyses, Zso_Zso most reminds me of Bertrand Russell. Russell wasn't only known as a great 20th century philosopher and logician, but he was also a mathematician and social critic who wrote the Principia Mathematica.
Grayson makes me think of Aristotle, one of the most influential of all philosophers. Aristotle is a heavy weight in several fields, having wrote some of the first books on Physics, Biology, Psychology, Poetics, Logic, Ethics, Politics, and the list just doesn't seem to end. Likewise, Grayson has wrote influential commentary on nearly all aspects of Civ Rev.
ShowTek makes me think of Camus. Camus is the French existentialist who is not only famous for writing The Stranger but for also creating an entire philosophy focused on the Absurd. Both of them also seem to have a lot of passion driving them.
Danthechan reminds me of the Buddha because they're both easygoing, peaceful, and very thoughtful. Danthechan never seems rattled, and whenever the subject of attachments comes up he reminds us that we probably have too many in modern day society.
Morte is the Hegel of Civ Rev. Hegel is the most difficult to comprehend of all philosophers, and a real intellectual giant. He's famous for his all-embracing thought, which leaves nothing unaccounted for. This reminds me of Morte, because when you play against him it often seems like he knows absolutely everything as soon as he takes just one look at his starting location.
I associate HGB with the great thinker and art critic Denis Diderot. First of all, Diderot is French! Plus, he's known for his originality and immense cultural influence. What better choice!? Well, maybe Voltaire, who was likewise very influential in all things literary, artistic, and cultural. It's a close call...
Pedal was an obvious choice for me, but maybe he'll disagree: I'm going with C.S. Lewis on this one. Why? Because Lewis believes in a firm moral conscience which can't be reduced to some fashionable, socially constructed moral relativism. Don't forget, he wasn't only a great Christian thinker, but also an imaginative writer responsible for the Chronicles of Narnia.
If you've ever heard of Wittgenstein, you might agree with me that he's a natural fit for Headless. Wiggenstein writes profound ideas in short, witty epigrams. He also prides himself on his precision. Likewise, Headless will beat you in a very logical, precise manner... and his forum musings can be equally as clever yet straight to the point.
MadDjinn is more modern than the rest of you guys! So he deserves a comparison to the innovative cognitive scientist/philosopher Andy Clark who currently writes on perception, cognition, and technology. He believes that the mind is extended to include the body and parts of the world, as opposed to the traditional representational models of thought.
And there's no philosopher who fits ElThrasher's humor and biting wit more than Socrates. Both of them know how to defend themselves intellectually as well as through sarcasm and irony. ElThrasher also has a good sense of moral ideas when it comes to the MP rules of Civ Rev... just as Socrates had strong convictions of his own. Only one question remains, is ElThrasher prepared to take the hemlock for his beliefs?!?
Well, that's all for now...
Wait, How could I forget one of the forum players who influenced me the most, along with just a couple of others? TyShine is actually hard for me to pin down. Perhaps Kierkegaard would be a good match because no other philosopher is quite as enigmatic. He's full of interesting mysteries and paradoxes, such as the fact that he used pseudonyms for his publications. Likewise, if I remember correctly, TyShine played under a different GT for a while before he decided to be more public. But in the end I think I have to go with Nietzsche, who is known for his concept of the Will to Power. Pretty much, Nietzsche is confident and ruthless. Likewise, if you play TyShine, or send him dumb comments, you must be prepared for an unforgiving assault!"
I don't really have an opinion on the whole alien yes/no thing - anything is possible.
But if they actually made those crop circles I would laugh my a** off. That shows some good sense of humor. Why on earth (or better "why in space") would an advanced species, capable of space flight and other cool things, draw stuff in crop fields? I guess just to mess with humans' heads? Practical joke? Maybe they are bored and need some entertainment since they forgot their copy of "civ rev X" at home or brought only one XBox and no internet connection?
Just a random thought ...
Thanks! Although I'm not sure I want to take the credit!
Zefelius: either you have created the Mother of all Threads or have brilliantly created a thread that absorbs all non-Civ Rev rants
Hahaha! I'm guessing the crop circles are intergalactic tags by the bad boys of the universe.... Totally disrespectful to our beautiful planet!
I cant understand why they would 'mess with our head', hide aliens from us, and then pretend to be them. That benefits noone, and theres no clear reward for said confusion.
Them hiding from us isnt deceitful.. deceit is the act of illusion, making something appear one way in order to get someone to believe something that isnt true. Hiding is not deceitful, and ive said why i think they have been 'hiding', i wouldnt label is as that btw, they appear all the time they just have no desire of coming out of their lil ships and being like 'hey guys, this is who we are etc etc' to such a hostile and inferior species obsessed with warfare, profit and the likes.
Again, i have no clue how these things think, how they have 'evolved', how much more advanced they are than we, so therefore i dont think anyone can say why they would use crops to communicate, but what we can do is make suggestions as to why they wouldnt put it somewhere more obvious, such as, i suppose, cheneys head.
A possible reason for them not using something like the internet or TV channels to communicate is because they understand that it can and will be called fake, cause panic, and maybe even fights/war over whether or not it was fake etc, with multiple people coming out claiming to have been in charge of the forgery. Maybe they saw that through, and are just waiting for us to be a more mature species in hopes that it would be an easy greeting with a consensus acceptance.
If youre referring to something even more massive like a bunch of ships just hovering over our continents 24/7 commuicating via any form they possibly can, than dont you think that would cause massive panic, and i mean massive. Were an immature and fearful species, not yet that far down the chain of life.
Who knows, just a guess and could be totally wrong. My point is that regardless of the depth of the arguments to be had, it is still impossible, given the number of incidents in not only this small area of the world (which on some nights have reported 15 circles in one night), but the rest of the world as a whole, for all of these crop circles to have been done by 2 60-year old guys with 2x4's. All it takes is for one to have not been forged, and there you go.
Last edited by Aheadatime; 05-06-2010 at 08:34 AM.
I am sorry, but if you make statements like that, then it is clear that you have no idea what the theory of evolution is about. There is no 'necessity or need': that is a complete misconception and probably explains why you see things in such a distorted light. I am not asking you to agree with those who accept evolution, but don't promote incorrect concepts about what is involved. Either read enough to criticize on a logical and informed basis, or leave it alone.
Zefelius: either you have created the Mother of all Threads or have brilliantly created a thread that absorbs all non-Civ Rev rants
Dont be apologetic, be helpful and insightful.
Let me rephrase my argument, as it seems to have lost its way. My point is that in order for there to be evolution, there must have first been life. How life came to be is a mystery. What drives evolution is a mystery. That the complex biochemsitry that life uses as an avatar has no origins, yet is the building block for evolution, is a point to be considered.
Its like saying "we have cheese here, and its molding. instead of figuring out how the cheese got here, lets figure out whats making it mold." In order for life to have appeared here, this must mean it must have either "formed" in some extremely complex one in a billion type chemical reaction, which is doubtable due to us never having viewed the event again, or have come here via asteroid, comet, etc. In the latter case, this opens up two windows. In one window, it came from another planetary system and survived via ice. How that body of rock made it here and where from, unknown. In window two, the comet was on its way here already when life just formed on it due to some sort of enviornmental, chemical phenomena on the way over here, and there was some ice on the comet already for this newly formed life to exist within until it came to Earth. Window number one, although opening up even more questions, seems to be the more reasonable explanation. I say this bc i personally cant see a sort of chemical reaction being the cause of life, as we would witness it here on earth of in rock samples that NASA collects. It would be repeatable, and able to have been tested.
But even still, the question remains, where did it come from, how did it come to be where it was before here, etc etc. I just find that people usually tend to stand strong with their theories, facts, whathaveyou, while ignoring that which is unknown. Yeah, life has evolved to adapt and reproduce. But if thats all you can tell me than this theory isnt that satisfying. Given that evolution itself is still cannot be scientifically labeled as 'fact', and that there are limits to what the theory in and of itself provides us with, my argument is simply that evolution is seemingly insignificant compared to what we don't know, and provides us with a limited school of thought.
Last edited by Aheadatime; 05-06-2010 at 08:29 AM.
Really?
But it makes it hard for people to see the wood from the trees. So when someone comes to say conspiracy XY and Z are true, if they are demonstrably wrong about one of them it makes them all look weak.
I'm sorry I dont see the distinction. they are creating the impression they dont exist when it would be trivial to give a true impression. I do see your argument that they just dont care to reveal themselves, but if so I dont see why they are here or why they would waste time doing a crop circle.
what makes anyone think that would happen? When anyone has met a more advanced civilization the problem was not that they started to kill each other acusing the others of lying and they usually don't kill themselves via panic.
Well even I can see how they could easily fix that problem via strengthening governments with technology or just policing it themselves...
it's a difference if you step your dance partner on the toes or if you rip his foot off. it is my opinion that certain sorts of arguments aren't appropriate in a conversation like this one. yelling "you're and idiot" at one another won't get people any further. as soon as you go away from the issue and attack your partner more personally the edge is really pushed. i appreciate that you want to make peace now but the difference between provocation and offense is very marginal and maybe it's subjective if it's there at all. before we start off in our next argument i find we will have to make sure that this does not happen again, otherwise i find it quite dispensable.
Two problems
1) we don't have a clear definition of "life" this makes it really difficult to say "hey I created life" because good scientists will say "stop being a moron and use precise language". Once they do start using precise language it sounds less exciting to laymen.
To fairly ask that question one would need to be able to provide a precise diviiding line between all the things that arent alive and all that are.
2) Evolution had a experiment lab the size of a planet for 3 or so billion years. some might say they had a lab the size of the universe for 17 billion or so years. Modern scientists have a lab somewhat smaller than that and dont have that much time to wait. Worse yet we actually have real organisms around now that would according with evolution have for breakfast anything trying to become life in any situation that life is likely to be able to survive.
That being said I believe that some scientists would claim to have "created life" by their definition by performing one or other of the many steps.
The fact that you consider it possible to "rip his foot off" in a verbal conversation is part of the problem. You have a chip on your shoulder & you're too easily offended IMO. I know you'll even find this genuine comment offensive. But it's true. I'm sorry but conversations are not capable of "ripping" anything except ego. I think you need to grow thicker skin if you're going to enter controversial conversations.
I've no issue myself. I can be in the kitchen & take the heat.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
So this seems to be asserting that teaching evolution is appropriate for children below 7th grade. Cymru has asserted that evolution is a complex topic that requires years of study to understand properly.
I tend to agree w/Cymru & these 2 assertions seem to oppose one another. I don't know many teachers at the pre-7th grade level in my actual experience that I would qualify as studied enough on complex topics to qualify their teaching it. Secondly, I certainly don't know of any children prior to 7th grade who can & will expend the energy to understand any complex subject such as evolution, partial differential equations, complex variables, stochastic processes, quantum mechanics, etc... the list goes on & on. We don't teach any of these subjects at a pre-7th grade level due to the complexity of the material & the age-appropriateness of it. Rest-assured, evolution and several of the other topics (quantum mechanics, probability for example) are discussed at a high-school level (my children are older & I was educated in the US).
So, I think education should be progressive & the more complex the topic, the later in life it should be discussed so as to ensure the teachers are capable of teaching it (still doubtful IMO) & at least the student participants are capable of actually understanding the topic as well as possessing the capability to present their own thoughts on the material beyond a 6th grade level.
So I think waiting until high-school is appropriate for complex topics.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-06-2010 at 10:18 PM.
Its pretty simple. You go from inadimate molecules to self-aware lifeforms. Has any scientist created life through simple chemicals or materials? No. Even if life has evolved over 3 billion years, it may have been created in an instant. Maybe it was created over a long period of time before it evolved, who the hell knows, as noone knows the origin of life. But 3 billion years is a stretch, it is 'generally accepted' among scientists that life was 'probably' developed via super heated chemical reactions involving rare chemicals and an extremely intense enviornment. This would mean near instantaneous, which can be replicated. Ugh, regardless you tend to focus on only a few things that i say and have nothing to comment on the other 1000 words of my post. I havent slept all night and i dont feel like commenting further.
I think you have illustrated Aheadatime's point perfectly. These are both huge problems. As you concluded, chosen belief is required to step over them.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Details, details... always getting caught up in the details Aheadatime...
just accept... As the Mazda commercial states "it just feels right"...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
My parents taught me both the theories of evolution and creationism when I was very young, maybe 5 or so. They presented the theories as one of them believing in one and another believing the other (which ended up not being true) so I wouldn't have a biased view and could think about it and choose for myself. I got it well enough. I also learned geography, history, mathematics, a little Russian (not enough to be fluent, but I remember everything taught as a child) and knew the alphabet before my 1st birthday. Young minds maybe can't fully understand this stuff, but they can at least be aware it's there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory."
...
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/m...xperiment.html
"Soup" theory today: Miller's experiment and subsequent work
Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "Primordial Soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows:[33]
1. The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere, as discussed above.
2. This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
3. These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (Shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
4. By further transformation, more complex organic polymers— and ultimately life— developed in the soup.
Furthermore:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ologists-on-t/
"Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life"
This took me 30seconds of Google + copy-and-paste...
Last edited by Zso_Zso; 05-06-2010 at 10:52 PM.
I'm looking for a guide to an experiment, I accept crossing the whole of evolution is not doable. I also however accept that this is a bit of a trap (ie bad move for me in terms of winning a debate) in as far as the conversation with P2M who seems to pick up on that I am investigating the possibility to prove evolution (ie an event in history) with the wrong sort of evidence. Even if we did replicate it in the lab it wouldn't prove it occured.
In the context of that,to allude to an early post of mine, what level of confidence do you put in that the american revolution occured? Or the Punic wars?
um I can't see how it can be generally accepted when scientists can't even agree on what what they are talking about. From this section I am getting the opposite impression from your first comment - ie that you think life is somthing along the lines of "a self replicating molecule in certain circumstances". If that is the case I'd say we can create life in the lab.
As you can see from this there is a big definition issue.
Ok, direct me to what I should address... Or do you want me to highlight what I think are your best points to make this a more friendly discussion?
(note: Not sarcasm I know debates can get focused on where people disagree rather than agree and thus become artificially negitive).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote