Chemical evolution:

[Write4U]

No the misunderstanding is all yours. I realized you meant exponential growth, and applied to prebiotic world chemistry it's absurdly out of place. But you are too vain to concede.

You do indeed not understand the "exponential function". Bartlett was right.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

There is no complete list of chemical compounds since by nature the list would be infinite.

Sorry, you are unable to expand your horizons.

The Story of Earth
THE FIRST 4.5 BILLION YEARS, FROM STARDUST TO LIVING PLANET, by Robert M Hazen

PRAISE;
“I’m not competent to assess the accuracy of Robert Hazen’s thesis about geological and biological history, but I am competent to judge it a fascinating story, far more alive than you might guess if all you knew was the subject was old dead (?!) rocks.”—Bill McKibben, bestselling author of Earth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet

“With infectious enthusiasm for his subject, Hazen introduces readers to Earth’s defining moments . . . [and] argues that understanding the interplay between Earth’s geological and biological pasts can help us predict and prepare for the future of life on our planet.”—Saron Yitbarek, Discover

“Hazen takes us on one of the grandest tours of them all—the 4.5 billion year history of our planet. From the atoms of the crust of the Earth come our bodies, the entire living world, and this exciting book. Read Hazen and you will not see Earth and life in the same way again.” —Neil Shubin, paleontologist and bestselling author of Your Inner Fish

“Concise and colourful . . . Drawing on the latest research and influenced by advances in astrobiology, Hazen takes a radical standpoint . . . to tell the amazing tale of our planet’s intertwined living and non-living spheres"—Birger Schmitz, Nature

“A fascinating new theory on the Earth’s origins written in a sparkling style with many personal touches . . . Hazen offers startling evidence that ‘Earth’s living and nonliving spheres’ have co-evolved over the past four billion years.”—Kirkus Reviews (starred)

“Exceptionally readable [and] user-friendly . . . Science junkies and readers interested in the environment will find Hazen’s arguments compelling and his overview of Earth’s tumultuous history captivating.”—Carl Hays, Booklist

“Hazen has a gift for explaining science in lay terms, and even readers with a minimal understanding of geology, chemistry, and physics will find this book riveting.”—Nancy R. Curtis, Library Journal

“Hazen illuminates the origins of Earth and the origins of life [in] a thoroughly accessible book, mixing a variety of scientific disciplines to tell an unforgettable story.”—Publishers Weekly

“The Story of Earth is that rare book that can transform the way you see the world. By synthesizing a vast span of time and knowledge into crisp, delightful prose, Hazen really does make our planet into a story, and a compelling one. I was left with a new sense of context for our place in this galactic home.”—Charles Wohlforth, author of The Fate of Nature and The Whale and the Supercomputer

 

[Q-reeus]

You do indeed not understand the "exponential function".

There is no complete list of chemical compounds since by nature the list would be infinite.

Sorry, you are unable to expand your horizons.

No the list would be quite finite but is totally beside the point. Regardless of the number of potential chemical compounds, only a tiny fraction would exist in a prebiotic environment.
It wasn't some playground where anything and everything could just happen given sufficient time. Real chemistry in a realistic environment is not like that. Even mainstream adherents to all natural abiogenesis admit the range of prebiotic precursor chemical species would be very limited. Especially given an oxidizing atmosphere now considered very likely.

 

[Write4U]

Even mainstream adherents to all natural abiogenesis admit the range of prebiotic precursor chemical species would be very limited. Especially given an oxidizing atmosphere now considered very likely.

Where do you get your info?
I provide links to scientific articles with every posit. Why are you unable to reference any scientific article?
How do I know you are not lying? You question my veracity, do I have the same right?

Journal of the American Chemical Society

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.7b01562

 

[Q-reeus]

Where do you get your info?
I provide links to scientific articles with every posit. Why are you unable to reference any scientific article?
How do I know you are not lying? You question my veracity, do I have the same right?

Journal of the American Chemical Society

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.7b01562

Articles not conforming to the materialist paradigm are excluded by definition from being labeled 'scientific'. Not to be confused with logical or not - which is more fundamental.
Rummage through for instance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Primordial_origin_of_biological_molecules:_Chemistry
How many relevant precursors were present varies with each school of thought and its main proponent(s). There are many competitors, indicating how unsettled are the various hypotheses.
It's a forgone conclusion you have no understanding of the contents of that latest link you supplied. The title looks impressive, the diagrams displayed within fascinating.
I cannot afford to keep wasting time like this, arguing with committed materialists.

 

[Write4U]

Rummage through for instance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Primordial_origin_of_biological_molecules:_Chemistry

Rummage? You cannot even come up with a quote? How long are you going to engage in deflection?

Is it because you have absolutely nothing to offer in support of your fantasm?

The title looks impressive, the diagrams displayed within fascinating.

Yes the Title is "Journal of the American Chemical Society", and the articles are written by scientists. See link and rummage through the magazine to read some real science!

The Title of your book is "Of Pandas and People" written for school kids as an religious alternative to Science by charlatans.

Where are your links to persuasive documents offering scientifically defensible observations and arguments. Do you believe in Science at all?

 

[QuarkHead]

I cannot afford to keep wasting time like this, arguing with committed materialists.

Ah. So you join a science forum, of people who are committed to the "belief" that the natural world can be - or will be - explained by some science, possibly as yet unknown.

And you are astonished by this? Get a grip.......

 

[paddoboy]

Articles not conforming to the materialist paradigm are excluded by definition from being labeled 'scientific'.

That just about says it all! Do I smell more conspiracy claims?

 

[Q-reeus]

Rummage? You cannot even come up with a quote? How long are you going to engage in deflection?

Is it because you have absolutely nothing to offer in support of your fantasm?

Yes the Title is "Journal of the American Chemical Society", and the articles are written by scientists. See link and rummage through the magazine to read some real science!

The Title of your book is "Of Pandas and People" written for school kids as an religious alternative to Science by charlatans.

Where are your links to persuasive documents offering scientifically defensible observations and arguments. Do you believe in Science at all?

Listen fool, I let you off the hook with your ridiculous claim re 'exponential process' in #574. Your 'answer' in #578 to my #575 was no answer, and when I pursued it in #581, you never responded. Too vain to concede. You are famous here as being a word salad obsessive. Also, see my response to QuarkHead.

 

[Q-reeus]

Ah. So you join a science forum, of people who are committed to the "belief" that the natural world can be - or will be - explained by some science, possibly as yet unknown.

And you are astonished by this? Get a grip.......

Back again. You distort the situation, and are perfectly well aware I believe in science and the scientific method, mainstream OOL hypotheses and Darwinian evolution paradigm excluded. Where true logic is thrown out the window in order to confirm to a strict materialist i.e. atheist position. And I note you never did answer my #525. That silence speaks pretty loudly.

 

[Write4U]

Listen fool, I let you off the hook with your ridiculous claim re 'exponential process' in #574.

Wrong again. The original term used Dr. Bartlett was the "exponential function".

Your 'answer' in #578 to my #575 was no answer, and when I persued it in #581, you never responded.

I further explained that we were dealing with exponential processes, not just your limited view of quantitative "growth".

Too vain to concede. You are famous here as being a word salad obsessive. Also, see my response to QuarkHead.

To an ignoramus any compound sentence will sound as word salad, well beyond his ability to unpack the logical chronology of the posit.

Where true logic is thrown out the window in order to confirm to a strict materialist i.e. atheist position

Let me remind you that " the science of physics is a discipline of the study of natural materialistic events , whereas atheism has nothing to do with science per se, just like spiritualism has nothing to do with science per se.

You're posting in a "Science sub-forum" and you're lucky anyone even responds to your fantastical tales of supernatural motivated Intelligent Designers. A hypothesis (adoration) which lacks any sign of proof for logical necessity.

 

[Q-reeus]

Wrong again. The original term used Dr. Bartlett was the "exponential function". I further explained that we were dealing with exponential processes, not just your limited view of quantitative "growth". To an ignoramus any compound sentence will sound as word salad, well beyond his ability to unpack the logical chronology of the posit.
Let me remind you that " the science of physics is a discipline of the study of natural materialistic events , whereas atheism has nothing to do with science per se, just like spiritualism has nothing to do with science per se.

You're posting in a "Science sub-forum" and you're lucky anyone even responds to your fantastical tales of supernatural motivated Intelligent Designers. A hypothesis (adoration) which lacks any sign of proof for logical necessity.

With that deflective and inane Write4U signature response, I will ignore you from now on.

 

[Write4U]

With that deflective and inane Write4U signature response, I will ignore you from now on.

Right, you have no scientific standing here. Be well .

 

[QuarkHead]

This thread has become silly and boring.

I leave you with a quote; my old genetics professor when asked on a BBC radio programme about the apparent conflict between religion and science over evolution, said something like this.......

"The shark and the lion are supreme predators each in its own environment. Place one in the other's environment, and there is no contest."

In other words, science has no place in spiritual matters, religion has no place in scientific matters.

I like that quote.

 

[Yazata]

Ah. So you join a science forum, of people who are committed to the "belief" that the natural world can be - or will be - explained by some science, possibly as yet unknown.

Well, if we define 'natural world' to be 'whatever can be explained by science', then that belief appears to be circular reasoning:

Science is capable of explaining everything that it is capable of explaining.

But do we really know that reality can only consist of those things that human beings are at least in principle capable of explaining? If so, how do we know that??

How can we possibly be so confident about what the boundaries of reality really are?

It look like another religious-style article of faith to me.

 

[billvon]

In other words, science has no place in spiritual matters, religion has no place in scientific matters.

Agreed. As Stephen Gould pointed out, they are completely different magisteria.

Even very religious people know this at a basic level. They may profess that God has power over all things, and is the ultimate authority. Still, if they have lung cancer, they are going to go to a doctor and not a priest. And if their plane is going to crash, they will take the parachute over the prayer any day.

 

[Write4U]

Well, if we define 'natural world' to be 'whatever can be explained by science', then that belief appears to be circular reasoning:
"Science is capable of explaining everything that it is capable of explaining."

I would put this as ; "Science is capable of explaining everything that it is capable of examining."

But do we really know that reality can only consist of those things that human beings are at least in principle capable of explaining? If so, how do we know that??

If it appears that something has no physical causality or origin we may fashion a hypothesis and try to verify by testing. (the production of the Higgs boson is one such deep mysteries explained).

How can we possibly be so confident about what the boundaries of reality really are? It look like another religious-style article of faith to me.

IMO, the problem with religious faith is that so far it has remained completely untestable and may be considered a true article of faith, whereas many physical phenomena with "unseen" causality have been explained.

Examples; 1) the unseen causality of "thunder and lightning" which explained the early assumption of (unseen) "sky gods" 2) the development of flight from watching birds use an unseen medium (air) to gain "lift".

 

[Michael 345]

This thread has become silly and boring.

I leave you with a quote; my old genetics professor when asked on a BBC radio programme about the apparent conflict between religion and science over evolution, said something like this.......

"The shark and the lion are supreme predators each in its own environment. Place one in the other's environment, and there is no contest."

In other words, science has no place in spiritual matters, religion has no place in scientific matters.

I like that quote.

True enough. However frequently Religion tries to insert its beliefs, or presents its beliefs, as being scientific

I can't think of any science claiming something along the lines of "If you believe in............ you will go to heaven not hell"

 

[Q-reeus]

It's strictly off topic but since this thread has drifted off topic often without mod censure, I will urge anyone who claims to be open minded on the issue of Darwinian evolution vs ID, to spend US$9.99 (Kindle version) or US$25.95 (paperback version) or US$31.95 (hardcover version) and get a copy of A Mousetrap for Darwin:
https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910
To find out just what the extent of lying, distortion, and cover-up exists among even the foremost authorities championing Darwinian evolution. Whenever some reviewer claims that Behe (or allied) has failed to address his critics on this or that issue, take it with a pinch. They lie or at best are misinformed.

 

[paddoboy]

It's strictly off topic but since this thread has drifted off topic often without mod censure, I will urge anyone who claims to be open minded on the issue of Darwinian evolution vs ID, to spend US$9.99 (Kindle version) or US$25.95 (paperback version) or US$31.95 (hardcover version) and get a copy of Darwin's Mousetrap:
https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910
To find out just what the extent of lying, distortion, and cover-up exists among even the foremost authorities championing Darwinian evolution. Whenever some reviewer claims that Behe (or allied) has failed to address his critics on this or that issue, take it with a pinch. They lie or at best are misinformed.

Yes, I once read a book called "The Burmuda Triangle" and another called "The BB Never Happened" I am not that gullible to fall for such shit though.

 

[Q-reeus]

Yes, I once read a book called "The Burmuda Triangle" and another called "The BB Never Happened" I am not that gullible to fall for such shit though.

So you claim to know it all without studying any alternate pov. No surprise. Keep being ignorant then.