the really big problem in this area is consciousness.
"creating life" might not be enough to adequately explain things.
Abiogenesis produced life that existed for, say a billion years or so, before that first organism (probably jellyfish) evolved a tactile sense in their umbrellas. Flatworms had true ganglia (primitive brains), in which the tactile network was extended to centralized processing. But it's hard to draw a line, working backwards from modern humans, as to those species which never had a "consciousness". But of course sentience is a consequence of brain activity, so as brains evolved, so did the capacity to sense and become self-aware.
not according to the respected source i had available.
science has never observed life coming from non life, but yet what are we told?
Hopefully you are mostly told the truth. But of course the quest for truth is elusive. It takes a lot of research. You really don't have to be told everything. There's plenty to learn. And that builds critical thinking skills.
see post 1424 about what yanks my chain with dr. ayala.
I'm surprised you limit your reading to this very tiny bit of information from among the vast amount of science papers out there.
i don't remember god being ruled out of the equation.
sorry, ludicrous isn't good enough.
i'm being honest here and i SWEAR i will be called a creationist for it.
I have never called you a creationist (except I may have when I first encountered your posts) but I think you have accused me of doing so. Lately I've been speculating on why you tow the Creationist line rather than to trash talk them for the nonsense they fabricate. It's that reluctance to call a spade a spade which invites readers to associate you with creationism. That, and arguing the creationist platforms, plus citing creationist web sites. It just doesn't add up.
nobody is asking you to do any such thing.
i'm not anyway.
what we are now observing as the big bang could be nothing more than a localized expansion.
The observable universe is all there is. Otherwise we would see more, right? To assume anything else is to say "the laws of physics can be suspended" (at some hypothetical boundary) which, esp. when claimed without evidence, is plain nuts. So folks will tend to reject it. (Here I'm not referring to the real meaning of "observable" -- as opposed to the region that extends to the edge of the universe, but strictly to what I think you mean by "observable universe".)
that's where all matter comes from isn't it, the elements?
The elements (atoms) are made of particles which are at least made of elementary particles (quarks).
maybe.
i think einstein said it best:
not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.
heavy stuff when you think about it.
Very heavy. All the more reason to reign in the imagination, and always defer to best evidence. At present, best evidence supports Big Bang theory, planetary accretion of the Earth from supernovae remnanants; the collision with another planet, volcanism (geo-thermal and -chemical energy sources); abiogenesis per the RNA-world hypothesis from those sources; evolution per Darwin and as amended; giving rise to simplest anaerobic microbes living on mineral energy, to cyanobacteria which built the oxygenated atmosphere, to colonial (cooperative signaling microbes) to metazoans, eventually fish, then fish with limited ability to perambulate, to amphibians, to reptiles to quadruped precursors of mammals (sort of reptile and sort of mammal) to true mammals, and, eventually primates, and, eventually, modern humans; and the evolution of self awareness from primitive afferent pathways and brain development (with some other unknown kind of sentience among the common zoo animals you seem to be only considering). Except for the Big Picture (all the details I left out) which you would get from a degree plan in Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology, the rest is pretty much superstition. If you don't go with the best evidence then you're betting on a losing proposition. You seem to be worried that the next card in the deck
won't be the ace of spades when in fact odds are it's a safe bet. In this case the odds you're picking are those of drawing the ace out of a million or so deuces. It's the
preponderance of evidence that makes people choose the picture you are seeing painted in all the classrooms--not only in America, but around the world. Why pick the losing proposition, esp. when you (all of us) have so little information to draw from?
That I think kind of summarizes the rationale that flickers through most posters' minds when they read your posts. And I think that's because just enough of them are just literate enough in science to walk through the same logic I did.
On this occasion Gerry, I read you as 100% correct....The details are another thing, but the "message" you convey, re the absolute certainty of life from non life [ignoring any non scientific explanatory deity myths]