abiogenesis

[Guest Paul]

Since “Patriot” is so intent on distorting abiogenesis research, and since his post doesn’t belong where it is (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26573&view=findpost&p=97403 ), I’m opening a topic to invite a serious discussion on the subject. (Hope springs eternal.)

Sixty years ago, what should parents have told their children about a cure for polio? Forty-five years ago, what should parents and teachers have told children about putting a man on the moon?

Today, what should we tell children about a cure for cancer or AIDS? In general, we should give an answer that makes them aware of the scientific research and advances in the area, and instills in them a respect for science. We should not be telling them that the answers to scientific questions are found in The Bible or any other writing of that kind, especially from that time.

What we tell children about these things will shape not only their fund of knowledge but how they think. In the United States and in Kearny, we are paying too little attention to teaching our children to think critically and scientifically.

That brings me to the current state of science pertaining to abiogenesis. There is nothing wrong with these formulations:

“In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

“The Miller–Urey experiment (or Urey–Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

Here is a formulation from a Christian perspective opposed to abiogenesis. While it argues from a non-scientific perspective, its formulation of the issue is sound and honest. “Scientists are proposing various theories for a natural origin of life by a process of abiogenesis (a non-biological production of life) that can be viewed as a chemical evolution from non-life to life.” http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/cheme.htm

See also the description at http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-...p;sr=1-3#reader , on page 45. {Use the search feature to search “abiogenesis” and then click on the referenced page; or better still, search around for yourself.} See also the first pages in http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Life-Chemi...p;sr=1-7#reader and http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Origin-Beginni...p;sr=1-8#reader (also the back cover).

All these formulations are sound. Let’s tell the children the truth, not try to indoctrinate them or diminish their respect for science by making fun of a promising field of scientific research and advancement.

[Guest Patriot]

Since “Patriot” is so intent on distorting abiogenesis research, and since his post doesn’t belong where it is (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26573&view=findpost&p=97403 ), I’m opening a topic to invite a serious discussion on the subject. (Hope springs eternal.)

Sixty years ago, what should parents have told their children about a cure for polio? Forty-five years ago, what should parents and teachers have told children about putting a man on the moon?

Today, what should we tell children about a cure for cancer or AIDS? In general, we should give an answer that makes them aware of the scientific research and advances in the area, and instills in them a respect for science. We should not be telling them that the answers to scientific questions are found in The Bible or any other writing of that kind, especially from that time.

What we tell children about these things will shape not only their fund of knowledge but how they think. In the United States and in Kearny, we are paying too little attention to teaching our children to think critically and scientifically.

That brings me to the current state of science pertaining to abiogenesis. There is nothing wrong with these formulations:

“In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

“The Miller–Urey experiment (or Urey–Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

Here is a formulation from a Christian perspective opposed to abiogenesis. While it argues from a non-scientific perspective, its formulation of the issue is sound and honest. “Scientists are proposing various theories for a natural origin of life by a process of abiogenesis (a non-biological production of life) that can be viewed as a chemical evolution from non-life to life.” http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/cheme.htm

See also the description at http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-...p;sr=1-3#reader , on page 45. {Use the search feature to search “abiogenesis” and then click on the referenced page; or better still, search around for yourself.} See also the first pages in http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Life-Chemi...p;sr=1-7#reader and http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Origin-Beginni...p;sr=1-8#reader (also the back cover).

All these formulations are sound. Let’s tell the children the truth, not try to indoctrinate them or diminish their respect for science by making fun of a promising field of scientific research and advancement.

Human research into polio, AIDS and the moon have nothing to do with God. Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.

[Guest Guest]

Human research into polio, AIDS and the moon have nothing to do with God. Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.

No one is suggesting research into God. The research is in chemistry and biology and every scientist in the world acknowledges that this work is science. They may not agree what the outcome will be but it is unquestionably science.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Human research into polio, AIDS and the moon have nothing to do with God. Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.

Holy hamburgers, I agree with Patriot on something! You're right, they have nothing to do with God.

They have nothing to do with the Easter Bunny either. Because he isn't real.

[Guest Patriot]

Holy hamburgers, I agree with Patriot on something! You're right, they have nothing to do with God.

They have nothing to do with the Easter Bunny either. Because he isn't real.

The motor pool called, you took the monkey wrench, they want it back.

[Guest Guest]

Holy hamburgers, I agree with Patriot on something! You're right, they have nothing to do with God.

They have nothing to do with the Easter Bunny either. Because he isn't real.

What do you mean the Easter Bunny isn’t real? Did anyone alert Paul? Does than mean he can't sue the Easter Bunny? All these questions will be answered in our next episode of Soap.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

The motor pool called, you took the monkey wrench, they want it back.

Insulting our brave troops who risk life and limb to get a stalled vehicle moving never knowing when they might come under fire? Classy.

For those keeping score-while I can in fact do most of my own repairs, I was not in fact in the motor pool. Whereas our so-called Patriot cannot show that he was in at all.