Greg H.

Is there a point to your word salad?

You are completely misunderstanding the point of those experiments, if you truly believe this. Those experiments are based on what we understand about chemistry and biology. If some advanced lab succeeds in making life in a beaker, it will be because they have understood the necessary mechanisms of the chemistry and the biology. It will, in fact, prove that nature could do the same thing, based on those same laws and principles, removing the need for some supernatural agency to provide an initial condition.

Every time I read that quote about the 747 it makes me chuckle, because it's the biggest strawman of the lot. No serious scientist is claiming that life went from a bunch of chemicals directly to a living organism. There were intermediate steps in the process, and the probability of some of those steps may be nearly close to 100%. Here's what Dr. Ian Musgrave, from the University of Adelaide says on that: Feel free to read the entire paper - it covers quite a bit about the steps involved in going from "soup" to life. Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations edit to fix an obnoxious font.

This is the kind of asinine statement that makes it easy for the "Ban the gun" crowd to make their points. Even when I was in the military in the field we didn't sleep with our weapons loaded. Loaded, under a pillow with the safety off? I am never, ever staying at your house, and I sincerely hope no one else does either. I don't want to get shot trying to wake you up because the kitchen caught fire. And evidently, you are a dumbass. And yes, I know that's an ad hominem, but in this case it also appears to be the truth, at least where firearms safety is concerned.

Personally, as a gun owner, I am all for training requirements, licensing, and title/tag registration for firearms. I spent time as a kid with my dad learning how to handle a weapon appropriately (mostly while hunting), spent time in the service learning how to use one effectively, and accurately, and now I go out about once a month and burn through a couple magazines just to make sure I still feel comfortable in my skill to handle one and hit what I'm aiming at. Proper training, and maintaining that training should be required, and I am definitely for restrictions on who can own a gun. The real problem is that this topic is as polarizing for most people as abortion. You say the words "gun control" and they either nod sycophantically ("Yes yes ban the guns!"), or they turn into raving rage monsters ("You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!"). The moderate group in the middle can't even be heard over the gnashing of teeth. Responsible gun ownership is not the same as taking away guns from the people. What it should be, if done correctly, is insuring that those people that own guns know how to use them properly and, much more importantly, when not to use them.

The folks at Kansas university have put together a helpful guide on doing just this sort of thing. It also includes folks you can contact. http://paleo.ku.edu/fossilid.html Since you mention it may have been recovered from New Mexico, you can also try: http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/faq/minerals/#id

Really? Why can't science figure it out? That's a rather large assumption, deciding a priori that science will never figure out by what mechanism life could have arisen naturally. I addressed this in post 18 of this thread. Natural laws are not a legal system of jurisprudence - and I do not for a moment believe you are naive enough to think otherwise. Please drop the strawman.

So it's a Jellyrat? Sounds like it should be in the candy aisle next to gummi worms.

There is an energy minimum based on the uncertainty principle - is that what you're asking about?

Legal systems require someone to invent them. Natural laws do not, which is what I was discussing, as you well know. Strawman fallacies will not push your arguments very far, but feel free to keep trying.

So as opposed to Christianity, all other religions (and lack of religious belief) are illogical. So, essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. That's good to know. I can stop wasting my time trying to have a serious discussion with you.

DH already answered this, but I figured I would weigh in to, since it was ultimately addressed to me. The short answer is, we're not entirely sure (at least based on my readings on the subject) but there are a couple of good theories. The Abiogenesis article at Wikipedia covers most of the history and general information on the topic. The important thing to remember is that life would not have risen entirely randomly, as DH pointed out. Chemistry has laws, just like every other science, and those govern the combinations of atoms into molecules and molecules into proteins, etc. And as someone else pointed out, it would not have needed a long span of time (geologically speaking) to find a combination that worked since there would have been billions of molecules trying to combine in billions of different ways constantly. All it took was one to get it right, and start the process of self-replication. After that, evolution would have taken over.

i'm not the one claiming that religious creation myths = science. I was simply pointing out that you seem to be laboring under the misconception that the Bible has the only horse in that race.

I am well aware of what you're talking about - and my point stands. The Bible does not have a monopoly on religious creation stories. And if you're so willing to dismiss those as crazy theories, why should we take your religiously based theory any more seriously?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html In short, life does not evolve by chance alone, nor does the theory of evolution have anything to do with how life began. That's a completely different theory.

Minor correction. The Bible tells a story of creation. It's not the only one available. It's not even the only religious-without-a-scrap-of-scientific-evidence one available.

Making the assumption that you were referring to the Christian God of the Old Testament, consume all of my hypocritical worshippers in a fireball of damnation - as an object lesson to the rest of humanity to straighten out and fly right. Oh, and I'd put it on pay per view.

Well,, if we lived in a magical world where large piles of unaccounted for money can simply hang around and no one notices or cares, then I doubt it would have any impact on your state of bliss at all. Why should being unaware of things you are unaware of make you any more or less happy? And if a tree falls in the forest, sound is created whether any suitable receptors are there to receive it or not. Sound is just one form of energy created when the potential energy of the tree's vertical position is released by it falling over.

I'll get the pitchforks. Who was bringing the torches?

Yes, they had deeply rooted beliefs, which matter not one whit when answering the question "Why are they important?" They are lauded because of their scientific achievements, not their ability to believe in the divine.

You said that once already. And once again, I ask, what does that have to do with the effects of religious belief? Unless you are purporting that because God does not exist, it follows that neither does religion?

In other words, it's all woo - and any "evidence" is a load of horse droppings.

So perusing the article, I'd have to say, without reading the study, it looks more like an apologists attempt to prove that religion is good than anything else (IMO). However, I found the original paper on the author's website, so I am with holding judgment until I actually read it. For anyone that is interested in doing the same: http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf I also found a video link posted by the University of Miami to an interview with the author of the paper, though I haven't had a chance to watch it.

Congrats.