The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.
Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 11:38 am
No way Argy is some random newbie who just joined to inflate our numbers from 18. Can both yuk it up and discuss shit? Very comfortable here already.
It's got to be a someone familiar from the past who's reincarnated to this afterlife. I don't want to say it's someone's new footwear...
This is my conspiracy theory.
Y'know Carl, some folks tend to post at CC/HF/CDC/Reddit and lurk at one of the others.
And then one day, after a comfort level is established, he/she/it makes the decision to take the plunge.
He/she/it usually changes he/she/its username at that moment, just saying...
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 9:34 pm
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That's all you got to know.
You can believe in what you want. God. Abiogenesis. Yeah it's a personal choice and probably faith and bias play a part. But don't tell me that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible just because there's no evidence. That's a logical fallacy.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:08 am
However, I'm only arguing that it's not proven that abiogenesis is impossible.
How many times do I have to say "scientifically impossible" and "impossible" are two different things?
I keep saying the former and you keep "translating" it into the latter.
"Scientifically impossible" means science has done everything it can to find evidence for something and failed.
Science has given up on this one and by the way The Great Strangelove never ever commits logical fallacies...
Argay Ham wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:37 am
I wasn’t raised to be anything, I went to church exactly twice by the time I was 14 - inoculation and a wedding. My dad grew up in what amounts to most Vancouverites as backwater squalor and had very skeptics views of organized religion. Still had some sense of spiritual freedom.
We have the same roots Mr. Ham.
Except in my case I had an epiphany at some point... whilst clad in in leather + daytons.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 9:34 pm
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That's all you got to know.
You can believe in what you want. God. Abiogenesis. Yeah it's a personal choice and probably faith and bias play a part. But don't tell me that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible just because there's no evidence. That's a logical fallacy.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:08 am
However, I'm only arguing that it's not proven that abiogenesis is impossible.
How many times do I have to say "scientifically impossible" and "impossible" are two different things?
I keep saying the former and you keep "translating" it into the latter.
"Scientifically impossible" means science has done everything it can to find evidence for something and failed.
Science has given up on this one and by the way The Great Strangelove never ever commits logical fallacies...
Who on this planet would use the term "scientifically impossible" in this way except for you Doc. It would be more accurate to say it's "scientifically unknown".
I might as well say the existence of God is logically impossible because we have done everything we can using logic to prove that God exists, and failed. Yup, we've probably given up on this one too.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:37 pm
Who on this planet would use the term "scientifically impossible" in this way except for you Doc.
Well, Nobel Prize winning scientist George Wald for one:
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 8:43 pm
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter, was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God… I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”
~ George Wald
Do you actually read the posts to which you respond Horsey?
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:37 pm
I might as well say the existence of God is logically impossible because we have done everything we can using logic to prove that God exists, and failed. Yup, we've probably given up on this one too.
Yeahno, the existence of God became logical what with the failure to establish abiogenesis as a logical alternative.
The Miller–Urey experiment,[1] or Miller experiment,[2] was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.
It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:37 pm
Who on this planet would use the term "scientifically impossible" in this way except for you Doc.
Well, Nobel Prize winning scientist George Wald for one:
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 8:43 pm
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter, was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God… I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”
~ George Wald
Do you actually read the posts to which you respond Horsey?
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:37 pm
I might as well say the existence of God is logically impossible because we have done everything we can using logic to prove that God exists, and failed. Yup, we've probably given up on this one too.
Yeahno, the existence of God became logical what with the failure to establish abiogenesis as a logical alternative.
Gotta be one or the other.
I agree with George Wald, spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible. That is the correct use of that term.
The possibility of abiogenesis, on the other hand, is scientifically unknown.
5thhorseman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:58 pm
I agree with George Wald, spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible. That is the correct use of that term.
The possibility of abiogenesis, on the other hand, is scientifically unknown.
Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are one and the same (look it up) and I said so in my post.
The Miller–Urey experiment,[1] or Miller experiment,[2] was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.
It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.
The very popular Miller-Urey experiment is often cited as evidence that life could form on its own. Yet this concept is completely full of holes. First off, the experiment purposefully removed any oxygen from the equation. Why? Because oxygen destroys unprotected amino acids. There is another major problem. If there was no oxygen, these unprotected amino acids would be wiped out by cosmic radiation. How do I know? Because we are protected by a layer of oxygen called the ozone layer. You can’t have O3 without at some point getting a decent amount of O2.
Miller-Urey also provided a major issue to the idea of abiogensis. Yes, they were able to produce amino acids but that alone can’t produce proteins. Not by themselves. Here is why. First, amino acids are water-soluble. Water is the worst place for amino acids to be able to form on their own, unprotected. Even if they were to combine, the water would break them apart. Second, they formed two types of amino acids that have completely identical chemical formulas. The difference is their orientation. Life MUST have completely 100% left-handed oriented amino acids. Just one right-handed oriented amino acid could kill the creature because of how the proteins fold to do what they do. Yet this solution is racemic: that is 50-50. And a batch of 100% of one kind, left unprotected and on their own will very quickly settle to 50-50. Third, there are 20 types of amino acids. The simplest protein contains 51 amino acids. Let’s run the numbers. That’s a 1 in a 2051 chance of getting the simplest one right (remember that amino acids can repeat). This is about 2.25 x 1066.
Do we really want to play this game (cuz dude, it's a neverending game)
Bottom line, science has tried its best to establish abiogenesis as a reasonable possibility and failed miserably.
Note, my pal the godless George Wald, above, knew all-too-well of the Miller-Urey experiment when he declared:
"Spontaneous generation (AKA abiogenesis) is scientifically impossible."
Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation both describe life arising from non-living matter, but they differ significantly:
Abiogenesis is a scientific theory proposing that life emerged billions of years ago through gradual, natural processes involving simple organic molecules. It focuses on primitive life forms and is supported by experiments like the Miller-Urey study.
Spontaneous generation was an outdated belief that complex organisms (e.g., maggots, mice) arose frequently and directly from non-living matter. It was disproven by experiments from Redi and Pasteur.
All Pasteur did was prove that a sterilized broth would remain sterilized if no outside contaminants were introduced. The predecessor to modern canning methods lol.
And Wald was referring to Louis Pasteur's experiment when he said spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible. Just look at your quote.
Last edited by 5thhorseman on Tue Jan 14, 2025 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
