We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 80 comments are related to the topic:
Abiogenesis - a query to all.
Abiogenesis - a query to all.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 80
|
By:
Zorro is determined to believe in the Creationism Theory, come what may, nothing will shift him.
The bible said God CREATED the universe. So for hundreds of years Science was wrong and the bible was right. Not really Zorro, the bible was never right. It is just there was no conflicting theory so people believed it. Science advances slowly, it relies on people with exceptional intelligence who only uncover the picture a bit at a time. It works because we enjoy the fruits of it. We have not discovered how life started yet. Current evolution theory may not be the final answer. I find it more believable than Genesis myself, based on evidence to date. Do you believe in geology and the age of the Earth Zorro. How do you explain ancient fossils? You have the right to believe what you want Zorro, |
|
By:
what this is back?
' Zorro is determined to believe in the Creationism Theory, come what may, nothing will shift him. ' - yep my soul is safe. it's been banked. you do know the bible was right - god stretched out the universe.... the big bang theory, expansion of the universe. In the beginning.... let there be light? where as the prevailing scientific opinion up to the sixties was the steady state model. Replaced by the 1927 theory of Georges Lemaitre(FKIN belgian Priest) when they needed something to fit the facts. Einstein was livid as he loved the steady state model. |
|
By:
where as the prevailing scientific opinion up to the sixties was the steady state model. Replaced by the 1927 theory of Georges Lemaitre(FKIN belgian Priest) when they needed something to fit the facts. Einstein was livid as he loved the steady state model.
Well this is as it should be Zorro...everything must fit the facts..that is the rule of science proof. But it takes time to establish the facts, technology has to move forward, also scientists sweat blood working out their theories, it is not easy. When it comes to fitting the facts, I think Genesis, is in a very weak position  Still do not let me weaken your faith, I would not do that, but I also argue for science. |
|
By:
If you believe God created us all, you must see he also created our brain, I think we are meant to use it,
be a waste otherwise. Do you want to live the animals? |
|
By:
to live like animals
|
|
By:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/426078/update-black-holes-safety-and-the-lhc-upgrade/
There’s little confidence to be gained from safety assessments that have been carried out in the past.. Back in the late 90s, a reader’s letter in Scientific American raised the question of whether the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) then being built at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, could produce black holes that might destroy the planet. As a result, Brookhaven’s director commissioned a report from four physicists on the safety of the machine. This report concluded that the probability of catastrophe was 2 x 10^-4, describing this as “a comfortable margin of error”. Another report by a group of CERN physicists came to the “”extremely conservative conclusion [that] it is safe to run RHIC for 500 million years.” These papers were widely used at the time to provide reassurance to the public and yet both later turned out to contain serious errors. The “comfortable margin of error” is actually a 1 in 5000 chance–not one that most people would consider comfortable. When this was pointed out, the team revised its figures by adding another zero onto the number making it a 1 in 50,000 chance, adding that “we do not attempt to decide what is an acceptable upper limit on [the probability of a disaster].” So if we round that up to 1 in 100,000 making it 10^5…. So scientists are willing to accept the formation odds of one protein at 10^260 (Francis Crick’s own odds, Atheist) yet dismiss odds of 10^5 as ridiculous and would never happen? Anyone connect the dots there? |
|
By:
ebulGery
When it comes to fitting the facts, I think Genesis, is in a very weak position http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews Genesis puts Eden in Ethiopia - Genesis 2:10–14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. It also refers to the land of Cush - translated/interpreted as Ethiopia. science says Man came out of Africa ? bing bongo another Fkin coincidence. Where's Ethiopia ? your kung fu is weak Ed. |
|
By:
Where are the Tigris and the Euphrates? They are in Iraq not Ethiopia but don't let facts get in the way of a good read about talking serpents and original sin. Enjoy!
|
|
By:
Not to worry, just google some more creationist websites, they will have already made up some convoluted theory to "explain" it.
 |
|
By:
FOINAVON are you being deliberately obtuse.
THEN. rivers change their paths. some rivers go thru many countries like the amazon. 6000 years ago the lands were more plush. TOPOGRAPHY has changed. The nile has changed course since the time of the pharaohs. Experts have looked at it - complain to them. Genesis 2:9-14 Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon (flow); it flows around the whole land of Havilah (land of sand) , where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon(break forth); it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the Euphrates. EXPERTS SAY it was ethiopia? Gihon(nreak forth) surrounded ethiopia. BUT eden was the source of the waters? It flowed out to form four rivers - so what fed these four rivers 6000 years ago. |
|
By:
So if we round that up to 1 in 100,000 making it 10^5….
So scientists are willing to accept the formation odds of one protein at 10^260 (Francis Crick’s own odds, Atheist) yet dismiss odds of 10^5 as ridiculous and would never happen? Anyone connect the dots there? Then it probably never that way. You find one problem with evolution and write the whole theory off. But if we look at Genesis, there is more than problem there. You think life has only existed for 6000 years The first life arose on Earth 3.8 billion years ago a slight difference in timescale Zorro |
|
By:
never happened that way
|
|
By:
I do not think God and Science have to be mutually exclusive.
There are lots of scientists who have, and still believe in God. They look on Genesis as a nice story, perhaps an allegory if you must. |
|
By:
Sorry Zorro, just having a bit of fun.
so what fed these four rivers 6000 years ago. You really believe Eden and humanity were created 6000 years ago?  |
|
By:
Science can create Heaven on Earth.
of course it can also create Hell on Earth. But the same of Religion, it could attempted to create Heaven on Earth. But frequently it has been used to create Hell on Earth. The problem is of course Human Nature, we can choose or bad? A simple example of the benefit of Science Would you prefer to go back to the days of no anaesthetic and no antiseptics...and your Doctor informs you your leg has to come off Zorro I would definitely prefer the science of anaesthetics and antiseptics myself. |
|
By:
we can choose good or bad
|
|
By:
the bible belt of the USA is insano version of the bible.
That's the version that atheists always dredge up. Because you always put forward the worst as an example. Reading the bible you don't get definite time scales. you get metaphor and poetry. You get literal and exaggeration. it's for the man in the year 325 AD and 2017 AD. God might have given a prophet a digital disc full of schematics about the construction of everything but it wasn't necessary. the test paper you are sitting down to in the exam room is called 'faith' those that pass the test get the prize - eternal life. those that fail that test get the chance to resit the new exam paper called deeds. the prize is 1000 yrs under the rule of King David's throne. back to Genesis - from evening to the next day, six days passed and creation was finished. then Adam lived his life and recorded history began in the Jewish old testament. so looking at that literally - i would infer 6000 yrs for the history bit. but what about the creation bit? that's not clearly defined? Let there be light. and light appeared. that's an awesome start. he started with light. a big bang? what velocity was the light travelling at at the start of that explosion. usually if you explode something like a firework you notice that the initial explosion is massive and then peters out. it dwindles away and fades. entropy. so was light travelling at the same velocity? All past measurements of light has shown it slowing. Therefore a day today might not be the same as a day was 2000 yrs ago, or 6000 yrs ago. the universal constants of today might not be constant. look it up. http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/fundamental-constants-are-not-constant-or-maybe-they-are-we-dont-know-really/ |
|
By:
antibiotics are great. My father had TB in the fifties. in 1940's men died because they didn't have enough streptomycin to treat them. my father went to a sanatorium. In the past you went there to be cut off from society and die. It's all they could do. I think if you watch Somerset Maugham 'trio' the 1950 film you get a sense of what it must have been like.
My grandfather who loved his son, died a broken man after he heard his son had TB. He had seen what TB had done to his generation. He didn't know that the new medicines would cure my father. So yes - I like a lot of modern medicine. But I try to avoid it as much as possible. I've taken medicines in the past and they are double edged swords that should be taken in emergency circumstances only. I prefer to live a natural life without them. taking antibiotics for a cold or flu is wasting it for an emergency. It can also blow holes in your intestines. kill good gut flora that's taken years to build up. It doesn't just target the bad stuff. All pills are poisons. Too much aspirin will kill you. Paracetamol is used a lot in suicides. A golden age of immunity. will it be sustained? i'm not sure. It might just be a pleasant island, a stop off point before we have to face the storms again. MacDonald's makes your day. |
|
By:
What do you think of this article DStyle?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began It goes through various scenarios and concludes with the metal-rich clay theory that you posted in your first post. I know that organo-metallic compounds play an important role in many life processes today, for example, chlorophyll, Haemoglobin, and haemocyanins found in the blood of some invertebrates. |
|
By:
already been posted, very good read
|
|
By:
Sorry, I missed it Scandy, was it your post? I thought it was very well organised and relatively jargon-free.
|
|
By:
Foin: it was me who posted the link
 it's an excellent piece. no dumbing down, and thorough. |
|
By:
there are some szostak videos "Origin of life" on youtube if you want more.
|
|
By:
I will look them up DStyle. Have always been interested in the biological sciences but was nudged down a different route as a young man by well-meaning teachers.
|
|
By:
can you explain why there are scientists including Atheist scientists, not just creationists that have serious reservations about macro evolution. Are they being deliberately obtuse? willful? misguided? When the puzzle pieces do not fit the pretty pattern Darwin has made.
They get philosophical responses as answers and just so stories instead of hard science. Richard Dawkins when asked for positive mutations couldn't give a response, because he is a sub par biologist that makes up spurious arguments about religion to cover his inadequacy in his chosen field, which he abandoned to be an advocate and writer espousing Darwinism. Serious DNA biologists including atheists cannot reconcile the facts with the theory. When that happens it's a warning flag for the theory. |
|
By:
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation.
The theory may have a few problems. But you cannot just throw it away Zorro. Someone has to come up with a better explanation that is all. |
|
By:
Religion only relies on faith.
Science demands proof, this is much harder to find. |
|
By:
In other words, mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection can produce major evolutionary changes given enough time. The key element is vast amounts of time -- on a scale that is difficult for most people to imagine. This model of macroevolution is called phyletic gradualism.
|
|
By:
ebulGery 03 Nov 16 23:50
The theory may have a few problems. But you cannot just throw it away Zorro. Someone has to come up with a better explanation that is all. The above statement seems reasonable. ebulGery 04 Nov 16 00:04 Religion only relies on faith. Science demands proof, this is much harder to find. But this statement contradicts the first. We have to accept a theory that has "a few problems" but we must only accept proof? Sorry, EG. You can't have an each way bet on truth. |
|
By:
What do you mean by truth?
|
|
By:
I mean truth in the binary sense. A fact is either true or false. "Don't know" is not an option. That which is not true must be false.
You jumped from accepting a "theory with a few problems" straight to demanding proof. |
|
By:
I see Gallivanter
Well it is Zorro who has the problem with it, Scientists do not always agree on things, new theories do replace old. There is usually a consensus view at any one time , currently it is that Darwin was right. It makes sense to me so I accept it  |
|
By:
Nobody knows how life started at the moment
|
|
By:
All life competes for limited resources. There are an incredible of different life forms,
from humble Bacteria to humans, animals, plants, some on land some, in the sea, etc. This contributes to the success of life. So the question has to be asked was all life individually created by God or has it been created by the ability of life to mutate to take advantage of different resources. Darwin believed in mutation so did I. It has got be a more efficient system than God having to painstakingly create all the varieties of life. Of course if life on Earth is just a simulation created by some super being, I suppose it is possible they have created all the mutations. Seems more efficient to me to have life do it for itself. But to do that, surely it must have the ability to mutate. |
|
By:
It is when we see great changes in the environment, that life mutates the most.
It is a question of adapting to the new environment, or becoming extinct. The missing links, well when life mutates from one form to another form, the intervening forms would not be retained. They would only be about a relatively short time, so not so easy to find their fossils |
|
By:
consensus views are meaningless.
one man against everybody else in science is the struggle of science. Sir Isaac Newton - light theory and gravity... nobody else knew what he did. Einstein in the patent office - knew the world better than anybody else. Atheists love Galileo for his battles with the church. Marie Curie, Pasteur, all fought to get their theories heard. the outsider is the one that breaks the patterns science sets in stone. breaking them apart with truth. my favourite science movie is 'the magic Bullet' the story of Dr Paul Ehrlich who conceived the idea that there was a chemical 'bullet' out there for every disease. a one man powerhouse that found a cure for syphilis which ravaged Europe. EGR. Steady state model of the universe was the consensus up to 1960's, Big Bang theory replaced it, originally the model at the beginning was trillions of miles across? then they kept revising it down. to thousands of miles of matter, then smaller, now it's a singularity? but some physicists now think the whole theory is bumph? So keep digging is the science message.... because they just don't know anything really. They have patterns and sometimes the patterns work. One medicine can help you and the same medicine will kill your pal. |
|
By:
some physicists now think the whole theory is bumph? So keep digging is the science message.... because they just don't know anything really
They actually know quite a lot Zorro but they don't know everything. Science doesn't claim to know everything unlike many proponents of the God hypothesis which is why science does "keep digging" as you describe research. |
|
By:
MUTATIONS - yes you can evolve quicker - light up a cigarette and get 150 mutations a day.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/smoking-a-pack-a-day-causes-150-dna-mutations-a-year-study-1.3145715 lovely mutations that will propel mankind into the future... we'll be supermen and live forever because a victorian naturalist noticed bird beaks were different. It needed a boat trip? what about at home... didn't he notice people around him looked different? I'll put my faith in MATHS, PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY in Science before Darwin's Dubious Victorian Theories. 10^260 that one amino can form - God's existence 10^261 ? It has to be greater right? sure it is. We have eye witness testimony and accounts by Roman historians and even Richard Dawkin's admits that Jesus existed. Who witnessed abiogenesis. 10^261? or less? |
|
By:
I think we've bored everyone to death zorro. People will believe what they want. Good luck with the god conjecture, whatever floats your boat.
|
|
By:
Darwin's Dubious Victorian Theories.
 |