Bacteria thrive on land 100 million years earlier than thought? Oxydizing minerals, just like today?
| October 22, 2011 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, stasis |
Modern mine waste water supports bacteria like those from 2.48 billion years ago/University of Alberta
From “New Evidence for the Oldest Oxygen-Breathing Life On Land”
(ScienceDaily, Oct. 19, 2011), we learn:
New University of Alberta research shows the first evidence that the first oxygen-breathing bacteria occupied and thrived on land 100 million years earlier than previously thought. The researchers show that the most primitive form of aerobic-respiring life on land came into existence 2.48 billion years ago.
“We suggest that the jump in chromium levels was triggered by the oxidation of the mineral pyrite (fool’s gold) on land,” said Konhauser.
The researchers say the modern analogue for that first primitive oxygen-dependent life form on Earth is still with us.
“The same bacterial life forms are alive and well today, living off pyrite and settling in the highly acidic waste waters of mining sites the world over,” said Konhauser.
49 Responses to Bacteria thrive on land 100 million years earlier than thought? Oxydizing minerals, just like today?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As to:
notes:
As well, in conjunction with bacteria, geological processes helped detoxify the earth of dangerous levels of metal:
Coincidence, I think NOT! Or as Frank Turek would say, ‘I ain’t got enough faith to be an atheist!’
verse and music:
further notes:
Moreover stunningly, as if that was not surprising enough, a complex ‘biogeochemical balance’ is also found to extend all the into how the metabolism of higher lifeforms operate:
Further note:
On the third page of this following site there is a bit easier to understand illustration that shows some of the interdependent, ‘life-enabling’, biogeochemical complexity of different types of bacterial life on Earth.,,,
,,,Please note, that if even one type of bacteria group did not exist in this complex cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the preceding sites, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse. For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria, but they must now also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their biogeochemical link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive. As well, though not clearly illustrated in the illustration on the preceding site, please note that a long term tectonic cycle, of the turnover the Earth’s crustal rocks, must also be fine-tuned to a certain degree with the bacteria and thus plays a important ‘foundational’ role in the overall ecology of the biogeochemical system that must be accounted for as well.
Someone must have pointed out at some time in the past that “neo-Darwinism” has absolutely nothing to say on the origin of life? No? Allow me to be the first. neo-Darwinism (an increasingly archaic term) is the study of interacting replicators, however caused, and their broader consequences. There must be more than one, and they must be replicators, before any kind of evolutionary (or ecological) process can commence.
No. If it happened deep in the oceans – or even if it didn’t – photosynthesis had absolutely nothing to do with it. The likeliest precedent state is chemotrophy – harvesting the redox potential in inorganic molecules.
Is it miraculous that the internet arose just in time to allow Google to have something to run on? Do roofs exist in order that pigeons may roost upon them? Pre-existing states create opportunities, and interdependence can be tuned to the point where the modern system cannot be disentangled. You seem to be suggesting that “neo-Darwinists” have trouble explaining how ecosystems can arise. That would be news to the neo-Darwinist. Or maybe you think that the age of these fossils telescopes the time-frame to an impossibly short one? We may have over a billion years to play with, between OOL and 2.48bya.
Actually I just look at Darwinian presuppositions and find them ludicrous as to what the actual evidence says. If you find comfort in the many extremely forced ‘just so’ stories (excuses), so be it. But a spade is a spade and these findings are contrary to materialistic expectations, to put it mildly.
This is a specific matter, not the panoply of “Darwinian” presuppositions. If you think that you can look at a community and simply reject all materialistic notions as to how that community may have arisen, and its modern interdependencies become more tightly coupled … well, I am somewhat flabbergasted. I hesitated before posting in reply to you, and perhaps I should have stuck with my first instinct.
They are entirely in accord with materialistic expectations. You appear to reject material causes, or circumscribe by nothing more than guesswork the realm of their applicability, but they certainly are in accord with them.
Chas find comfort in whatever excuse you may make up. I personally don’t care what you believe. The point is that the evidence certainly does not fit materialistically expectations for life accidentally evolving from a ‘warm little pond’: In fact everything we know gives clear indication that a materialistic origin of life is impossible;
Besides hydrothermal vents, it is also commonly, and erroneously, presumed in many grade school textbooks that life slowly arose in a primordial ocean of pre-biotic soup. Yet there are no chemical signatures in the geologic record indicating that a ocean of this pre-biotic soup ever existed. In fact, as stated earlier, the evidence indicates that complex photosynthetic life appeared on earth as soon as water appeared on earth with no chemical signature whatsoever of prebiotic activity.
Moreover, water is considered a ‘universal solvent’ which is a very thermodynamic obeying and thus origin of life defying fact.
Sea Salt only adds to this thermodynamic problem:
etc.. etc.. etc..
Perhaps you would care to demonstrate that a protein can spontaneously arise??? at least you would be in a land reality instead of a land of pure fantasy!!!
Dr. Don Johnson lays out some of the probabilities for life in this following video:
Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:
Further note:
bornagain77, you seem determined to leap between the origin of life and the origin of ecosystems. I am not, as you say, compelled to join you in your gymnastics. If you find comfort in your intellectual approach to science, good luck.
Whatever!
From which we can conclude that you are – what – 14, 15? At least it is succinct, which is more than I can say for its predecessors.
Consider:
1) Abiogenesis vs intelligent-first-cell-ism
2) Natural vs directed evolution of individual lineages
3) Natural vs directed construction/maintenance of ecological communities
These are legitimate distinctions, because there are different processes, different levels of interaction, and different opportunities for natural or guided processes to operate.
You don’t think it important to look at one thing at a time? Just … all of it? It’s all tosh?
Whatever Chas!!! Chas, let’s make this a lot more clear for you so as to eliminate half of your conjectures above! Please show just one example of neo-Darwinian processes generating even 1 functional protein; Venema, who is a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than you are, was challenged on this specific point, and here was what his ‘prize’ literature citation had to say about the subject:
Now Chas, honestly, do you think anyone has any scientific right whatsoever to presuppose that neo-Darwinian evolution can happen when NO ONE has even established that it can be done for a single ‘simple protein’??? Even a 14 or 15 year old can see that neo-Darwinists are stark raving mad for presupposing that all life arose by accidental processes with no foundation, at all, for such conjecture.
Whatever, bornag!!! Show me just one example of intelligence creating a replicating chemical system from inorganic components. NO ONE has established that this is feasible. I’m sure that challenge does nothing to defuse your viewpoint, so I’m not sure why you think its equivalent (admittedly in the rather different milieu of evolution) might slay the material-causes one.
Chas ,,, you state a very bold statement here, ‘NO ONE has established that this is feasible.‘
Really Chas, Not even feasible for intelligence????
Self-replicating Robots
http://video.google.com/videop.....8169667271
As well Chas, As to man trying to intelligently design a single functional protein we learn something very interesting:
ChasD:
“Show me just one example of intelligence creating a replicating chemical system from inorganic components.”
=====
Gerald Joyce’s multiple Intelligent Designing experiments are prime examples what just how it takes an intelligent mind/s to accomplish anything. He apparently knows better than to offer some failed dirt watching experiment and get himself laughed at by the scientific world. Besides, hijacking I.D. concepts and attaching evolutionary lables to them and finally loading up a fable with massive amounts of personification fallacies into a mythical fantasy world will bring in more future research money than being honest and coming clean with what he actually proved.
BA77:
“As well Chas, As to man trying to intelligently design a single functional protein we learn something very interesting:”
====
For that matter, you may add any Evolutionist working on any type of OOL/RNA-World fable from Miller/Urey onwards. When asked what the intelligent fingerprints of the scientists conducting these experiments represent, (1) blind undirected forces without purpose, goals or intent, or (2) Intelligent Design ??? These people incredibly will deny their own intelligences every single time. They’re clearly incapable of denying their own faith even when presented with the fraud it truly is.
You will note that I said CHEMICAL. A self-replicating CHEMICAL system. There are issues with molecules that are not issues for materials. Try again.
ChasD:
“You seem to be suggesting that “neo-Darwinists” have trouble explaining how ecosystems can arise.”
====
They can’t even explain or show us just how to save the ones presently going extinct as a result of their own misuse and abuse of science. How do you expect Neo-Dariwnism to explain their arise in the first place ???
Eocene, this reminds me of Axe’s April 1st retort to Lincoln and Joyce;
look above you chas (in more ways than one!
)
I think you miss the point of the quoted text. Joyce uses evolutionary principles in molecular design. That is not “creating a replicating chemical system from inorganic components”, but using a kind of directed evolution to devise molecules, which are created in a completely non-complex state wrt each other. I certainly don’t deny that intelligence can do what evolution is purported to be capable of. It would be surprising if intelligence could not marshal material causes such as selection on gross objects, and of course it can. We can talk about evolution, or we can talk about abiogenesis, but they are two very different mechanistic systems, which is the point I was really trying to get across.
I think you are laying a little too much at the door of this particular group of scientists, however much you may despise them. I don’t think neo-Darwinists are responsible for the loss of biodiversity! :0)
Arguably, however, those scientists who have helped work out how to increase crop yields, counteract infertility, or stave off death and disease … they are arguably creating a circumstance that, in the long run, will probably have some disastrous consequences for other species and for ourselves. Does this mean that the scientific endeavour were best never started? Dunno. But understanding the limits to growth is very much a “Darwinian” thing to do. And hoping that ‘intelligence’ will save us? … doesn’t look like it’s going to be ours.
and we have from Joyce’s work on self replication,,,
so remove the 1,600n purchased by intelligence and you have nothing free for evolutionary processes to claim,,, But alas such tripe is what neo-Darwinists constantly sell
BA77
“Eocene, this reminds me of Axe’s April 1st retort to Lincoln and Joyce;”
“Biologic Institute Announces First Self-Replicating Motor Vehicle — April 1st, 2009 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Researchers at Biologic Institute have stunned the scientific community with the announcement today of a fully functioning automobile capable of replicating itself.”
=====
Always illustrate Absurdity with more absurdity. And the hilarious thing here is that this perfectly illustrates how you create a fable/myth and hope guillible fools out there are ignorant enough to swallow it whole.
Another thing that stinks is when they try and excuse their usage of intelligent design like what was mentioned a few days ago here in the Explosion thread by use of word games. They have a canned answer for everything.
******
Petrushka:
“Darwin spent the first section of “Origin” discussing artificial selection. What makes you think directed evolution isn’t “Darwinian”?
*******
Directed Evolution ???
This is one of their favourite misnomers or more appropriately Oxymorons. How often do we have to remind these people of their very own core beliefs and articles of faith ??? Evolution is directionLESS!!!
Joyce and others call this “directed evolution” and “selection,” yet it is clear that every step of the way Gerald Joyce and the other Lab Coats were doing the directing and selecting with the help of a computer they designed. The funny thing is as was pointed out in the bottom of your quote, once the catalyst runs out the chemcial reaction stops. This is the same thing anyone with half a brain can observe at your local Auto Body Shop when the mechanic mixes in the hardening catatlyst in with the Bondo. Or how about E-POX-E Resin which also needs a catalyst in order to react and accomplish a purpose for which it was created.
Yet, the religious followers of this FAITH will pick up all these lies and attach them as one of their own, practically defending it to the death and looking STUPID in the process.
Stars, mate. Beautiful stars. Cradle of nucleosynthesis. Whether, hidden amongst them, is an entity that can suspend physics for long enough to get a bunch of these molecules into position to create a fully functioning replicating cell … it is an interesting proposition, but I’m after mechanism. How things work. If it is ineffable, unknowable, just ‘cos etc, it ain’t much to go on as an alternative to material cause. The same goes for the more prosaic “above”.
And again: evolution. With ‘pre-owned’ organic ingredients. Not abiogenesis. From scratch. Two different things.
Well, given that intelligence clearly fell so far short of the mark set by a few billion years of natural selection … yeah!
well Chas, let’s look a little higher than the stars:
‘Pure transcendent information’ is now shown to be ‘conserved’. (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent quantum information which can possibly exist, for all possible physical/material events, past, present, and future, already must exist.) This is since transcendent information exercises direct dominion of the foundational ‘material’ entity of this universe, energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known ‘material’ means. i.e. First Law of Thermodynamics.
These following studies verified the ‘controlled’ violation of the first law of thermodynamics that I had suspected:
It is also very interesting to note that the quantum state of a photon is actually defined as ‘infinite information’ in its uncollapsed quantum wave state:
It should be noted in the preceding paper that Duwell, though he never challenges the mathematical definition of a photon qubit as infinite information, tries to refute Bennett’s interpretation of instantaneous infinite information transfer in teleportation because of what he believes are ‘time constraints’ which would prohibit teleporting ‘backwards in time’. Yet Duwell fails to realize that information is its own completely unique transcendent entity, completely separate from any energy-matter, space-time, constraints in the first place. Moreover This following recent experiment, on top of the previously listed ‘conservation of quantum information’ papers, pretty much blew a hole in Duwell’s objection to Bennett, of teleporting infinite information ‘backwards in time’, simply because he believed there was no such path, or mechanism, to do so:
It should also be noted that the preceding experiment pretty much dots all the i’s and crosses all the t’s as far as concretely establishing ‘transcendent information’ as its own unique entity. Its own unique entity that is completely separate from, and dominate of, space-time, matter and energy.
Eocene
Where on earth do you get that idea? Evolution contains two main components: drift (directionless) and selection (not directionless). Selection pushes a population in the direction of adaptation to the prevailing conditions. Drift just buffets it about.
Neither is goal-oriented, which I guess is what you mean. Nonetheless, directed evolution is. That’s what the ‘directed’ modifier conveys: a version of the essentially non-goal-oriented process that is goal-oriented.
More supporting evidence for the transcendent nature of information, and how it interacts with energy, is found in these following studies:
This following experiment clearly shows information is not an ‘emergent property’ of any solid material basis as is dogmatically asserted by some materialists:
The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation:
It is also interesting to note that a Compact Disc crammed with information on it weighs exactly the same as a CD with no information on it whatsoever.,, Here is a video reflecting on some of the characteristics of transcendent information:
But to reflect just a bit more on the teleportation experiment itself, is interesting to note that scientists can only ‘destroy’ a photon in these quantum teleportation experiments. No one has ‘created’ a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God is infinite, and perfect, in information/knowledge.
Further reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment:
That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its ‘infinite’ information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon ‘disappeared’ from the ‘material’ universe when the entire information content of a photon was ‘transcendently displaced’ from the material universe by the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, Quantum teleportation is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. ‘transcendent’ information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, telling energy exactly what to be and do in the experiment. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence, and dominion, of space-time and matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can satisfactorily explain where all energy came from as far as the origination of the universe is concerned. That is transcendent information is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science as the postulated multiverse does. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy does possess in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means according to the first law). To reiterate, since information exercises dominion of energy in quantum teleportation then all information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist.
Reflections on the ‘infinite transcendent information’ framework, as well as on the ‘eternal’ and ‘temporal’ frameworks:
The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.
Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
,,,Yet, even though light has this ‘eternal’ attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.
That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, ‘past and future folding into now’, framework of time. This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.
It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;
i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay, which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of destruction’.
i.e. Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang.
It is very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, and general relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:
It is also very interesting to point out that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
The collapsing and folding of space-time is also, mysteriously corroborated by NDE testimonies’
Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).
Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.
As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler’s footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is ‘information’.
Verse and Music:
OT: Breathtaking Painting Performance – Travis Corey – Music Videos
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F0C00JNU
EXACTLY Charles, hijacking pre-existing living componants. Craig Venter, Gerald Joyce and others continually hijack already living systems and plagerize already existing information to pimp their wares. Yet even still, the best they can come up with is proving it takes an intelligent mind to manipulate material substrate to obtain any type of an outcome. Even a failed one.
ChasD:
“I think you are laying a little too much at the door of this particular group of scientists, however much you may despise them.”
====
Oh I don’t depise them personally. I despise what is that they do when it comes to irresponsible custodialship of Earth which is motivated by greed and selfishness.
—-
ChasD
“I don’t think neo-Darwinists are responsible for the loss of biodiversity!”
====
If evolution is true, then we live in an amoral world and anything they pursue is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong. Just blind pointless pitiless indifference unconsciously motivated by those selfish degenerative memes. And our present natural world looks it too.
ChasD
“Neither is goal-oriented, which I guess is what you mean. Nonetheless, directed evolution is. That’s what the ‘directed’ modifier conveys: a version of the essentially non-goal-oriented process that is goal-oriented.”
====
There is no directed evolution Chas. That’s the point of the Dogma’s invention in the first place. “No Intelligence Allowed”. They have never provided an acceptable mindless experiment without reading a bunch of tea leaves to concoct a phoney myth of an explanation.
Natural Selection is blind and mindless. It’s incapable of doing any intelligent selecting which would clearly be necessary to accomplish some of the amazing things scientific research and observation has revealed to us. This is what every cheating evolutionary experiment has always born out. They know full well they are incapable of providing a true honest experiment using blind undirected processes because not only would they look like fools, but such documentaed failed mindless experiments would etch it in stone for all to see. So for all the making fun of I.D., they are the biggest closet IDiots the world has ever known.
Natural Selection a euphemism terminology inserted into a discussion or paper when they have no explanation for a phenomena’s apparent unexplainable occurence. It therefore allows them to be excused(at least in their own minds) from providing any reasonable, logical, rational detailed explanation for the subject in question. Ask further questionings of Scientists or try to make them pin them down for clearer details(minus fables and myths) for a reasonable intelligent answer and you become demonized and vilified for questioning science and the phony Phds who pimped the dogma in the first place.
bornagain77
Boy, you people struggle to stay on topic! You don’t seriously expect me to read all that do you? And follow the links? And play the tune?
Sometimes, less is more.
Actually Chas, I expect you to know all or the preceding if you expect to speak coherently on the reality of what is truly ‘above you’.
correction:
all OF the preceding
Tripe. You don’t have to believe in … ummm … an ‘intelligent designer’ to behave morally. Including proper respect for the natural world (not that ludicrous “dominion” nonsense some religions peddle. But of course ID isn’t a religious position … I don’t even know why I brought it up).
EO Wilson is an evolutionary biologist and a prominent campaigner for awareness on biodiversity. How so? I could name many more. You think Darwin, having formulated his theory, turned his back on Nature and Man with a peremptory “screw ‘em!”? Honestly, I don’t know how a religious person reaches the apparent conclusion that those without religion spend their lives conniving, killing, fornicating, double-dealing and chopping down rain forests. Religion is no guarantee of good behaviour or stewardship, nor is its absence any pointer to bad character, or lack of concern for the natural world.
Maybe so. Not my specialist subject I’m afraid. Nonetheless, the topic is the genesis (small g) of free-oxygen generating bacteria, the interdependence of the ecosystems in which they take part, and the relevance of Origin-of-Life speculations to that derived ecology.
Unless morality describes an objective good (which would require an objective purpose for humanity), then saying that one can behave morally is like saying one can cook good food; it’s a entirely subjective statement.
Note how you say “including proper respect for the natural world” as if there is some objective standard of “what is good” that necessarily includes “respecting the natural world”.
If I believe that “conniving, killing, fornicating, double-dealing and chopping down rain forests” is good, what standard do you argue I should acquiesce to otherwise?
It isn’t that theists think materialist/atheists actually believe those things are moral, and behave that way; what theists point out is that atheism/materialism necessarily leads to the logical conclusion that there is nothing inherently “less moral” about those behaviors and motives than in any other behavior or motive.
Chas you state:
OK let’s start by looking at the evidence for oxygenic photosynthesis:
notes:
The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of ‘photosynthetic’ life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence had been fought by materialists since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest sedimentary rocks.
But perhaps the most damaging thing to the materialistic/Darwinian belief that life simply ‘emerged’ from some prebiotic chemical broth,,, (a hypothetical ‘prebiotic broth’ for which they have no scientific evidence),,,
,,,is this finding:,,,
The reason that this ‘quantum photosynthesis’ finding is absolutely crushing to the atheists’s materialistic belief that life simply ‘emerged’ from some prebiotic chemical broth, is that this reductive materialism, which atheists hold is true for how life came to be on earth (neo-Darwinism), is falsified as to being the ’cause’ for quantum entanglement!:
continued: The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
(of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for ‘spooky’ forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.)
Thus since quantum entanglement is found in photosynthesis, it now logically follows that a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause must be supplied to explain the origination of photosynthesis in the first life on earth as well as all subsequent photosynthetic life on earth! This is more than just a slight problem for materialistic atheists who believe in neo-Darwinism which is based on reductive materialism!!,,, The following video gives a hint of just how ‘spooky’, to use Einstein’s infamous word, it is to find ‘non-local’ quantum action to be necessary for photosynthetic life:
To solidify my basis for inferring the necessity of a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain photosynthesis, I would like to refer to the quantum wave collapse of a photon;
It is important to note that the following experiment actually proved that information can be encoded into a photon while it is in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, that was/is held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into a entity that is not physically real but is merely abstract? It simply would not be possible!
Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its ‘infinite dimensional’ state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0? state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, “Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon???
further notes:
Further notes:
Here is a neat little video clip that I wish was a bit longer (they say a longer one is in the works):
further notes:
Further notes:
Here is a neat little video clip that I wish was a bit longer (they say a longer one is in the works):
ChasD:
“You think Darwin, having formulated his theory, turned his back on Nature and Man with a peremptory “screw ‘em!”?”
====
No, what Darwin did was invent a belief system which soothed his personal hatred of God because he thought God took his daughter from him. He therefore arrived at a number of materialist conclusions that convinced him that he was correct in his feeling the way he did. For example his materialistic, yet metaphysical reasonings about those Savages encountered in Argentina. Darwin concluded that if there were a God he would not have created such ignorant darker skinned races of Savages and at the same time created superior white races such as himself who were conquering the New World. Therefore he set out to search for evidence that fit his preconceive metaphysical ideas.
(And if you’ve thought I’m making this up, it came directly off the History Channel as a tribute to your Holyman’s birthday last year)
If Darwin is correct and Evolution is true, there is no official authoritive standard for what is moral and what is immoral. Morality is whoever and whatever a person or group of persons in power at any one time wants it to be. Therefore to some, cutting down a rainforest is perfectly moral as it furthers their materialistic drive of satifying the lust of their uncontrollable self genes. It’s simply not their fault.
—-
ChasD:
“Honestly, I don’t know how a religious person reaches the apparent conclusion that those without religion spend their lives conniving, killing, fornicating, double-dealing and chopping down rain forests.”
====
If evolution is true, then none of those things that religious people do are are morally wrong either. When you look at the science behind many of the destructive technologies that science has given us, it is easy to see where evolutionary thinking and justification by it’s philosophers has infected other areas of science. The biggest example is the destructive irresponsible technologies of Genetically Modified Organisms. They have no business propagandizing such Franken-Organisms as the only source for saving the world. In actual fact they have already irrepairably spread genetic pollution into the wild.
The religious philosophy pimped by the promoters of Theory of Evolution allows for cheating, lying, fudging and embellishing the truth, masking or indeed hiding less than flattering truths that dispel evolutionary storytelling, etc. Anyone against Evolution is labled as being against science and is actually called anti-science or hating ALL Science(This of course is a flat out lie, but it is a strategy in debate). These are some of the more common cowardly tactics used by Evolutionists in their fight for promoting their religious worldview. How does this compare with the Mega-Business Agri-Industries of GMO scientific research companies ???
GMO companies have been habitual liars. The fudge the truth. They hide all damaging data and in fact have been caught and turned in by some of their own former scientists who have a conscience, of rigging experiments so that no negative data see the light of day. The ONLY way it has been revealed is when Lawsuits for such Criminal Organizations to reveal such damning material from their buried archives. When other independent scientists conduct experiments and find damaging effects of GMOs on the environment and physical effects of deteriation on animals who are feed this crap, the GMO companies employ an all too familiar tactic of character assasination and career ruin. They break into Labs, steal samples and burn paperwork. They have even gone as far as to recently have declared that anyone who is not for GMOs are anti-science. Does any of this sound familiar, Chazzzzz ???
—-
ChasD:
“Religion is no guarantee of good behaviour or stewardship, nor is its absence any pointer to bad character, or lack of concern for the natural world.”
====
Correct, religion has a miserable history when it comes to setting the example. And they are more reprehensible than than all the athiests/Agnostics put together. However, if there is no God and Evolution is true, then even their behavior apparently couldn’t be judged wrong since everything is all a matter of personal adaptational choice anyway. There is a reason such debased religious practices have been allowed and tollerated for a time. Take the unfaithful example of ancient Israel. Time and again they failed to live by the Mosaic Law and adulterated pure worship. The Bible records why their miserable history was recorded down in writing for our benefit and instruction.
1 Corinthians 10:11
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
(11) “These things happened to make them an example for others. These things were written down as a warning for us who are living in the closing days of history.”
*******
If anything could be acknowledged it is that their historical record is equal to your side. Even the apostate Christian examples of the Dark Ages and Inquisitions along with the 20th Century bloodguilt history stands as testimony of what happens when you strike out on an independent course, even if you consider yourself religious in the conventional sense.
Still, Evolutionary thinking’s influence on ALL science has been far more destructive recently to the environment since none of the consequences ultimately can be considered wrong if TOE is true.
WJ Murray/Eocene
We drift even further OT, but it’s something I feel rather strongly about: evolution is an explanatory framework for the patterns in the data. That is ALL it is. It is not a philosophy by which I live my life; it is not a supportive structure to underpin some desire to ‘turn away from God’, or express some bizarre hatred of someone I have never encountered. But you won’t believe me, of course. Like the doorstepping Baptist who decided that I thought the way I did because I was ‘blinded by Satan’, you know my own mind better than I do myself. Because I am a doomed atheist, and there’s only one way for you to rationalise such thought processes.
Still…
Any ‘objective standard’ underpinning morality may as likely come from a combination of genetic and cultural effects on my mental states as from a divine source. Evolution can be true, and morality real without any contradiction whatsoever. Though if, as Eocene suggests, I would be expected to cast away morality but don’t, and the reason (as WJM suggests) is God, then it doesn’t seem to matter (on that count) whether one is atheist or not – God still holds the reins, via this assumed ‘objective standard’.
But completely regardless of all this, I cannot in all conscience look at the ‘big picture’ – mountains of data – and conclude that anything other than evolution explains it successfully. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong; I don’t have the same stake in eternity that provides an equivalent to ‘blinded by Satan’ in the mirror-world of religious explanation. I am simply being honest, and to paraphrase Mill: if the ‘real’ designer can sentence me to hell for an honest assessment of the data, then to hell I will go.
ChasD:
“evolution is an explanatory framework for the patterns in the data.”
“I cannot in all conscience look at the ‘big picture’ – mountains of data – and conclude that anything other than evolution explains it successfully.”
=====
This is called FAITH Charles! Patterns in Data ??? This is like reading tea leaves, tarot cards, astrological patterns of planet alignments ability to fortell your future, etc, etc, etc.
What is amazing is how you can accept the fictious storytelling which have ZERO honest truthful data to back it up and was only inserted there because there was a huge gap in the actual data. This is where we start getting fuzzy definition shell gaming of words/terms to force fit the dogma into the data or perhaps in this case vice versa.
—-
ChasD:
“if the ‘real’ designer can sentence me to hell for an honest assessment of the data, then to hell I will go.”
====
This is lame and tiring. Look up the original meanings of the Hebrew word ‘sheol’ and Greek word ‘hades’ which have been erroneously translated as eternal hellfire and damnation and get back to me. Or you can take it up with someone else here who actually believes in this originally pagan doctrine.
—–
ChasD:
“Evolution can be true, and morality real without any contradiction whatsoever.”
=====
Wrong, if evolution is true, then there is no universal standard for what is and what is not morality. It’s whatever feel good animalistic passionate desire one chooses to follow. If Evolution is true, then individuals like Jeffrey Dalmer, Adolf Hitler, etc did nothing immoral. It was simply a personal survival strategy for Jeffrey Dalmer and an opposite survival strategy for those who stopped him. Remember, there is no good no bad no right no wrong, just blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent. If evolution is true, then morality is whatever anyone driven by their selfish genes/memes wants it to be. If Evolution is true, then there is no authoritive correct answer by which to give or make any judgement.