# Do you think Apple should include a copy of the Bible ...



## chevy (Aug 11, 2004)

Do you think Apple should put a copy of the Bible ...with the basic set of applications and documents that is included with the iMac ?


----------



## baggss (Aug 11, 2004)

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Steve Jobs is an agnostic (or is he an Atheist?).  What do YOU think he'd do. Personally, I don't think I need a bible on my Mac.  It would just clash with the Porn...


----------



## mi5moav (Aug 11, 2004)

That's fine with me as long as they also include 

Bhagavad Gita

Bahai Texts

Buddhist Texts

Confucian Texts

Corpus Hermeticum

Dead Sea Scrolls

Divrei Torah

Enuma Elish

Ethiopian Texts

The Egyptian Book of the Dead

Gnostic Texts

Hindu Texts

Islamic Texts

Jain Texts

1st and 2nd Books of Jeu

Mormon Texts

Nag Hammadi Texts

Old Testament Apocrypha

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Pistis Sophia

New Testament Apocryphal Acts

New Testament Apocryphal Apocalypse

New Testament Apocryphal Gospels

Taoist Texts

Sepher Yetzirah

Shinto Texts

Sikh Texts

Tibetan Book of the Dead

Urantia Book

Zen Texts

Zoroastrian Texts

and the book of satan 1 - 666

As well as all other worldly texts like the Klingon Bible


----------



## RacerX (Aug 11, 2004)

A better question is why Apple (or any computer company for that matter) should endorse any religion. 

Something tells me that those who want the bible on their systems aren't exactly having a hard time finding a copy (for free).

On the other hand, NeXT used to include a ton of great reference material on their systems. This included a Dictionary (with illustrations) and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. They also included a free copy of Mathematica for systems sold to students. The World Book Encyclopedia included now is nice, but I think Mathematica would be better.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 11, 2004)

mi5moav said:
			
		

> That's fine with me as long as they also include
> 
> Bhagavad Gita...



That would be a nice addition.


----------



## JetwingX (Aug 11, 2004)

apple is a computer company, not a church.


----------



## Lazarus18 (Aug 11, 2004)

Is this thread a spawn of the Bible on your iPod thing? 

I'm a devout Christian and I think that:
a) This would never in a million years happen
and b) if it did it would be a bad thing.

The backlash of people feeling that something was being forced on them would be huge, and besides it's not like there isn't a good amount of software, websites, etc to access the Bible readily available. Have Google, will have Bible. Those of us who want it can seek it out easily.

I suppose that if a company was founded by someone with very strong beliefs, and those beliefs dictated how he or she ran the company it would be in their prerogative to do something like that. But Apple is hardly that company.


----------



## qwikstreet (Aug 11, 2004)

Maybe the OS X Bible...thats a very useful publication.


----------



## Randman (Aug 12, 2004)

Besides, which version to use, King James, NIV, etc? Please, such a silly question. 
   Why not ask if auto manufacturers ought to include religious tracts with the purchase of a new car?
Now if hotels started offering laptops, I could see them continuing the tradition and installing Gideon software...


----------



## Giaguara (Aug 12, 2004)

I am with mi5moav in this. Christianity is not the ONLY religion.

PS. Go to Sherlock, then Gutenberg project .. you can get at least Tao Teh Ching, Bhagavad Gita.. I think Bible too there.


----------



## brianleahy (Aug 12, 2004)

These days, most religions are only too happy to supply you with their holy texts.  

I say "these days";  during the middle ages, the Roman Catholic Church kept the actual text of the New Testament a carefully guarded secret.  Only the clergy were given access to the text itself; the masses had to take their word for it.   Priests could tell them it said whatever they wished...


----------



## diablojota (Aug 12, 2004)

Absolutely not.  The moment Apple begins to "endorse" a religion, is the moment I stop supporting them.


----------



## mi5moav (Aug 12, 2004)

The moment the United States allows me to be considered African American and be considered a minority will be the day that I will pay all my overdue taxes.  Just becuase I'm white doesn't allow for the U.S. to strip me of my heritage.


----------



## kendall (Aug 12, 2004)

JetwingX said:
			
		

> apple is a computer company, not a church.



if thats true, then why do we all congregate in forums and worship it?


----------



## qwikstreet (Aug 12, 2004)

Apple is my false idol. That is one commandment that I fault from. Please God don't smite me.


----------



## g/re/p (Aug 13, 2004)

Hmmmm ...that makes absolutely no sense. 
(Are you Tree?)
How does this even remotely relate to the 
subject of this thread? Just curious.... 


			
				mi5moav said:
			
		

> The moment the United States allows me to be considered African American and be considered a minority will be the day that I will pay all my overdue taxes.  Just becuase I'm white doesn't allow for the U.S. to strip me of my heritage.


----------



## MDLarson (Aug 17, 2004)

Why was this question asked?  No, the place for an digital Bible is in the 3rd party realm.


----------



## brianleahy (Aug 17, 2004)

> the place for an digital Bible is in the 3rd party realm.



Maybe one day the Gideons will branch out into the digital realm...


----------



## Randman (Aug 17, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Now if hotels started offering laptops, I could see them continuing the tradition and installing Gideon software...


Sorry, Brian, I used the Gideon ::angel:: reference on the first page.


----------



## brianleahy (Aug 17, 2004)

Ah fooey.


----------



## fryke (Aug 19, 2004)

RacerX: Yep those reference materials were great. However, in these days, the web replaces many of those things. And for dictionary stuff: OmniDictionary is quite great.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Aug 27, 2004)

I think a better idea would be for Apple to work with the authors of Mac Bible to install a more sophisticated help system on each Mac. If you were talking about religion here is my take:

There is not an advantage for Apple to put the Bible on the Mac or iPod because it does not correspond to any of their application's functions. I view Macintosh users coming from all different types of backgrounds and places so it is their choice whether they need religious texts. That is why we have third party developers whom make software with different kinds of religious texts.


----------



## scruffy (Aug 28, 2004)

Oh dear - just had a horrible idea - put the religious texts into the help browser.

Then, you could ask put in searches like "copy and paste" and get help for - the Finder, TextEdit, Mail, the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes...

This waste of time was brought to you by the letters 'C' and 'V' and the number 8


----------



## rubaiyat (Oct 31, 2004)

mi5moav said:
			
		

> That's fine with me as long as they also include...



 ::ha:: You beat me to it!

I assume the poster would also want a large amount of scientific texts and links to ALL the material fundamentalists wish to ban and censor.

After all we do not want the users to maintain their beliefs solely based on ignorance.

 ::angel::


----------



## rubaiyat (Nov 1, 2004)

JetwingX said:
			
		

> apple is a computer company, not a church.



You *ARE * kidding me *NO*?

I always thought of it as the Church of the Digital Deity, which is why I am still paying my tithes to the one true prophet, His Holiness The Steve.


----------



## DanTekGeek (Nov 1, 2004)

I see absolutley no reason why anyone would think that an operating system should include anything of a religious nature unless it is something like "GodOS"


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 1, 2004)

rubaiyat said:
			
		

> ::ha:: You beat me to it!


Yep, by over two months.


			
				rubaiyat said:
			
		

> I assume the poster would also want a large amount of scientific texts and links to ALL the material fundamentalists wish to ban and censor.
> 
> After all we do not want the users to maintain their beliefs solely based on ignorance.
> 
> ::angel::


If you can tell me how life happened by accident, I might have respect for your opinion.  Until then, keep your "holier than though" attitude to yourself.


----------



## Darkshadow (Nov 1, 2004)

Uh...that would be "holier than *thou*" not though....

Though that's pretty funny. 

Hmm, if Apple _did_ add in a Bible, it'd be the first thing I threw away.  Don't think I'd get vocal about it, but I wouldn't keep it around, either.


----------



## Cat (Nov 2, 2004)

> If you can tell me how life happened by accident, I might have respect for your opinion.


No problem: the evironment of the prehistorical sea favoured the development of fatty molecules which because of their chemical makeup had a hydrophilous and a hydrophobous part. This quite naturally led to the formation of primitive cells. As these cells were more stable than their surroundings they were the idel place for the development of longer lasting chemical composites. Once simple self-replicating molecula came on stage, life was born.

Take the chmicals, shake and stir and you get life. Life is pretty common in all the enivronments that contain just a few basic chemicals, water and a certain amount of heat or other energy. For example it is quite probable that the Jovian moon Europa harbors life.

The famous experiments by Miller showed that it was quite easy to re-create the conditions of the ancient seas in laboratory and obtain the same results. Interestingly the composition and chamical properties (acidity, salinity, etc.) of your blood are quite close to the original marine environment.

This is a quite simplistic account as a proof of concept that such an account can be given. Life can be "created" simply by chance.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 2, 2004)

Just gotta get it out of the way: No, I don't think it should be included.

On the other hand, though, saying that if the Bible were included that other religious texts would also have to be included is like saying that if iTunes comes bundled with a new Macintosh that RealPlayer and Windows Media Player and all the other media players should come bundled as well.

Granted, software and religious texts are two very different things, but using said logic is backwards.  The world doesn't work that way.  McDonald's won't (and shouldn't) serve you a Whopper and BMW won't sell you a Mercedes.  The choice lies with the company, and if they wanted to include the Bible and exclude all other religious texts, that's perfectly fine by me.  If they wanted to serve me the book of Mormon and exclude the Bible, also fine by me.  What goes on my computer is my choice ultimately, regardless of what comes pre-bundled.


----------



## Viro (Nov 2, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> No problem: the evironment of the prehistorical sea favoured the development of fatty molecules which because of their chemical makeup had a hydrophilous and a hydrophobous part. This quite naturally led to the formation of primitive cells. As these cells were more stable than their surroundings they were the idel place for the development of longer lasting chemical composites. Once simple self-replicating molecula came on stage, life was born.
> 
> Take the chmicals, shake and stir and you get life. Life is pretty common in all the enivronments that contain just a few basic chemicals, water and a certain amount of heat or other energy. For example it is quite probable that the Jovian moon Europa harbors life.
> 
> ...



The experiment by miller has been shown to be a fraud. It is wrong on so many levels. For one, it requires the absolute absence of oxygen. Notice the compounds are hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water. The presence of oxygen in the original experiment would have pretty much ended Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's careers, and quite possibly their lives as well. The problem with the mixture is that it is practically impossible to have an oxygen free environment in REAL life. A single spark in an environment filled with Methane, hydrogen and a little little _little_ bit of oxygen would result in a spectacular explosion, killing any so called 'cells' that could have been formed by the process.

Not to mention that all the Miller/Urey experiment did was to show that it was possible to synthesise certain amino acids. that's all. No cells, nothing living. You can shake and stir all you want, and 50 years later you'll still get no life. 

If you're still not convinced, practically all scientists in the field know accept the fact that the composition of the chemicals in the Miller/Urey experiment aren't representative of the primitive earth atmosphere. 

Publishers have been forced to recently correct factual errors in text books and papers that have been relentlessly propagated by those who have an agenda to further. Here's an article by the Discovery Institute concerning retractions made by various publishers with regards to 'experiments' that have been the staple of Darwinists for years. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1618&program=News-CSC

So no, this example of life happening by 'accident' is a no go. Next example please.


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 2, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> No problem: the evironment of the prehistorical sea favoured the development of fatty molecules which because of their chemical makeup had a hydrophilous and a hydrophobous part. This quite naturally led to the formation of primitive cells. As these cells were more stable than their surroundings they were the idel place for the development of longer lasting chemical composites. Once simple self-replicating molecula came on stage, life was born.
> 
> Take the chmicals, shake and stir and you get life. Life is pretty common in all the enivronments that contain just a few basic chemicals, water and a certain amount of heat or other energy. For example it is quite probable that the Jovian moon Europa harbors life.
> 
> ...


I doubt it.  

Here's how I look at it:  as humans, we spend so much energy in life trying to keep things from falling apart.  We have car mechanics for broken cars.  We have doctors for degrading bodies.

If we look outside of humanity, we observe nature.  If the wacko environmentalists are to be believed, humans are killing the earth anyway; however, we *do* observe nature renewing itself.  With the seasons, we have cycling weather patterns and all of that.  Long-term, we have burned down forests renewing their trees.

But if we keep looking outward, we notice that the sun is largely what sustains the earth.  And the sun is burning up.  *All* stars burn up.  As far as we can tell, everything will burn up, cool down and die.  The trend is obvious.

In my observation, evolution works against the trend.  This is how my very complex brain works, and I would love to know if my logic is flawed.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 2, 2004)

Why do I get the strangest feeling I've seen all this before....


----------



## Viro (Nov 2, 2004)

heh... someone started it .


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 2, 2004)

Humans are pretty damn arrogant to think they could even scratch the planet Earth.  This world will chew us up and spit us out before we even inflict so much as a flesh wound to this planet.

Sure, we may make it difficult for humans to live on Earth one day, but that doesn't mean we've hurt the earth -- it will continue it's cycle and be habitable for creatures that exist in conditions humans can't, and, eventually, evolve into something else.  All our pollutants and X-rays and radiation and landfills and space debris will be renewed by natural processes and the earth will continue on just as it did before humans.

I can tell you one thing though: the farce about recycling being the key to saving the planet is crap.  Recycling is contributing to the demise of much of Earth's natural resources, and I firmly believe we'd be better off without recycling in the state it's in at the moment.  If you wanna "save the planet," stop recycling immediately.


----------



## Darkshadow (Nov 2, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> But if we keep looking outward, we notice that the sun is largely what sustains the earth.  And the sun is burning up.  *All* stars burn up.  As far as we can tell, everything will burn up, cool down and die.  The trend is obvious.
> 
> In my observation, evolution works against the trend.  This is how my very complex brain works, and I would love to know if my logic is flawed.



Not quite.  Stars die, yes, but that dying vents out the gasses and whatnot that can form up a new star.  So it doesn't just fade out and there's one less star.  Cycle of birth and death.  That's how it works on most scales.  The death of something will lead to the birth of something else.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 2, 2004)

One of Einstein's laws... you can't kill energy, and there's a fixed amount of it in existance.  Something releases energy, something else gains energy: it's the only perpetual motion machine that exists.

So when a star dies, that energy is available to some other process.


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 2, 2004)

However, the universe is expanding, and we have only recently discovered that the expansion is accelerating.   

There is no reason to expect it will ever stop.

So our finite amount of energy will eventually be spread infinitely thin.  This is sometimes called 'heat death'.

On the smaller scale, you're right - energy released can become part of another process.  In the long run though, the universe becomes ever colder and darker, approaching - though never quite achieving - zero energy.

On this cosmic scale, the question of life organizing by chance or design is almost moot; the universe's initial energy came from somewhere, and most scientists despair of ever explaining exactly where - you might as well say God gave it to us, it makes as much sense as anything.

But the accelerating expansion is a fact.  If God created this universe, he made it in such a way that it will one day wind down and fade to black.


----------



## Cat (Nov 3, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> all the Miller/Urey experiment did was to show that it was possible to synthesise certain amino acids


Amino acids are organic compounds, essential to cellular life. I.a. the experiment produced adenine, one of the four bases of DNA/RNA and essential part of the Krebs cycle.

I said it was a simplistic argument, just to show the first bases of evidence that life can be created by chance. After Miller, many more experiments have been made, none of them as famous as the first one, but nevertheless all of them adding information and confirmation to the first hypothesis (Szostak for instance has found triphosphates). Miller's experiment was very crude and simple, but already gave spectacular results. Not life in the sense of full-blown monocellular organisms, but the essential bases of life. 



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> For one, it requires the absolute absence of oxygen. Notice the compounds are hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water.


No, it does not require the absolute absence of oxygen. The atmosphere of the earth at the time did contain very little amounts of oxygen (remember, no life yet, no plants, hence no oxygen). Oxygen was present in compounds, but _under water_ (which is what we are talking about) O2 does not abund loosely. So that is not a flaw of the experiment.



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> You can shake and stir all you want, and 50 years later you'll still get no life.


Miller obtained his results after only five days, the earth has hade more like 5 million years. Criticizing the metaphor is not an argument.

Your critcism closely follows that of Jonathan Wells ... who has been discredited and contradicted time and again ...



			
				MDLarson said:
			
		

> In my observation, evolution works against the trend. This is how my very complex brain works, and I would love to know if my logic is flawed.


In your observation anything would go against the trend. From Big Bang to thermic death you would only have dissipation. Any chemical composites woul dgo against your observation. However, the funny thing is, nature does not consist of only entropy. After the Big Bang fundamental particles combined spontaneously to establish the elements we now know. These elements are intrinsically reactive, i.e. they combine to form compounds. Only pure gasses are weakly reactive, all the other elements are quite reactive and occur in the vast majority only in compounds (note: also O2 is a compound of two equal elements). This has nothing to do with life. Everything will ultimately decay, the leaves in autumn just like the sun and you and me. This does not imply either logically nor in practice that in the meanwhile temporarily stable compounds cannot be formed.

Life itself, either created or evolved, is against you view, as it is intrinsically homeostatic and moreover self-replicating.


----------



## Viro (Nov 3, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Amino acids are organic compounds, essential to cellular life. I.a. the experiment produced adenine, one of the four bases of DNA/RNA and essential part of the Krebs cycle.
> 
> I said it was a simplistic argument, just to show the first bases of evidence that life can be created by chance. After Miller, many more experiments have been made, none of them as famous as the first one, but nevertheless all of them adding information and confirmation to the first hypothesis (Szostak for instance has found triphosphates). Miller's experiment was very crude and simple, but already gave spectacular results. Not life in the sense of full-blown monocellular organisms, but the essential bases of life.



Near my aunt's house in Malaysia lies a marble quarry. It's a noisy busy place where workers a busy mining marble for use in building houses. If you strolled around the place, you'd see lots of blocks/slates of marble waiting to be shipped to construction sites to be used.

However, just because the marble exists, doesn't mean that the Taj Mahal would soon follow. Sure, you find the marble in the ground but it's a very long way from being the Taj Mahal.

Likewise, having the basic amino acids is a very very long stretch from having celullar life. Most researchers see the Miller Urey experiments as a dead end and are now focusing their efforts elsewhere.



> No, it does not require the absolute absence of oxygen. The atmosphere of the earth at the time did contain very little amounts of oxygen (remember, no life yet, no plants, hence no oxygen). Oxygen was present in compounds, but _under water_ (which is what we are talking about) O2 does not abund loosely. So that is not a flaw of the experiment.



It is a flaw in the experiment because (IIRC, been a long while since I did chemistry) H2O breaks down in the presence of UV light. Granted, it's very very small percentage of it, but it still breaks down regardless.

This is where the experiment is unrealistic. Normally, I'd suggest that you'd try to run the experiment with the conditions I've stipulated to see for yourself the effects of oxygen in the mixture, but knowing the results, I highly advise you NOT to do so.



> Miller obtained his results after only five days, the earth has hade more like 5 million years. Criticizing the metaphor is not an argument.



Yet, after 50 years of research by really bright minds has brought people no where nearer to the solution. If that is the case, perhaps a different angle needs to be sought?




> Your critcism closely follows that of Jonathan Wells ... who has been discredited and contradicted time and again ...



Having never heard of Jonathan Wells, a quick Google search brought me to this page. Is he the guy you're talking about? Browsing his site, he seems to supports my views so I'm guessing its him you're referring to.

As for his arguments being discredited, look at his responses and you'll see that there isn't really anything flawed about his reasoning. NOTE: I haven't read through his entire site, or his book so I don't pretend to know ALL his arguments. Some could well be very tenuous.

What one generation of scientists knows, the next generation will question and disprove. Perhaps the criticisms that this Johnathan Wells attracts is similar to he criticism that Darwin attracted in the 19th century when he first put forth his THEORY of evolution?

As a staunch atheist before I became a Christian, I used to believe strongly in evolution. Imagine my surprise when I found out later that the 'experiments' that my biology textbooks listed as demonstrating evolution had serious flaws in them. Thankfully, this isn't going to be much of a problem since publishers have been asked to retract a lot of the factual errors (see the link in my last post).


----------



## Cat (Nov 3, 2004)

> Yet, after 50 years of research by really bright minds has brought people no where nearer to the solution.


Whatever gave you that idea? We are so very much more advanced since that time that it is becoming increasingly common to refer to all the disciplines on the borderline of Biology, Biochemistry and Medicine as the "Life Sciences" or "Bio-Medical Sciences". All the experiments with respect to clonation, the unraveling of the DNA code and stem-cell research are the direct consequences of more primitive experiments like those of Miller. 

3 billion years ago it has been proved in various ways there was next to no loose oxygen, but there was an atmosphere that protected the earth's surface and the seas from the harshest radiation. The percentage of H2O that would break down is so absolutely tiny that it does not influence absolutely anything about the experiment. Remember that the hypothesis was that life developed in water. You do not get much loose oxygen in water and certanly nothing that would generate catastrofical explosions.

The trick of science is that it learns from its flaws and adapts, just like life itself. Religions, once founded and institutionalised, become static and almost incapable of change. This is called dogmatism: religions keep close to their foundations. Science continually challenges previous discoveries and tries to improve them and is ready to abandon earlier positions when proven wrong. Faith cannot do that. This does not imply at all that science or faith would be superior or better one thatn the other. Just that they have a different approach to some matters. All I am trying to argue is that there is a reasonable account of how life can develop spontaneously without need of creation. I am not trying to convince you that this account is the only true and ultimate account. I am trying to convince you that it is a reasonable account. You are trying to argue that it as impossible and false and that your account (I suppose creationism) is the only true account. As our approach is so different, then we agree to disagree.


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 3, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Life itself, either created or evolved, is against you view, as it is intrinsically homeostatic and moreover self-replicating.


Yeah, until it dies.  Call me crazy, but I see obvious intelligent design.  And no, the Bible should not be included on the iPod.  Stupid thread.


----------



## Darkshadow (Nov 3, 2004)

The point he was making is that a single life will die, but life _in general_ will continue.  That's what he meant by _Life itself...._


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 3, 2004)

Darkshadow said:
			
		

> The point he was making is that a single life will die, but life _in general_ will continue.  That's what he meant by _Life itself...._


OK, i can understand that.


----------



## Viro (Nov 4, 2004)

> Whatever gave you that idea? We are so very much more advanced since that time that it is becoming increasingly common to refer to all the disciplines on the borderline of Biology, Biochemistry and Medicine as the "Life Sciences" or "Bio-Medical Sciences". All the experiments with respect to clonation, the unraveling of the DNA code and stem-cell research are the direct consequences of more primitive experiments like those of Miller.



My apologies if this comes across sounding like a personal attack. 

Cloning, unraveling of DNA code, stem-cell research have NOTHING to do with the Miller urey experiment. None of these have anything to do with how life began, which is what Miller and Urey sought to prove with their initial experiment. All these experiments that you've brought up are just a smokescreen that only diverts attention from the original issue.

You have just demonstrated that scientists have moved on from the ridiculous and inaccurate experiments of Miller/urey. Your example of the life developing in the seas further solidifies this statement. Incidentally, the idea that life began in the oceans supports the creation account but that's an aside and isn't the issue being discussed.

Science and the Bible aren't in contradiction. The account in Genesis is more concerned with who created, rather than how it was created. Science cannot answer the question of who began the process of life, but it can *try* to understand how it began. 

I was interested in the Miller/Urey experiment because I wanted to know how life began. The Miller/Urey experiment fails in that regard, and that line of approach has been abandoned by all researches in life sciences.

I'm argueing against the Miller/Urey experiment not because I'm being dogmatic, but because I think it doesn't work, is a dead end, and is commonly misunderstood by people as demonstrating that life began in that way. The evidence of why it has failed has already been presented in my other posts (methane + hydrogen + oxygen + spark = BOOM, mixture doesn't represent atmosphere, and NO life). This isn't philosophy/public speaking/story telling/etc where a metaphor will suffice. This is hard science, and since the premises of the experiment are wrong coupled with the fact that the experiment has failed to produce anything useful, one must definitely conclude that the experiment has failed and move on to something more useful. In this regard, the attitude of certain scientists and their followers (yes, followers since it all requires elements of faith) fly completely against the standard accepted practice of questioning and abandoning flawed methods/ideas.

That is where we disagree. Not on whether creationism/darwinism holds water, though I believe you are a darwinist and I'm a creationist. But whether this experiment holds any water at all and if anything useful has come out from this experiment. The Miller/Urey experiment does not  show how life began eventhough it is often quoted as the Gospel truth by supporters of Darwinism. 

Btw, as an evangelical Christian, if Apple wants to include the Bible with the iPod, great. But the decision to ship or not ship lies squarely on their shoulders. That said, if they shipped a Bible on the iPod, that still wouldn't compell me to buy one but it might offend others and kill the sales of iPods. Guess they won't do that then .


----------



## Cat (Nov 4, 2004)

> that line of approach has been abandoned by all researches in life sciences


That is not strictly true as far as I know. It depends on how narrow/broad you define "that line of approach". Miller's experiment was one of the most important breakthroughs at that time. It gave an impulse to the field of which we now reap the benefits. 



> (methane + hydrogen + oxygen + spark = BOOM, mixture doesn't represent atmosphere,


I already replied that this account is not true. I rarely shout but: THERE WAS NOT THAT MUCH OXYGEN TO CAUSE AN EXPLOSION. 3 billion years ago there was an extremely low level of oxygen in the atmosphere and obviously much less so under water. Miller's experiment mimicked the conditions as far as they knew then. Now we have better data, but not radically different and the experiment has been replicated several times over the course of the years with varying compositions and always with the same results: amminoacids.

Moreover, strictly speaking this has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwinism. I am not a "Darwinist" if people like that even exist anymore. I believe that the theory of evolution as it is being taught now is the most accurate description we have of certain natural processes. It is not a "credo". The chemical account of life, how life originated in an abiotic environment has nothing to do with Darwin and natural selection. It has to do with biochemistry, not evolution.

Currently the most advanced and up to date theories about the origin of life still give (mutatis mutandis) the same account as Miller. You say that "the premises of the experiment are wrong ... the experiment has failed to produce anything useful ... the experiment has failed": on what do you base that? What do you mean? Miller did perform his experiment and he got organic molecules. The account of the primordial seas and atmosphere have not changed that radically and the experiment has been repeated with succes in varying conditions. What is wrong here? You simply contradict the facts. You say there was oxygen and that it would have caused an explosion: that is wrong and even very elementary superficial research will show you that. I'm sorry but I cannot argue with ignorance. There are RNA theories on the origin of life that are significantly related to Miller's experiments and what followed from them. Do some research and then come back with arguments.


----------



## Viro (Nov 4, 2004)

Look at all the experiments that have been performed. Look at how careful people are in order to remove all trace of oxygen from the apparatuses used. Methane + hydrogen is a very very flammable mixture and the presence of a very small amount of oxygen will be enough to cause an explosion.

This is what all the experiments have in common. They work in the complete absence of oxygen which is impossible since oxygen will exist in a minute amount as long as there is water.

Aside from that, I haven't come across a single experiment mention the consequence of having tar as a by product. I'll leave it to you to go figure out what the implications are.

Amino acids <> life. That is where the experiment fails. None of the fields you've mentioned (DNA decoding, stem cell research, etc) have anything to do with the Miller/Urey experiment at all.

I have done my research. Lots of it. Please do not resort to what all proponents of Darwinism do when confronted with such facts. They either dodge the questions and throw up red herrings into the conversation, or(and) try to call into question the competence/integrity of the person who brought up the point.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

OD'd on life itself - yeah


----------



## moav (Nov 5, 2004)

unwiseman said:
			
		

> If you can tell me how life happened by accident...




Quite simply you and your wife, girlfriend or just some lady you met by the quicky mart get drunk on friday night and presto chango you are daddy.  Life happens a lot by accident, so does death. It's probably a lot like what happened when G-D create the earth and a few other billion planets. G-D was trying to set up his new home brew beer kit when he wanted to speed up the fermentation process and accidently spilled a few billion grains of hops over a dark black canvas cast the wrong spell and here we are today. A lot of scientific experiments gone wrong have created a lot of inventions by accident.   

The true question is not who, what or how we got here. But why the hell, for what purpose?  A perfectly black empty space void of any debris is considered perfect!  Why mess with it?  And who created G-D and why? And where did all that open infinite universal space come from. If something/someone did create us he/she/it/??? would have left a marker, a letter or a sign... no one seems to be able to see it, and it's been right there in front of their faces all this time. Someday we will reach the edge of the universe but we will never reach the center of the sun... because it bears the forbiden fruit that we are not allowed to touch.


----------



## Cat (Nov 5, 2004)

Miller showed that amino acids can develop in an abiotic environment resembling earth's condition 3b years ago. This inspired a lot of further research and experiments. In the 1960's it was discovered in similar experiments that adenine and the other RNA and DNA bases also can be obtained. Chemicals that have been found in these experiments include all 20 amino acids, sugars, lipids, various bases found in nucleic acids and ATP.

Your allegations about oxygen are simply false: oxygen was essentially absent in the period in which life originated. Scientific data proves that between a twentieth or half of a percent of the atmosphere was composed of oxygen: less than 0.5 %, that is less than 0.005. Moreover, UNDER WATER you get even less FREE (=reactive) oxygen that could have exploded or inhibited the reactions in a significant way.

Do you want me post a list of articles in scientific peer-reviewed journals that discuss the levels of oxygen >3b years ago?

So Miller and subsequent researches proved experimentally that it is possible for the basic building-blocks of life to be formed in an abiotic environment. 

By the way, it would be elegant from your side to post what you think the alternative is. Trying to shoot holes into my arguments makes it easy for you to push me into defense. Let's see what your side has to offer. I provide proof and arguments, what do you do except contradicting me without proof?



> Amino acids <> life. That is where the experiment fails.


Amino acids and the other basic building blocks are only the first step. In my first post I didn't just shout "MILLER!". i said that the very first consituents of life can develop in an abiotic environment, then they can form stable chains in a suitable environment, like the fatty cells I mentioned. These become then the first steps on the way to monocellular organisms. Step by step from procariotes to eucariotes to multicellular organisms. All these steps depend on each other. If you cannot prove that life can originate in an abiotic environment you are nowhere. Experiments like tose of Miller have shown that this first step is warranted, tereby validating lots of other research.

Despite many changes and improvements, the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is still an important part of the model in use today in the life sciences. Miller's experiment was only a part of this larger research program into the basic building-blocks of life. Research on these building-blocks has been so successful that it has enabled us to move on to a deeper level of understanding (DNA, cloning, stem-cells, etc.).
Do you want to claim that research into the origin of DNA is irrelevant to research on DNA?
Do you want to argue that research into the origin af asexuous reproduction by scission is irrelevant to cloning?
Do you want to allege that research into the capacity of DNA to code for the specific development of an organism is irrelevant for stem-cell research?
Be my guest! You're not arguing against science here, but against common sense. Current research is based on and a development of earlier more primitive research. I'll not claim that Aristotle is still relevant to biology, but Miller surely is.


----------



## Darkshadow (Nov 5, 2004)

Hey Cat, I'm curious here - what's your opinion on panspermia?

(For anyone not familiar with that theory, you can check out www.panspermia.org for more details.)


----------



## Cat (Nov 5, 2004)

It doesn't solve many problems, but it is a legitimate possibility. As I said in the beginning, life ought to be relatively common in the universe, given that little is needed to originate it. Life is very simple at the core. Do you know Giordano Bruno? He speaks of an infinite universe, populated by many planets harboring life. He was burned by the church 17 February 1600.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Nov 5, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> A better question is why Apple (or any computer company for that matter) should endorse any religion.
> 
> Something tells me that those who want the bible on their systems aren't exactly having a hard time finding a copy (for free).
> 
> On the other hand, NeXT used to include a ton of great reference material on their systems. This included a Dictionary (with illustrations) and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. They also included a free copy of Mathematica for systems sold to students. The World Book Encyclopedia included now is nice, but I think Mathematica would be better.



No way  -- better fire up my VPC and look that up!
I knew about the dictionary (have used it) but not Shakespeare!


----------



## MDLarson (Nov 5, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Do you know Giordano Bruno? He speaks of an infinite universe, populated by many planets harboring life. He was burned by the church 17 February 1600.


Oooooh, those silly religious people!


----------



## legacyb4 (Nov 7, 2004)

www.bible.com

In other words, NO.



			
				chevy said:
			
		

> Do you think Apple should put a copy of the Bible ...with the basic set of applications and documents that is included with the iMac ?


----------



## fryke (Nov 7, 2004)

Btw. Cat: The change from abiotic to biotic environment still has a lot to do with evolution, since if you understand evolution as the process that it is, it doesn't only 'happen' in a biotic environment, but everywhere (and that's how I see it...). If you happen to 'like' evolution and still want to believe in something (*grin*) you can look at it as the following idea:

"Evolution is an incredibly powerful energy. It's also very dumb. It tries out any possible (and impossible) idea until it finds something useful. Actually, it's SO dumb, it even goes on trying after it HAS found a viable solution to a problem. But because it's so INCREDIBLY powerful, that doesn't matter, as it has all the resources it can find to try again and again and again. The chance that it'll find a solution to every problem that has existed, exists and will exist, is 100 percent. Given enough time. And time is only one of the resources evolution has an incredible amount of."

(Slightly mistranslated excerpt from my yet-to-be-released [German language] book 'StoffHerz', which will probably be finished sooner than at the end of the universe, since _I_ am a writer, not The Evolution.)


----------



## Cat (Nov 8, 2004)

Well, in that case you would be treating evolution as a metaphor for other domains, for which it was not intended ... you can do that, but be careful to keep the proper (eigentlich) and improper (uneigentlich) use well-distinct in your mind.

Consider Pratchett's idea of Quantum: everything has to happen somewhere! (_Lords and Ladies_)


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 15, 2004)

Pertinent online article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/

-- at least, pertinent as of 11/15/04.  It changes periodically...


----------

