Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New advances in abiogenesis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Actually it was developed and used earlier by Islamic scientists. Unfortunately the bold above is still argued today by some Theists. Instead of pagan means they accuse science of being atheist.
    Islam isn't "pagan" in the sense you bolder and is within the consideration of a monotheistic rational universe. Scholasticism was not birthed by Aquinas but rather his Muslim predecessors like "The Commentator".


    Science does not preclude the possibility of 'Intelligent Design' The problem is because 'Intelligent Design' requires evidence of a Designer, and it requires the falsification of a hypothesis that the complexity of life cannot form by natural processes, Neither is possible through scientific methods.

    You seem to be missing the point that the experiments themselves are "intelligently designed". The results themselves are products of "intelligent designed".



    The Natural Laws and natural process of how rocks from and under what conditions has not changed in the history of the universe.
    Prove it. Have you observed the entire history from its beginning?
    P1) If , then I win.

    P2)

    C) I win.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

      You seem to be missing the point that the experiments themselves are "intelligently designed". The results themselves are products of "intelligent designed".
      Your fundi beliefs are poking out again. The concept of being 'Intelligently Designed' does NOT and cannot refer to Methodological Naturalism by definition. In fact the advocates of 'ID' claim that 'ID' can be justified by scientific methods that the complexity of life cannot be explained by science.

      Prove it. Have you observed the entire history from its beginning?
      Spoken like a true dyed in the wool undercover fundamentalist Creationist Christian.

      First, science does not prove anything. All the theories and hypotheses in recent history tests the uniformity of our Natural Laws and processes over time and the uniformity of Natural Laws overtime remains the same for 13.7 billion years unless the speed of light has changed science can observe the history of life, the earth, our sun and the universe.

      The consistency of the geochemistry history of the earth has been redundantly falsified by numerous methods. The geochemistry of the hydrothermal vents and spreading zones are determined to be the same over time since continental drift bgan between 4.0 and 3.5 billion years ago. The temperature, pressure and chemistry of the rock formation over the billions of years is the same today as tested incrementally over time from now to 3.5 billions of years ago. unless the Laws of Nature have changed.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-20-2024, 11:36 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

        Your fundi beliefs are poking out again.
        No fundi beliefs detected.


        The concept of being 'Intelligently Designed' does NOT and cannot refer to Methodological Naturalism by definition.
        At no point did I do so.


        In fact the advocates of 'ID' claim that 'ID' can be justified by scientific methods that the complexity of life cannot be explained by science.

        At no point have I said that.



        Spoken like a true dyed in the wool undercover fundamentalist Creationist Christian.

        Not really, it's basic skepticism.

        First, science does not prove anything. All the theories and hypotheses in recent history tests the uniformity of our Natural Laws and processes over time and the uniformity of Natural Laws overtime remains the same for 13.7 billion years unless the speed of light has changed science can observe the history of life, the earth, our sun and the universe.
        Your claim encompasses the entirety of the universe and its history, that you cannot defend the claim is not my problem.

        The consistency of the geochemistry history of the earth has been redundantly falsified by numerous methods. The geochemistry of the hydrothermal vents and spreading zones are determined to be the same over time since continental drift bgan between 4.0 and 3.5 billion years ago. The temperature, pressure and chemistry of the rock formation over the billions of years is the same today as tested incrementally over time from now to 3.5 billions of years ago. unless the Laws of Nature have changed.
        The problem of an induction is well noted nor is it limited to "fundi beliefs".
        P1) If , then I win.

        P2)

        C) I win.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

          No fundi beliefs detected.
          Your argument is AIG based.

          At no point did I do so.
          You seem to be missing the point that the experiments themselves are "intelligently designed". The results themselves are products of "intelligent designed".


          This is a classic AIG approach to IS and objections to scientific methods.

          At no point have I said that.
          You seem to be missing the point that the experiments themselves are "intelligently designed". The results themselves are products of "intelligent designed".

          Not really, it's basic skepticism.
          AIG skepticism without science.

          Your claim encompasses the entirety of the universe and its history, that you cannot defend the claim is not my problem.
          Actually no, My argument is basically the consistent predicable geochemistry history of the earth. Yes, the consistency of Natural Laws and time spams the entire universe. We can narrow it down easily to the objective verifiable evidence of predictable geochemistry of the history of the earth over time.

          The problem of an induction is well noted nor is it limited to "fundi beliefs".
          The problem is NOT induction, It is Deduction based on the objectivararafiable evidence of the history of the earth.

          Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises of science

          The problem is with your fundi statement. You are presenting a classic AIG statement against science. Your demand to prove it begins the fundi joke.

          Prove it. Have you observed the entire history from its beginning?
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-20-2024, 11:18 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

            Your argument is AIG based.

            Nope.


            ]You seem to be missing the point that the experiments themselves are "intelligently designed". The results themselves are products of "intelligent designed".



            This is a classic AIG approach to IS and objections to scientific methods.
            At no point have I objected to the scientific method.

            You seem to be missing the point that the experiments themselves are "intelligently designed". The results themselves are products of "intelligent designed".




            AIG skepticism without science.
            Baseless and unsupported.



            Actually no, My argument is basically the consistent predicable geochemistry history of the earth. Yes, the consistency of Natural Laws and time spams the entire universe. We can narrow it down easily to the objective verifiable evidence of predictable geochemistry of the history of the earth over time.
            Only observing white swans does not mean that there are no black swans.


            The problem is NOT induction, It is Deduction based on the objectivararafiable evidence of the history of the earth.

            Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises of science
            Induction is a well known problem.


            The problem is with your fundy statement. You are presenting a classic AIG statement against science. Your demand to prove it begins the fundy joke.



            Prove it. Have you observed the entire history from its beginning?

            Asking you to prove your claims is not a fundy statement . Pointing out basic operative assumptions of science is not a fundy statement. Asking for you to back up your claims is not a fundy joke.

            You're rather similar to the fundy atheists I encountered when I was more active in that any form of non-conformity is misinterpreted due to. an ideological tribalistic mindset which you certainly process.

            Fin
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


              Nope.



              At no point have I objected to the scientific method.



              Baseless and unsupported.





              Only observing white swans does not mean that there are no black swans.




              Induction is a well known problem.





              Asking you to prove your claims is not a fundy statement . Pointing out basic operative assumptions of science is not a fundy statement. Asking for you to back up your claims is not a fundy joke.

              You're rather similar to the fundy atheists I encountered when I was more active in that any form of non-conformity is misinterpreted due to. an ideological tribalistic mindset which you certainly process.

              Fin
              Again, science does not prove anything, The chain of fudi idiocy continues

              A fundi response includes an accusation of of atheism is another fundi act. Science does not have anything to do with atheism.

              Your fundi beliefs are out in the open now. No use hiding on a false agnostic mask.

              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Your fundi beliefs are out in the open now. No use hiding on a false agnostic mask.
                One, I'm not a fundy. Two, I never had a "false agnostic mask". Three, I converted a few months ago and all readily changed by faith tag.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                  Again, science does not prove anything, The chain of fudi idiocy continues

                  A fundi response includes an accusation of of atheism is another fundi act. Science does not have anything to do with atheism.

                  Your fundi beliefs are out in the open now. No use hiding on a false agnostic mask.
                  What is your definition of fundamentalism anyway? Holding to the creation of life/the universe is hardly unique to fundamentalism within the spectrum of Christianity.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

                    What is your definition of fundamentalism anyway? Holding to the creation of life/the universe is hardly unique to fundamentalism within the spectrum of Christianity.
                    No, but fundamentalism hold to a version of a literal Genesis and a historical accurate Pentateuch.

                    Source: https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/



                    fun·da·men·tal·ism
                    /ˌfəndəˈmen(t)lˌiz(ə)m/

                    noun

                    1. a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

                    © Copyright Original Source


                    In there approach to science, they so not accept the uniformity of the Natural Laws and time through out the history of our earth and universe. They often demand proof that scientist can;t be there to know if it is true like Diogenes claimed.

                    Bold is too general for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                      One, I'm not a fundy. Two, I never had a "false agnostic mask". Three, I converted a few months ago and all readily changed by faith tag.
                      Do you believe in the uniformity of Natural Laws, and time in the history of the universe?

                      Do you support the scientific basis for a universe 13,7 billion years old, an earth 4.7 billion years old, and life on earth ~3.7 to 4.3 old?

                      . . . or universe less than 10,000 years old.

                      Do you understand the problem of demanding 'proof' in terms of science.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        They are finding older wide spread life older and older . . .


                        Traces of ancient life reveal a 3.4-billion-year-old ecosystem



                        Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/remnants-life-in-rocks-rich-ecosystem-3-billion-years-ago-2024-1



                        Earth may have been teeming with a complex ecosystem of microorganisms as far back as 3.4 billion years ago.

                        Scientists, led by the University of Göttingen in Germany, studied fossils taken from the Buck Reef Chert in the Barberton Greenstone Belt in South Africa.

                        The area is known for having well-preserved ancient sedimentary rocks close to its surface, which can provide a snapshot of our planet's history.

                        In some of these rocks, researchers found chemical signatures that provided an insight into the biodiversity of ancient organisms, adding evidence to the early beginning of life on our planet.

                        "What I'm reading out of this is that early life was working very much similarly to life today," Frances Westall, an expert in ancient biology from the French National Centre for Scientific Research, who was not involved in the study, told New Scientist.
                        Side by side pictures show ancient fossils encased in rock, seen either under fluorescent light (left) or in Black and white (right. The fluorescence reveals chemical properties of the rock. M. Reinhardt, et al. Precambrian Research 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2024.107289. CC-BY 40.Life on Earth more than 3 billion years ago


                        Scientists think that life on Earth began around 4.3 billion years ago, but tracking down evidence dating back to that time is a difficult task.

                        Still, by drilling straight into ancient rock, scientists have found peculiar, carbon-rich layers in several cores taken from around the world.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-22-2024, 08:17 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                          Do you believe in the uniformity of Natural Laws, and time in the history of the universe?
                          Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption.


                          Do you support the scientific basis for a universe 13,7 billion years old, an earth 4.7 billion years old, and life on earth ~3.7 to 4.3 old?

                          . . . or universe less than 10,000 years old.

                          For all anyone knows, the universe came into existence five minutes ago.

                          Other than, I have no issue with an "old" earth or "old" universe.

                          "Life" is has a rather narrow technical definition and I have no issue with "life" being present on Earth for billions of years.

                          Do you understand the problem of demanding 'proof' in terms of science.
                          I understand the inadequacy of verificationism and the shift to falsification.

                          P1) If , then I win.

                          P2)

                          C) I win.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                            Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption.
                            Verified by objective verifiable evidence. For example previously cited: Over 100,000 years of individual annual lake varces were compared to radiometric dating methods and confirmed the dating methods. We can see the same annual varves still forming every year and date many events in recent history.

                            For all anyone knows, the universe came into existence five minutes ago.
                            Then it is accepted you do not believe in the validity of the com[arison of verified dating methods.

                            Other than, I have no issue with an "old" earth or "old" universe.

                            "Life" is has a rather narrow technical definition and I have no issue with "life" being present on Earth for billions of years.
                            OK, but to vague to be meaningful.

                            I understand the inadequacy of verificationism and the shift to falsification.
                            You understand?? Falsification is process that allows for new information to improve the validity of theories and hypotheses.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                              Then it is accepted you do not believe in the validity of the com[arison of verified dating methods.
                              I take it you're not familiar with Bertrand Russell and the history of (actual) skepticism. You're very much a hammer seeking a nail in calling me fundamentalist when I'm not one or a Christian when I did not profess to be one simply because I don't fit your preconceptions. Don't feel bad though, that's happened to me constantly.

                              Fin.
                              P1) If , then I win.

                              P2)

                              C) I win.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                                I take it you're not familiar with Bertrand Russell and the history of (actual) skepticism. You're very much a hammer seeking a nail in calling me fundamentalist when I'm not one or a Christian when I did not profess to be one simply because I don't fit your preconceptions. Don't feel bad though, that's happened to me constantly.

                                Fin.
                                You need to clarify specific statements on your part that reflected fundamentalist objections to the sciences of evolution, abiogenesis, and science in general concerning dating the history of our universe.

                                Your statement "Prove it. Have you observed the entire history from its beginning? directly mirrors AIG's challenge to science.

                                Posts #4 and #19 also reflect fundamentalist views toward science.

                                Your misrepresentation of how Methodological Naturalism functions concerning falsification, and how the concept of Intelligent Design claims relate to scientific methods is a severe problem on the very basics of how science works.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
                                9 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
                                41 responses
                                163 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                139 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X