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

  • #46
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    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.

    Nothing I say could convince you I'm not a fundamentalist as you have already condemned as such. I don't know any fundamentalist that would reference Bertrand Russell.

    I have no need to need to submit to your demands. That you see everything as fundamentalism it's your issue, not mine.


    Again, fin.
    P1) If , then I win.

    P2)

    C) I win.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


      Nothing I say could convince you I'm not a fundamentalist as you have already condemned as such. I don't know any fundamentalist that would reference Bertrand Russell.

      I have no need to need to submit to your demands. That you see everything as fundamentalism it's your issue, not mine.


      Again, fin.
      I quoted you specifically. You may not be, but your statements are similar., anr your responses remain incomplete as to what your real beliefs concerning science are.
      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


      • #48
        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        I find it quite humorous Man goes to so much trouble intelligently designing experiments when the crux of rejecting intelligent design (of any sort) is lack of agency.
        That’s weird you find it humorous since there’s literally no other way to investigate but through experimentation.

        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        Of course, the broader problem is that the experiments are done under the assumption of early conditions. The hard empiricism often employed by atheists has to be jettisoned to smuggle in "best guesses" of early Earth environment.
        Look at you saying empiricism has been jettisoned and this is all assumption when it’s informed by multiple fields, research, and observation. We already know complex molecules assemble in space because we can see them, so the logical next step is to experiment here using earth science.

        Comment


        • #49
          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.
          Diogenesis’ fake laughing about the ridiculousness of abiogenesis experimentation is the clue he’s fundamentalist. Non-literalist Christians would simply accept abiogenesis research as a legitimate form of epistemic inquiry.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by whag View Post

            Diogenesis’ fake laughing about the ridiculousness of abiogenesis experimentation is the clue he’s fundamentalist. Non-literalist Christians would simply accept abiogenesis research as a legitimate form of epistemic inquiry.
            At no point have I "fake [laughed] about the ridiculousness of abiogenesis experimentation".

            What I have stated here is little different than what I would have said prior to my conversion. Unlike many so called "skeptics", I was actually a skeptic. In fact, I regularly held my fellow non-theists to the rational standard they proclaimed. By your or Shuny's standard, David Hume would likely be considered a fundamentalist Christian.

            It's hardly controversial to say that experiments are "intelligently design" as they are so necessarily. I have no issue with even abiogenesis experimentation as it doesn't impact my faith.

            Originally posted by whag View Post

            That’s weird you find it humorous since there’s literally no other way to investigate but through experimentation.
            At no point have I said anything to the contrary.


            Look at you saying empiricism has been jettisoned and this is all assumption when it’s informed by multiple fields, research, and observation. We already know complex molecules assemble in space because we can see them, so the logical next step is to experiment here using earth science.
            At no point have I jettisoned empiricism.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

              Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption.
              Yes and tested with the predictive confirmation of research over the past hundreds of years in physics, cosmology, geology, biology and the sciences of evolution.





              For all anyone knows, the universe came into existence five minutes ago.
              Based on your Vedic view here you would make a good Hindu. The only thing that would justify this is the Vedic view that our physical universe and time is an illusion and does not exist,

              Other than, I have no issue with an "old" earth or "old" universe.
              The only basis for believing this is the predictive falsification of scientific theories concerning the past. and not believing the universe is five minutes old.

              "Life" is has a rather narrow technical definition and I have no issue with "life" being present on Earth for billions of years.
              No problem with life being around for billions of years. There is a problem with your confusing statement.



              I understand the inadequacy of verificationism and the shift to falsification.
              I doubt it, your understanding of science is minimal.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-14-2024, 12:14 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


              • #52
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                Based on your Vedic view here you would make a good Hindu. The only thing that would justify this is the Vedic view that our physical universe and time is an illusion and does not exist,
                It was a reference to Bertrand Russell.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  It was a reference to Bertrand Russell.
                  Bertrand Russell is old and moldy as far as today's science goes. He was an atheist humanist philosopher and not a scientist. Thou the following is revealingabout his view of science and religion:

                  In his book Why I am Not a Christian, he says that “religions are both harmful and untrue.” When he was asked, in a famous radio debate, how he could explain the existence of the universe, his reply was, “I should say the universe is just there, and that's all.”
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-14-2024, 10:25 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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                    Bertrand Russell is old and moldy as far as today's science goes. He was an atheist humanist philosopher and not a scientist.

                    At not point did I claim him to be a scientist (even though science is natural philosophy).


                    Thou the following is revealingabout his view of science and religion:

                    In his book Why I am Not a Christian, he says that “religions are both harmful and untrue.” When he was asked, in a famous radio debate, how he could explain the existence of the universe, his reply was, “I should say the universe is just there, and that's all.”

                    He was free to have his opinion on religion even if the benefit of religion, especially Christianity's impact on the development of the Western world. Of course, if he wanted to claim the material is all there is, he would have to shoulder the burden of proof.
                    P1) If , then I win.

                    P2)

                    C) I win.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                      At no point have I "fake [laughed] about the ridiculousness of abiogenesis experimentation".

                      What I have stated here is little different than what I would have said prior to my conversion. Unlike many so called "skeptics", I was actually a skeptic. In fact, I regularly held my fellow non-theists to the rational standard they proclaimed. By your or Shuny's standard, David Hume would likely be considered a fundamentalist Christian.
                      You introduced ID where no mention was warranted. By attributing this topic to atheism right off the bat, you exposed yourself as a closet creationist.

                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                      It's hardly controversial to say that experiments are "intelligently design" as they are so necessarily. I have no issue with even abiogenesis experimentation as it doesn't impact my faith.
                      Controversy is great. It’s stupidity that was introduced, not controversy.

                      You:

                      I find it quite humorous Man goes to so much trouble intelligently designing experiments when the crux of rejecting intelligent design (of any sort) is lack of agency. Of course, the broader problem is that the experiments are done under the assumption of early conditions. The hard empiricism often employed by atheists has to be jettisoned to smuggle in "best guesses" of early Earth environment.


                      You're green to this topic, but you think you’re sophisticated. Combined with your need to argue about a legitimate line of scientific inquiry, it’s bad form—especially here where things are mostly neutral.

                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                      At no point have I jettisoned empiricism.
                      I never said you said that. I referenced your idiotic creationist trope:

                      The hard empiricism often employed by atheists has to be jettisoned

                      Two fallacies in one:

                      Strawman
                      Non sequitur


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by whag View Post

                        You introduced ID where no mention was warranted.
                        Stating that experiments are intelligently designed, which neither you nor Shuny have said anything to the contrary, does not entail introducing the position of Intelligent Design.


                        By attributing this topic to atheism right off the bat,
                        Seeing that atheists believe there is no god, there would be no supra natural agency to "intelligently design" the universe.

                        you exposed yourself as a closet creationist.

                        I've exposed myself as no such thing. To some degree, "creationist" is reductive for a theist, as is "Intelligent Design". Perhaps you may think Bertrand Russell was a "closet creationist".


                        Controversy is great. It’s stupidity that was introduced, not controversy.

                        Are you suggesting experiments are not designed with intelligence? Are experiments self-creating and self-organising?

                        You:

                        I find it quite humorous Man goes to so much trouble intelligently designing experiments when the crux of rejecting intelligent design (of any sort) is lack of agency. Of course, the broader problem is that the experiments are done under the assumption of early conditions. The hard empiricism often employed by atheists has to be jettisoned to smuggle in "best guesses" of early Earth environment.
                        I would have said the same thing or something extremely similar prior to my conversion.

                        You're green to this topic, but you think you’re sophisticated.

                        I don't think I'm sophisticated, as it's rather rudimentary skepticism. Scientific antirealism might be too "sophisticated".


                        Combined with your need to argue about a legitimate line of scientific inquiry, it’s bad form—especially here where things are mostly neutral.
                        At no point have I said the scientific inquiry was illegitimate.


                        I never said you said that. I referenced your idiotic creationist trope:

                        The hard empiricism often employed by atheists has to be jettisoned
                        Please quote me saying that. I'm not saying I didn't, but I would prefer a citation.

                        That said, the likelihood an atheist, especially in a Western context, would not be a metaphysical naturalist is low. Even non-atheists non-theist likely wouldn't believe in anything metaphysical.

                        Two fallacies in one:

                        Strawman
                        Non sequitur
                        You forgot the fallacy fallacy.
                        P1) If , then I win.

                        P2)

                        C) I win.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          Stating that experiments are intelligently designed, which neither you nor Shuny have said anything to the contrary, does not entail introducing the position of Intelligent Design.
                          Unlike you. both shuny and I know the Dover case where it was proved that term was intentionally designed to mask the illegal teaching of creationism.
                          Yea, we're not taking your bait of using a loaded term to laugh at a legit form of scientific inquiry while implying it's biased against the supernatural.

                          Are you saying the supernatural should be supposed? If so, how would they do that?

                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          Are you suggesting experiments are not designed with intelligence? Are experiments self-creating and self-organising?
                          You know all experiments are done by human beings. You're using the term to shoehorn your pet creationist theory into the equation when "lab experiment" inherently means something done in a lab. What it DOESN'T mean is that "empiricism is jettisoned." <<Your words.

                          You know that complex organics form in space, right?

                          Organic Molecules in Interstellar Space: Latest Advances

                          And you know that it's findings like those that justify and INFORM how we conduct these experiments, yes? Don't skip that part. I put it in fundy-triggering rainbow so you have no excuse.

                          The assumption of early conditions is a devious attempt on your part to make new Christians believe that all scientists do is guess when they really consult research and facts to create conditions to experiment with. Their choices are informed and reasonable and in no way based on pure assumption. That's how we know you're a fundy.

                          You come from that cloth having admitted you played a game of false personal conversion--whatever the heck THAT is. It's time for you to jettison that persona. It's not working for you.

                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          I would have said the same thing or something extremely similar prior to my conversion.
                          No one's arguing you weren't ignorant prior to your conversion.

                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          I don't think I'm sophisticated, as it's rather rudimentary skepticism. Scientific antirealism might be too "sophisticated".
                          Yes, clearly you must think you're sophisticated if you think you got something on the science of chemical evolution.

                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          At no point have I said the scientific inquiry was illegitimate.
                          Riiiight. That's why your first reply was to drag atheism into this as if it's relevant at all.

                          This is a field of research that both non-fundy Christians and atheists would conduct exactly as it's being conducted currently--because there's no other possible way to test molecular self-assembly--and you come flying in with your ID trope as if you'd made any point.

                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          Please quote me saying that. I'm not saying I didn't, but I would prefer a citation.
                          https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...65#post1539565
                          Last edited by whag; 02-14-2024, 09:31 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by whag View Post

                            Unlike you. both shuny and I know the Dover case where it was proved that term was intentionally designed to mask the illegal teaching of creationism.
                            I would agree Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory and has no business in the classroom.

                            Yea, we're not taking your bait of using a loaded term to laugh at a legit form of scientific inquiry while implying it's biased against the supernatural.
                            I have not "[laughed] at a legit form of scientific inquiry". I have no issue with methodological naturalism.

                            Are you saying the supernatural should be supposed? If so, how would they do that?
                            At no point have I suggest such.


                            You know all experiments are done by human beings.
                            So experiments are "intelligently designed".

                            You're using the term to shoehorn your pet creationist theory into the equation when "lab experiment" inherently means something done in a lab.
                            Since I don't hold to "Intelligent Design" as it's typically used, I fail to see how 1) it's my pet creationist theory" and 2) how I'm trying to shoehorn it in.


                            What it DOESN'T mean is that "empiricism is jettisoned." <<Your words.
                            My words were "hard empiricism". "Hard empiricism" would exclude best inferences and relying on direct observation. Atheism would also preclude the involvement of agency. Abiogenesis experiments include both best inferences into initial settings and agency. The motte and bailey is always to put forth methodological naturalism and smuggling in metaphysical naturalism. I would view would more in line with Gould's Non-Overlapping MAgestieria.

                            You know that complex organics form in space, right?

                            Organic Molecules in Interstellar Space: Latest Advances

                            And you know that it's findings like those that justify and INFORM how we conduct these experiments, yes? Don't skip that part. I put it in fundy-triggering rainbow so you have no excuse.
                            I have not discounted discoveries made at 400 light years, 2.7 billion light years, 7 billion light years, and 11 billion light years inform a general understanding of the universe.

                            The assumption of early conditions is a devious attempt on your part to make new Christians believe that all scientists do is guess when they really consult research and facts to create conditions to experiment with. Their choices are informed and reasonable and in no way based on pure assumption.
                            The assumption is that the conditions were possibly present on Earth. I no point have I said research cannot inform general understanding of the universe.

                            That's how we know you're a fundy.
                            Seeing as I don't self-identify as a fundy, you'll leave my identification to me.


                            You come from that cloth having admitted you played a game of false personal conversion--whatever the heck THAT is.
                            Mostly not being antagonistic towards religion.


                            It's time for you to jettison that persona. It's not working for you.
                            Seeing as I've made a public declaration of faith and have been baptized, I have stopped falsely claiming conversion.



                            No one's arguing you weren't ignorant prior to your conversion.
                            The obvious implication is that my words that were quoted were due in part to my conversion.


                            Yes, clearly you must think you're sophisticated if you think you got something on the science of chemical evolution.
                            I believe I know my thoughts better than you think you do and I have said nothing on the science itself.



                            Riiiight. That's why your first reply was to drag atheism into this as if it's relevant at all.
                            I said nothing about "atheism" but rather "atheists".

                            This is a field of research that both non-fundy Christians and atheists would conduct exactly as it's being conducted currently--because there's no other possible way to test molecular self-assembly--and you come flying in with your ID trope as if you'd made any point.

                            I have no problem with methodological naturalism nor the conduct of the research.




                            As I stated:

                            "That said, the likelihood an atheist, especially in a Western context, would not be a metaphysical naturalist is low. Even non-atheists non-theists likely wouldn't believe in anything metaphysical."
                            P1) If , then I win.

                            P2)

                            C) I win.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                              So experiments are "intelligently designed".
                              No experiment was ever conducted without human beings. You’re the only one calling it ID—which it’s never been called besides by you and creationists—to suggest it’s founded on assumption rather than informed by data.

                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                              My words were "hard empiricism". "Hard empiricism" would exclude best inferences and relying on direct observation. Atheism would also preclude the involvement of agency. Abiogenesis experiments include both best inferences into initial settings and agency.
                              There’s no such thing as “hard empiricism.” Do you mean “radical empiricism”?

                              Again, empiricism of any kind hasn’t been jettisoned. No one knows what you’re talking about.

                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                              I have no problem with methodological naturalism nor the conduct of the research.
                              Your misunderstanding of what the scientific method entails by suggesting abiogenesis research is non-empirical guesswork shows that you do indeed have a problem with it:

                              I find it quite humorous Man goes to so much trouble intelligently designing experiments when the crux of rejecting intelligent design (of any sort) is lack of agency. Of course, the broader problem is that the experiments are done under the assumption of early conditions. The hard empiricism often employed by atheists has to be jettisoned to smuggle in "best guesses" of early Earth environment.


                              First bolded: There’s nothing humorous or ironic about human beings conducting experiments that involve hard data and assumption of conditions based on our understanding of how complex organics form.

                              Second bolded: Experiments of this sort are purely empirical.

                              Your attempt to use legit research to own atheists has failed spectacularly since atheists and sane Christians agree there’s no other way to conduct this research.





                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by whag View Post

                                No experiment was ever conducted without human beings. You’re the only one calling it ID—which it’s never been called besides by you and creationists—to suggest it’s founded on assumption rather than informed by data.

                                Being informed about possible conditions on Earth is not the same as being informed about actual conditions on Earth. As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with the experiments being informed about possible conditions by data gathered from elsewhere in the universe.



                                There’s no such thing as “hard empiricism.” Do you mean “radical empiricism”?

                                Again, empiricism of any kind hasn’t been jettisoned. No one knows what you’re talking about.
                                As I've said, the experiments merely show possibilities about early Earth, not facts about the early Earth. Again, I have no problem with the experiments.

                                Your misunderstanding of what the scientific method entails by suggesting abiogenesis research is non-empirical guesswork shows that you do indeed have a problem with it:
                                At no point did I say the experiments are "non-empirical guesswork" nor do I have a problem with the research.


                                First bolded: There’s nothing humorous or ironic about human beings conducting experiments
                                At no point did I say that.

                                that involve hard data and assumption of conditions based on our understanding of how complex organics form.
                                The experiments don't involve hard data of the early environment on Earth. They involve data from other places in the universe to extrapolate possibilities of what the environment might have been. Again, I have no problem with that.


                                Your attempt to use legit research to own atheists has failed spectacularly since atheists and sane Christians agree there’s no other way to conduct this research.
                                At no point have I said anything against the research itself.
                                P1) If , then I win.

                                P2)

                                C) I win.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 11-28-2023, 06:19 PM
                                3 responses
                                33 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Catholicity, 11-28-2023, 12:14 PM
                                57 responses
                                409 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 11-17-2023, 11:35 PM
                                92 responses
                                529 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Diogenes  
                                Working...
                                X