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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


    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.
    You lack the knowledge of geochemistry where we can define the temperature, pressure and composition to define the environment that rocks form regardless of the age, As usual your religious agenda and intentional ignorance of science is based on your ancient tribal agenda,





    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.
    Apparently you do have problems with not understanding the science involved.


    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.
    Yes they do based on many years of research in geochemistry,


    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


    • #62
      [QUOTE=Diogenes;n1561394]

      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.
      No David Hume would not be a fundamentalist Christina by the standard of science.


      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.
      It is not controversial it is simply false, Your view of 'Intelligent Design' does not reflect how it is described by the discovery Institute.It is not remotely related to 'Intelligent Designed' Experiments.

      Intelligent Design is defined as the belief that the complexity in nature cannot be described as occurring naturally without a 'Designed, ie God.


      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


      • #63
        [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1561674]
        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

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



        No David Hume would not be a fundamentalist Christina by the standard of science.




        It is not controversial it is simply false, Your view of 'Intelligent Design' does not reflect how it is described by the discovery Institute.It is not remotely related to 'Intelligent Designed' Experiments.

        Intelligent Design is defined as the belief that the complexity in nature cannot be described as occurring naturally without a 'Designed, ie God.

        To add: You off the wall totally misunderstand Bertrand Russell and David Hume

        David Hume was a Naturalist philosopher not a scientist and his views are complex skepticism naturalism no longer remotely considered acceptable today and oldy moldy. He most definitely did not believe in Theistic Christian God, but proposed a More Atheist/ possibly Deist view of God common to others in the 18th century Age of Enlightenment.
        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


          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.





          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.



          At no point did I say the experiments are "non-empirical guesswork" nor do I have a problem with the research.




          At no point did I say that.



          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.




          At no point have I said anything against the research itself.
          Let the record reflect you had no point. There was nothing particularly funny about these experiments, and neither was empiricism jettisoned for guesswork.

          In sum:
          • These experiments are done by people like all experiments.
          • The earth and remote sensing inform the environmental conditions of these experiments.
          • Those experiments add to a vast body of epistemic knowledge gathered through purely empirical methods.
          If I misunderstood your original reply, please re-explain what’s particularly hilarious. I want to understand you.

          Comment


          • #65
            [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1561677]
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

            To add: You off the wall totally misunderstand Bertrand Russell and David Hume

            David Hume was a Naturalist philosopher not a scientist and his views are complex skepticism naturalism no longer remotely considered acceptable today and oldy moldy. He most definitely did not believe in Theistic Christian God, but proposed a More Atheist/ possibly Deist view of God common to others in the 18th century Age of Enlightenment.
            You know this guy is reading mid-90s Normal Geisler when he trots out David Hume and Bertrand Russell.

            Comment


            • #66
              [QUOTE=whag;n1561721]
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

              You know this guy is reading mid-90s Normal Geisler when he trots out David Hume and Bertrand Russell.
              This compounds the intentional ignorance of two dead atheist humanist philosophers to justify Biblical Creationism.
              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


              • #67
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                This compounds the intentional ignorance of two dead atheist humanist philosophers to justify Biblical Creationism.
                Diogenes, don’t you see that this is a stretch?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by whag View Post

                  Diogenes, don’t you see that this is a stretch?
                  The blind leading the blind,
                  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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    This compounds the intentional ignorance of two dead atheist humanist philosophers to justify Biblical Creationism.
                    At no point have I attempted to justify "Biblical Creationism".

                    Originally posted by whag View Post

                    You know this guy is reading mid-90s Normal Geisler when he trots out David Hume and Bertrand Russell.
                    I barely even recognise the name "Norman Geisler", let alone have I ever read anything by him.
                    P1) If , then I win.

                    P2)

                    C) I win.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                      At no point have I attempted to justify "Biblical Creationism".



                      I barely even recognise the name "Norman Geisler", let alone have I ever read anything by him.
                      OK, but many of your posts reflect a Biblical Creationist view, and likewise your objections to science reflect these views.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                        OK, but many of your posts reflect a Biblical Creationist view, and likewise your objections to science reflect these views.
                        They reflect rudimentary skepticism and seeing the ideological end game. I doubt many Biblical Creationists would say that they have "no problem" with abiogenesis experiments.
                        P1) If , then I win.

                        P2)

                        C) I win.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                          They reflect rudimentary skepticism and seeing the ideological end game.
                          If “they” is referring to your objections, you aren’t applying skepticism properly since this research has nothing to do with ideology any more than physics does.

                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          I doubt many Biblical Creationists would say that they have "no problem" with abiogenesis experiments.
                          By attributing the chemical origins of biology with atheism, by inserting ID into it, then by lying about it being non-empirical guesswork, you showed you do have a problem with it.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by whag View Post

                            If “they” is referring to your objections, you aren’t applying skepticism properly

                            So now you're the arbiter of "applying skepticism properly"?


                            since this research has nothing to do with ideology any more than physics does.

                            I would agree the research itself does not.



                            By attributing the chemical origins of biology with atheism,
                            At no point have I done so.


                            by inserting ID into it,
                            At no point have I done so.


                            then by lying about it being non-empirical guesswork,
                            At no point have I done so.


                            you showed you do have a problem with it.

                            Presumably I have better knowledge with what I do and do not have a problem.

                            P1) If , then I win.

                            P2)

                            C) I win.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


                              So now you're the arbiter of "applying skepticism properly"?
                              I am here, yes. If you concurrently claim “no problem” with abiogenesis while misrepresenting its methods, that’s fundy-grade skepticism.

                              Fundies have to delude others with lies about science to justify their skepticism, which is what you’re doing.

                              At no point have I done so.




                              At no point have I done so.




                              At no point have I done so.
                              Indeed you have:

                              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.


                              No one before you has ever called experiments a form of intelligent design since there’s no such thing as a natural experiment.

                              “Best guesses” is no implication of “Man” since lab conditions are informed by empirical research and remote-sensing data.

                              Perhaps you can go back to the drawing board and recast your opinion, then share it with us again. None of us understood your point, not even your fellow Christians here.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by whag View Post

                                I am here, yes.
                                You have no "authoritah" which demands my respect.

                                If you concurrently claim “no problem” with abiogenesis while misrepresenting its methods, that’s fundy-grade skepticism.
                                No where have I done so.

                                Fundies have to delude others with lies about science to justify their skepticism, which is what you’re doing.
                                I haven't lied about science nor attempt to justify any "skepticism" about science or the experiments as a means to delegitimisation.

                                You want to force me into a box of your preconceived notions in which I don't belong. To be fair, that's always happened to me so it's not something that's unaccustomed.
                                P1) If , then I win.

                                P2)

                                C) I win.

                                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