...yawn... Nothing to say? No arguments? just ad hominem? Try it. Present some evidence.. ANY evidence, & see how it stands up to scrutiny. ..unless you're afraid your evidence will be exposed as a fantasy or fiction... It is too early in this thread, for 'evidence' for any claims. First, you have to make the claim.. present the premise, & support it with valid arguments & reason. I have not addressed the ToE in this thread at all.. just abiogenesis & the origin of life. but if you want to move on to increasing complexity, & the origin of species, i'll be happy to join in. But you have to start with a premise, in order to address the subject in a systematic, rational manner. And please.. all this 'You refuse!!', You have no understanding!!' are not rebuttals, but are just ad hominem, deflecting from the impotence of the arguments. IF you think something presented is bogus, THEN refute it, with facts & sound reasoning. But merely accusing ignorance or dishonesty does not do that. That is a fallacy, & has no place in a rational debate. It is certainly not scientific.
Not arguing with you. I will just call out your disingenuous tactics. You refuse to intellectually discuss the articles prssented. Being in academia for years now, people do not use words like techno babble. You just dismiss what you don't understand and claim that you are looking for true evidence. Your arguments are banal and disingenuous. Saying that you don't understand is not an ad hominem. It is stating my belief that you do not demonstrate an understanding of a topic. If you want to scientifically discuss something. Don't call the technical details techno babble. Also, don't call things ad hominem when they are not. It shows a lack of understanding of the topic. If you feel insulted, report my posts.
Not my style. You can say what you want, & believe what you want. I don't really care. I do tire of the false accusations, the ad hominem, deflections, etc.. but that is internet forums for you. Calling me a liar is ad hominem.. you have not demonstrated any falsehoods from me, just smeared me with a label. So is calling me ignorant or 'not understanding!' If you think something i said is wrong, or false, refute it with facts. Merely calling me a liar or ignorant is ad hominem & a fallacy. Prove it. Show me HOW my arguments are 'banal and disingenuous'. Otherwise, you are just a false accuser. I had hoped the heckling & disruption would be minimal, & that there would be genuine interest in a rational, objective debate over these subjects. But perhaps this forum does not have the circumspection for this, or is too invested in propaganda to entertain critical scientific evaluations. I'll be glad to debate and/or discuss the topic, in a thoughtful, rational manner, but the drama of hysterics & disruption are of no interest to me. Perhaps a goal of reasoned debate is a fool's errand.
You need to read carefully. I never called you a liar. I called you disingenuous. That is not a liar. Why are you so obsessed with ad hominem. If you think I have personally attacked you, report me. All I have done was said your arguments are banal and disingenuous based on our interactions. You refuse to genuinely talk about scientific articles by calling the details techno babble. When I provided evidence in the evolution discussion you called the details techno babble, which demonstrated a lack of understanding because once I explained the details to you, you then had a authentic dispute about the evidence. I am just warning everyone of your normal tactics. These interactions have lead me to believe that your are not genuinely reviewing the information presented or you don't understand it. Thus, you claim that all you want is evidence is disingenuous. Once I explain the evidence to you, after you call it techno babble, you disregard it because it is a model. You provide no argument other than models aren't evidence; thus, this is a false claim and a banal argument made by many members. So these are not ad hominem. They are based on our interactions. I am just informing other posters of your tactics.
My question is why restart threads like this esp if you already know the answer? Unfortunately, the origins of life & the universe cannot be reduced to probability. There are no parameters that can show what any odds are. Merely saying, 'given enough time, anything is possible!' is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. It is a tenet of faith. One may believe that if they jump up & down enough times, eventually they will overcome gravity & fly to the moon. But how could you put a statistic on that? If you cannot test it, repeat it, observe it, or postulate HOW it can happen, there are no statistical odds that can be made. You cannot prove that life spontaneously appeared; nor disprove it; we agree. You cannot prove nor disprove what you've called intelligent design. But the bolded parts of one long argument aren't quite correct. One CAN use probabilities. You appear to think that the non-intelligent origin of life is either 0 or 1 with 1 being certain and 0 being negative. One can reason via thought experiment that the probability likely lies between those numbers or is 1. Since life does exist then that probability approaches 1 or is 1 no matter how it started. The question then is how did it start and there is no answer at present. I would say you can have intelligent design while still having spontaneous 'evolution' of life and further evolution of said biologicals into more evolved complex creatures some of which contemplate their navel. There is no proof nor disproof of same merely thought experiments. IF you use a preponderance of circumstantial evidence as your criteria of proof you can then make a reasoned argument for either side or all sides if you will. If you wish to speak in probabilities that's fine as well. While the former is more of a legal argument it is an argument that involves intuitive and reasoned probabilities of variables too difficult to simulate well. The human brain is quite good at it actually. It appears on the surface you've chosen unanswerable questions to debate; repeatedly. What's your motives?
Just throwing this out there. I'm actually of the thinking that perhaps other intelligent life, designed life here, or bits of it, in the distant past. I also think that perhaps they were interpreted by those who have interacted with them in the past as gods, or were directly told that they were gods.
Agreed! This is yet another theist science denial waste of time and bandwidth on the part of the OP! /sigh
If we examine the creationist argument then how does that improve our understanding? If indeed the universe and life was created by a "supernatural force" then if we come to understand that force it becomes natural. We then have to consider how the creator came into being, did it evolve, was it created or just pop into being. I have yet to hear an explanation of infinite regression. To suggest a creator you still have to grapple with all the issues that the naturalistic theory grapples with, what is the nature of time, how did life(the creator) begin, can a complex intelligence just pop into being, etc etc. What research is there into the nature of this creator, clearly we know the religious text of the main religions do not offer any insight into what the creator is. Creationism offers nothing about the origin of life, just another step in the puzzle at best.
Yes, creationism was a "step in the puzzle" as to the origin of life. It asked the question and then came up with the "goddidit" hypothesis. Unfortunately that is NOT a scientific hypothesis because it fallaciously assumes a predetermined outcome. Furthermore there is no way to test the "goddidit" hypothesis creationists have refused to put their own faith to the test that their deity even exists nevermind did anything. Since creationism is 100% RELIGION it does not belong in the science forum. At most it was a step in the puzzle that has long been discarded since it fails the scientific method. There is absolutely nothing to gained by wasting time on theist dogma in a science forum.
This is hand waiving and saying "nuh uh". You've been given several scientific papers and numerous links on the first page, and you have yet to present a single shred of evidence to rebut any of it. Saying "nuh uh" isn't an argument.
I want to argue first we don't know how rare life is in nature and how rare it gets to a sophisticated level so lets assume its rare and in each galaxy our size you get life on worlds in the right zone 0.1% have life form at all that is still a large number if you have say 1 billion star systems that fit now multiply that by the many billions of galaxies life suddenly isn't unique but I would say inevitable and can give a basic number using this rare standard if I would bother to work it out some. Now intelligent life could be far rarer but still that might be universe wide a generous number just in our galaxy there might be perhaps ,two to four, advanced technological species. Still universe wide a large number though. So I want to note first since we don't know and only have one example our planet making a claim its impossible without a deity is rather silly since we don't have any other examples. So I would say without us having multiple examples the whole argument is mute come back in a million years when we perhaps inhabit a large chunk of the galaxy then with say a hundred thousand solar systems we can properly have a decent debate.
1. My entire point is that every religion has its own peculiar definition of "supernatural." This is a problem that religous people seem hung up on. Still waiting for a concrete definition, but I doubt you'll give it. 2. I don't need to prove evolution to you or to anyone. It's accepted fact by the scientific community. If your religion prevents you from accepting that, then that's your problem. PS You're contradicting yourself in 1 and 2.
This is a scientific thread, with a scientific premise, in a scientific forum. If you don't want to present scientific arguments, but rant about beliefs, you can do that in any religious, political, or philosophical forum. Please stick with the parameters of the OP. Present your premise, & defend it with arguments, reason, & evidence. I already know that people believe very strongly in their opinions, & can boil over in outrage & jihadist zeal for their beliefs. This is about reason & evidence. If you have none, or don't know why you believe in the things you do, then perhaps you should go to a religious forum, where you can merely assert your beliefs, without evidence. Science is not for everyone. It is boringly methodical, systematic, & follows very strict parameters of inquiry. And while conjecture & speculation are useful in crafting 'what ifs?' in science, they do not constitute a proof. Merely speculating about some phenomenon does not make it a valid scientific theory. You must demonstrate, with observable, repeatable tests, that the 'theory' has validity. So far in this thread, there has been only one 'premise' presented. That would be the abiogenesis post. Very little in 'evidence' was presented, because there is very little evidence out there. THEREFORE, we can only conclude, scientifically, that no definitive conclusion can be made. There is not enough evidence to make one. That does not stop people from having beliefs about it, or their opinions, but we are dealing with hard science, here, not beliefs & opinions. You must verify any claims, with repeatable, observable science. Merely asserting them is not science. This thread is different than my last one on evolution, where i critiqued the Central Flaw, as i saw it. This one is comparative.. where different models of origins can be examined & compared, to see which is more plausible. Those who insist that this is 'settled science', & that their views on origins are 'Absolute Fact', are merely religious zealots. You are not critically minded, & have no business posting in a science thread. These are the True Believers, that end up heckling from the sidelines, disrupting any conversations, & muddying the water so nobody can see. I'm sure this is their intent, as well as attempting to provoke the posters to reply in kind. And, while it can be difficult to make calm, rational arguments, with hecklers screaming from the peanut gallery, that is the only way this 'debate' can happen. And, if we ONLY have hecklers & disrupters, then there will be no debate. I am willing, but the rest depends on the posters here. Do you want a rational debate over origins? Or do you want hysteria & reality show emotion to rule? I leave the choice with you.
BZZZT Wrong! This is a theist SCIENCE DENIAL thread because the OP introduced the RELIGIOUS concept of "creationism". No amount of foot stomping by the OP is going to change the content of the OP! The OP utterly failed to use any "scientific arguments" to refute the evidence of the Abiogenesis building blocks that have been provided. Instead the OP pretended that they did not exist. That is the theist response to all scientific evidence that disproves the bogus "creationism" superstition. The OP has also utterly failed to use any "scientific arguments" to refute the debunking of theist "creationism" by exposing it as a hoax that does not meet any of the criteria for the scientific method. There can be no scientific "rational debate on origins" when the OP insists upon fallaciously equating the theist superstition of "creationism" with legitimate scientific progress into Abiogenesis.
Please show the parameters of your calculations of probability for abiogenesis. How can you make such a calculation, when you have no possibility of it happening? Merely speculating that, 'it could have happened!' does not provide any data for calculations. So, you are left with a binary possibility: Life was created by a superior, unknown power. Life happened spontaneously, by unknown natural processes. The key to both of these statements is 'unknown'. We do not have enough information to make a valid scientific conclusion. We cannot test, observe, or repeat the phenomena, so we can make no conclusions. HOWEVER, if i were to argue from the ID pov, i would point out that this is exactly what you would expect in the ID model. Life is NOT easily 'created' from non-life. It would take a Superior Being, with Superior Powers, to create it. The obvious fact that modern man has NOT been able to create life in the laboratory substantiates this view. Now, this is not 'hard science' but merely inferred reasoning. It is what you would expect, if you were putting the models together.. one of natural processes & chance, & the other of intelligent design. Regarding, 'unanswerable questions', that is what we human do. We ponder the mysteries of life, & speculate the Hows & Whys of our existence. We have done that from time immemorial. I am just another speculator in that chain. Many people have given their lives to this quest, so some take it very seriously. For those who think it is stupid or a waste of time, there are other amusements out there to entertain them, while they wait for death. But this one has always been a popular one, in the history of man. This may show some philosophical motives for the thread, but why should i have to justify starting a thread? People start a great many threads, over the dumbest of topics. How is this one any dumber than others?
Ok, i'm not going to do this forever, but i'll examine the rationality of this claim. The premise was life.. How it began. You posted a speculative study (well, a link) about abiogenesis.. a belief that life spontaneously arose from non-life, by natural processes. Was that process defined? Was it demonstrated? No. It was conjectured. 'Building blocks!' do not constitute 'Life'. We still have NO EVIDENCE that life can spontaneously begin from non-life. it remains an unanswered mystery. Now, you may believe in abiogenesis, or that life can spontaneously start from non-life, but that is merely a belief.. a religious opinion. It is not 'evidence'. The foot stomping is yours. I am following reason & evidence. I make no unscientific claims, but am examining them critically, to see their scientific validity. And, since this is the only premise presented, i have not done the other things you accuse, since i have not addressed ID or the ToE. Those have yet to come up in this 'debate'.
We do answer the unanswerable but a true scientist understands the limitations of testing in the present world. We aren't prepared to generate the energies necessary to answer a lot of questions in the world of particle physics and related fields. It would take an accelerator the size of the solar system to look at the energies necessary to answer TOE questions. Similarly we don't have the technology to generate life although it appears we could be closer to reproducing those conditions. And there is enough money to allow that experiment or better stated it isn't out of the question for someone to acquire enough funds to look at that problem currently. I never said anything about this being dumb but you are promoting ID and spinning your wheels. This entire process is a waste of time for anyone who understands the problem and has the knowledge to look at it objectively. There's nothing wrong with putting this topic out there but when you do it over and over knowing how the debate will end then you're trolling.
I guess the last few hundred years of religious explanations for natural phenomena being discarded by advancements in human knowledge are not germane when considering the origins of life. Just because we now know that thunder, lighting, earthquakes, floods, famines, droughts, plagues, etc are not "acts of god" as the insurance companies would still have us believe, it doesn't invalidate the "spiritual theory" that god is the "who" answer to all unknown "why and how" questions we may have.
You do not understand probabilities well. First, I am not sure what you mean by possibility of abiogenesis. Do you mean it is impossible? Second, once an event occurs the probability of it is 1. It is meaningless to discuss the probability in that context. Thus, you are misunderstanding probability. You can understand the probability of it reoccurring, but that is different. You writing lacks clarity on these issues, but the probability of abiogenesis can be calculated in multiple ways. If we had many identical eco systems we could observe which ones develop life and which do not. This would be the simplest method to calculate the "probability" of abiogenesis; however, this method is ignoring what that probability is. When we use the word probability in a SCIENTIFIC context, we are referring to stochastic processes. In layman's terms, things that have a chance to occur. In the scientific context, we are more interested in explaining the events that are involved in the stochastic process rather than calculating the percent chance. Thus, the method of multiple ecosystems is a rather inefficient way to explore this topic. The more interesting occurrences are how organic compounds evolved to living compounds. Now the naive will argue that we are accepting a conclusion without proof, but we are not. We know that organic compounds can interact with each other and get changed. This has been repeatedly observed. From these observations were are extrapolating that these interactions could produce living compounds. This extrapolation has not been observed, but can be quantified by a probability. Based on the the observed probabilities of the changes in organic compounds. The weakest point of this argument is the extrapolation, but any theory about abiogenesis requires extrapolation. Even your other "theories", will require extrapolation. So why accept abiogenesis, because unlike the other theories, abiogenesis is based on observed events. The extrapolation is grounded in verifiable and observable events. Intelligent design or there theories have none of these events to extrapolate from. Thus, using abductive reasoning, abiogenesis should be accepted over the other theories posited for now. These type of claims that you make is why I question your understanding of the material. You superficially claim something and it appears that you have a very narrow understanding of complex topics.
This is hand waiving away evidence and stating "nuh uh". You were given peer reviewed scientific papers. You have presented absolutely nothing to rebut it other than "nuh uh". That isn't an argument. And as I warned in my initial post, this is all you do in these threads.
All of this is hand waiving and stating "nuh uh". You presented no scientific evidence to rebut the scientific evidence you were given.
Unless you can directly commune with God and have Him answer here in a fashion all believe then you have an unprovable hypothesis for ID. And you've stated we have no evidence for abiogenesis which I agree with. So what exactly is the purpose of your thread? It appears you merely wish a venue to espouse there is no evidence for either which most here agree with. By process of elimination if there is no scientific evidence for abiogenesis then that must leave ID as the design of choice.......n'est pas? Wrong if that is what you think. It merely means life is here and we don't know how it got here. We don't know is the answer. Have a nice day and do us all a favor and don't restart a thread like this in our lifetimes.
Unfortunately the OP is motivated to churn out these theist science denial threads out of sheer desperation to reinforce the OP's superstitious beliefs. If the OP had any confidence in the existence of his deity and the allegation that "goddidit" then there would be no need for these threads at all. In essence these threads demonstrate that the OP "knows" that the stone age theist superstitions are being steadily eroded by the progress of scientific knowledge. This places the OP's belief in an "afterlife" in jeopardy which is what is feeding the desperation behind these threads. The OP's fallacious attempt to equate the theist superstition of "creationism" with the scientific knowledge gained to date regarding Abiogenesis exposes the fragility of the OP's beliefs. Each additional step towards solving Abiogensis is a threat to those beliefs. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...search-institute-synthetic-semi-a7544056.html
