08 May 19
I put these in another thread here and after thinking about it I think if there is any interest at all they should have their own. Heads up these are not in support of Abiogenesis, these are not heavy on faith but chemistry.
Abiogenesis
Dr. Edward Peltzer
The Mystery of the Origin of Life
James Tour
@kellyjay saidSo the gist of that is they want to show what HASN'T been done, as if science is at a stand still. The thing is, the REAL thing, is science advances making technological advances which further the science advances, in other words, science bootstraps upwards in terms of how to do stuff, how to make more complex stuff and that includes OOL, origin of life.
I put these in another thread here and after thinking about it I think if there is any interest at all they should have their own. Heads up these are not in support of Abiogenesis, these are not heavy on faith but chemistry.
[youtube] 6xj4UH0RwcM [/youtube]
Abiogenesis
Dr. Edward Peltzer
[youtube] zU7Lww-sBPg [/youtube]
The Mystery of the Origin of Life
James Tour
They can have all the fun they want dissing PRESENT DAY science as if that is ALL we are ever going to have.
What they don't want to show is how much science, including OOL turns from OOL to COOL, in other words, we are still in kindergarten in many disciplines of science. For instance, my wife had bad knees and so got them replaced with metal.
All well and good but they have caused her pain from day one and now it looks like the damn things need replacing AGAIN.
This is primitive, more like Roman times science. ACTUAL science advances would fix the fundamental problem with the knees and therefore eliminate the horrible procedures involved with cutting your leg half off and ripping out old bones and replacing them with metal duplicates. It took MONTHS of rehab to even start to walk again after that procedure. This is in my mind the definition of primitive, as advanced as it LOOKS, and the science behind that development, it has clearly helped a lot of people but really advanced science will deal with why the legs or shoulders, whatever, are wearing out and fixing it biologically without cyborg crap added to a body.
That is kind of where we are in OOL, trying to get to COOL, and all the lectures saying how so far we have nothing, MEANS NOTHING because science advances at an exponential rate and what we have in 2020 is not what we will have in 2030 or 2040. You can see by the second lecture the advances we already have shown in terms of graphene structures. The more we know about that, the more we can suss out about OOL.
I think we WILL go from OOL STUDIES to COOL knowledge, even if it takes 200 years of advances in science and technology.
@eladar saidYou HAVE to force it to be religious. FAITH is about supernatural bullshyte. I see growth of science and think someday we will figure out OOL and go from OOL to COOL. You want to play semantic games, have fun. I don't do supernatural GODDIDIT bullshyte. That is just projection, perhaps wishful thinking but not faith. I don't have 'faith' we will totally figure it all out, I just think we may, given the present course of advancement of science. We may be totally flummoxed still in 500 years, assuming we LAST 500 years capable of the present level of scientific advancement we have already achieved in the last 500 years. I rather think not though, just think we are smart enough to suss it all out. And I freely admit I could be totally wrong. You don't admit you can be wrong if you have faith.
@sonhouse
So in other words you have faith.
You have 'faith', you go, I have faith no matter WHAT evidence you show otherwise, you are wrong and I am right, because I have FAITH. Good luck with that.
09 May 19
@eladar saidDid you actually read what I wrote, you responded before I could even add the last sentence.
@sonhouse
Faith is faith. You simply put your faith in other things, especially true since what you have faith in will likely never be seen by anyone alive today. If you disagree with that then in our lifetime.
Did you hear the part where 'faith' is about supernatural BS? Science is not about supernatural BS, it is the step by step increase in knowledge and like I see a car coming at me at 100 KPH, I can pretty much expect it to pass my sorry ass in about one minute. That is not FAITH. That the application of laws of physics.
@eladar saidUtter BS. You bring up the issue of 'faith' STRICTLY because it is part and parcel of religion. One cannot hate a god that does not exist. Or at least is totally 'hands' free, no interaction with lowly humans. NO human knows JACK about gods, only what some folks come up when blasted with magic mushrooms or some such.
@sonhouse
No need to demonstrate your hatred and bias against any idea of God.
I never implied faith in God.
Why don't you go to sites like phys.org or the like, live science, they show advances EVERY DAY. it is breathtaking the change in our level of knowledge from one week to the next and like I said, in OOL studies, we are in kindergarten and it looks like we will figure it out, not based on faith but on the continuous advancement of science in the last few hundred years. You want to turn that into a religious experience, no matter how you parse it.
09 May 19
@sonhouse saidI take it you didn’t watch either but wanted to make up what you think that they said? Apologies if I am wrong!
So the gist of that is they want to show what HASN'T been done, as if science is at a stand still. The thing is, the REAL thing, is science advances making technological advances which further the science advances, in other words, science bootstraps upwards in terms of how to do stuff, how to make more complex stuff and that includes OOL, origin of life.
They can have all ...[text shortened]... rom OOL STUDIES to COOL knowledge, even if it takes 200 years of advances in science and technology.
@kellyjay saidI watched enough to see in the second vid he was trying to poo poo OOL science. Did you actually read what I wrote? The first vid didn't have to go much further than the opener where he used scientific in quotes. That alone disses the science behind OOL. The anti science bias in that discipline was obvious.
I take it you didn’t watch either but wanted to make up what you think that they said? Apologies if I am wrong!
If it is not obvious to you it is because you are so steeped in religion you can't see the difference. Ok guys, lets talk about the "science" (wink wink, implying it should be called the SO CALLED science) behind abiogenesis. That's all you need to see the tenor of the piece. He also said 'testing our faith' like science is automatically against religion.
That also casts aspersions on science. Like you have one of two situations, you have faith or you have science. It is funny the scientific method is exactly the same for OOL as it is for say computer science or organic chemistry or physics but it is only THAT science that the religious folk condemn, not realizing the exact same fundamental underpinnings of ALL modern science is EXACTLY the same. So prove me wrong if you don't see it that way.
That is the exact same stance that RJ Hinds used in his tirade against old Earth, that Earth is 6000 years old and that is that, no argument possible. Where he readily admits the science of say computers or rockets or organic chemistry is ok but the science of radiometric rock dating is somehow worthless, because he SAYS it is, not caring a whit about the actual science behind radiometric dating techniques, saying for instance C14 dating is worthless because of this or that when scientists know full well the limitations of carbon dating, how long into the past it is actually good for and the contamination that may or may not interfere with the readings. Scientists know ALL about that stuff, having done lab test for a hundred years and a hundred different ways to show that carbon dating can be very useful if you know the limitations.
He just blanket dissed THAT science which uses the exact scientific method of any other modern science. You can't have it where physics is ok but that one science we think attacks religion is OBVIOUSLY false and useless, and only the bible shows the real way the world or life came into existence.
09 May 19
@sonhouse saidSo the only real explanation for something you bad mouth without watching all the way through, you question their motives. You offered no explanation about the science offered, I can only reason you didn’t stick around long enough to hear any.
So the gist of that is they want to show what HASN'T been done, as if science is at a stand still. The thing is, the REAL thing, is science advances making technological advances which further the science advances, in other words, science bootstraps upwards in terms of how to do stuff, how to make more complex stuff and that includes OOL, origin of life.
They can have all ...[text shortened]... rom OOL STUDIES to COOL knowledge, even if it takes 200 years of advances in science and technology.
The first guy you did not listen to at all? Maybe you did listen, until you realized he stayed on point, was that it? Did you give the first guy any time?
10 May 19
2 edits
@kellyjay saidYou know exactly what his point is, that since the science of today cannot explain OOL, the only explanation left is GODDIDIT. Why can't you admit that?
So the only real explanation for something you bad mouth without watching all the way through, you question their motives. You offered no explanation about the science offered, I can only reason you didn’t stick around long enough to hear any.
The first guy you did not listen to at all? Maybe you did listen, until you realized he stayed on point, was that it? Did you give the first guy any time?
Why can't you see what I actually said, which is we certainly don't know how life started but science starts with the idea GOD DIDN"T DO IT and goes from there.
It is you and your ilk dissing ONLY the science that delves into OOL.
Exactly as RJHINDS disses carbon dating even though the scientific method is EXACTLY the same for almost ALL sciences including carbon dating, chemistry, physics, geothermal studies and so forth.
You don't get to diss just ONE science because it refutes the idea GODDIDIT and no other explanation is needed, which is just faith based on zero logic, reasoning or research, something the church does not want since when it is shown without a doubt god did NOT do it but it came up from a mud pit or whatever, that will put a lot of doubt in religion world wide and they can't have THAT since their power rests in pure numbers. Billions of Christians, Billions of Muslims, can't have actual reasoning or research into OOL, forboden. 500 years ago, you would be KILLED to even SUGGEST such.
I also note the Alabama state legislators are set to vote on a bill outlawing abortion, as a felony with a 99 year prison sentence. So things are going backwards, I assume you feel that is just ok, women having to go to back ally abortion 'clinic's' where a lot of them are GOING to die to get rid of the child of rape or some such.
BTW, we have a case in our own family, well, ex GF of one of our sons, the girl was kidnapped and raped for 3 months before she could escape, got pregnant, BTW, she was 14 ATT, the guy got sent to prison but her family basically forced her to have the child, which she had to raise with almost no help and now, the perv is getting out of prison and has already contacted authorities to claim 50% custody of the child now 9 years old whom has never even SEEN the child much less ever visited him. It gave her PTSD even THINKING about this pervert.
So tell me again how that should have happened?
10 May 19
@sonhouse saidWell, they are some of the many points science cannot explain. It cannot explain where everything came from, it cannot explain how life got started and so on. Yet you think time will tell, that is your equivalent to "God did it", you have FAITH believing these issues will be explained in time.
You know exactly what his point is, that since the science of today cannot explain OOL, the only explanation left is GODDIDIT. Why can't you admit that?
Why can't you see what I actually said, which is we certainly don't know how life started but science starts with the idea GOD DIDN"T DO IT and goes from there.
It is you and your ilk dissing ONLY the science that delve ...[text shortened]... It gave her PTSD even THINKING about this pervert.
So tell me again how that should have happened?
Of the two I am thinking the life issue is the hardest, even though the first one is impossible. If you cannot acknowledge the holes in your own belief system why do you belittle other's?
I don't give a rat's behind what RJHINDS said about carbon dating, you have an issue with the data presented in these talks? Are you just crying out loud because someone disagrees with you and they have valid points? I'm not asking you to take anything on faith here, simply look at what we see now and consider it. Do you have anything on OOL that dispels the points made in either talk?
The topic is abiogenesis, none of those other things have anything to do with this discussion. Stick to the science if you can, Chemist should know a little about their field in science do you think?