A Bio Genesis

@wildgrass said
He's framed his lecture as a false dichotomy between "highly-evolved pond scum" and "child of God". After talking a lot about how science tests things, he puts forward an untestable (and therefore pseudoscientific) premise to explain life's origins.

From what I can gather, the rest of his lecture addresses the current unknowns. Anyone can poke holes in our existing knowl ...[text shortened]... ernatural hypothesis, it is not a valid scientific question. He is using the wrong tool for the job.

He did not frame his lecture between pond scum and child of God. That statement was made about how people approach the topic. You did watch it and by it the whole thing? Exactly what did he put forward as science that wasn’t testable?

@kellyjay said
He did not frame his lecture between pond scum and child of God. That statement was made about how people approach the topic. You did watch it and by it the whole thing? Exactly what did he put forward as science that wasn’t testable?

I watched the first 5 minutes, and the final slide at 1:14:16.

How 'people' approach the topic is framing the debate when you're giving a lecture. He raises this apparent dichotomy in the first 5 minutes to establish that in disproving the pond scum hypothesis he will thereby establish "child of God" as a valid alternative hypothesis. In fact, it is not (from a scientific standpoint). Without first framing the debate as scum vs. God then the design idea would seem like a non sequiter. All the stuff he put forward as science was fine, but his conclusion from all that makes little sense.

Last slide "Is it time to consider design?" Since we don't know how to assemble a cell a priori, an intelligence greater than ours is needed.

If you insist that design is a valid scientific concept, how would you test that? Design the experiment.

@wildgrass said
I watched the first 5 minutes, and the final slide at 1:14:16.

How 'people' approach the topic is framing the debate when you're giving a lecture. He raises this apparent dichotomy in the first 5 minutes to establish that in disproving the pond scum hypothesis he will thereby establish "child of God" as a valid alternative hypothesis. In fact, it is not (from a scientifi ...[text shortened]... ou insist that design is a valid scientific concept, how would you test that? Design the experiment.

Thought so, no need to go on, not much you say from here on out matters in my opinion.

@kellyjay said
Thought so, no need to go on, not much you say from here on out matters in my opinion.

Exactly right. If you can't test it, it ain't science.

p.s. I did what you asked.

@kellyjay said
If you want to discuss the point of this OP watch at minimum the first 5 minutes of the first lecture to see if what this is about is purely faith or science! If you believe it is anything other than verifiable conclusions, by all means highlight the your reasoning!

@wildgrass said
Exactly right. If you can't test it, it ain't science.

p.s. I did what you asked.

@kellyjay said
If you want to discuss the point of this OP watch at minimum the first 5 minutes of the first lecture to see if what this is about is purely faith or science! If you believe it is anything other than verifiable conclusions, by all means highlight the your reasoning!

Move on

@kellyjay said
You watched the whole thing?

You can't be bothered to read the Wikipedia article about evolution, but act offended if people don't want to listen to your religious sermons?

@kazetnagorra said
You can't be bothered to read the Wikipedia article about evolution, but act offended if people don't want to listen to your religious sermons?

I have read those pointed out me, and like these lectures I would discuss them with those that watched them and disagree or agree. What I would not do is read the first and last paragraph and act like I knew the content. If you want to watch one I would be very interested in your opinion

If you are here to just take a shot at me, zzz.

@wildgrass said
Exactly right. If you can't test it, it ain't science.

p.s. I did what you asked.

@kellyjay said
If you want to discuss the point of this OP watch at minimum the first 5 minutes of the first lecture to see if what this is about is purely faith or science! If you believe it is anything other than verifiable conclusions, by all means highlight the your reasoning!

What was said in context that hand to do with anything that wasn’t true or science. Outside of the line you misquoted!?

@kellyjay said
Move on

It's ok to admit when you've been duped by a propagandist. Happens to the best of us.

Aside from poking holes in others' ideas, how might you approach the supernatural question using the scientific method?

@kellyjay said
What was said in context that hand to do with anything that wasn’t true or science. Outside of the line you misquoted!?

It's not misquoted.

@wildgrass said
He's framed his lecture as a false dichotomy between "highly-evolved pond scum" and "child of God". After talking a lot about how science tests things, he puts forward an untestable (and therefore pseudoscientific) premise to explain life's origins.

From what I can gather, the rest of his lecture addresses the current unknowns. Anyone can poke holes in our existing knowl ...[text shortened]... ernatural hypothesis, it is not a valid scientific question. He is using the wrong tool for the job.

You claimed he framed his lecture as a false dichotomy between pond scum and children of God. That statement was not how he framed it, and had you actually watched it, instead of being misleading as you belittling it by saying things you assumed were true that were not you would have known.

Trust me if I every want to get a movie review by someone who only watched the opening and closing credits instead of the movie I will call on you!

@KellyJay
Haven't you learned yet that you can't teach these idiot atheists anything?

@rjhinds said
@KellyJay
Haven't you learned yet that you can't teach these idiot atheists anything?

I'm just trying for a conversation, but only one (sonhouse) has made the attempt by watching a video to his credit, the others seem to want to take shots.

@rjhinds said
@KellyJay
Haven't you learned yet that you can't teach these idiot atheists anything?

Wow, RJ, long time no argue! Has the world gotten any older?

@kellyjay said
I'm just trying for a conversation, but only one (sonhouse) has made the attempt by watching a video to his credit, the others seem to want to take shots.

And you ignore the fact prebiotic organic material was present in the clouds that penetrated the solar system early on, short circuiting the argument trillions of years would be needed to achieve life from reactions begun on Earth.
I think life will be shown to be present at many levels from virus and bacteria to full blown scientific civilizations more advanced than Earth life.
But of course that is just an opinion.

I think interstellar clouds of proven organic material is the key to figuring out life on Earth, Mars, Encaladus and any moon with a liquid ocean. I think when we go there with probes or humans, we will find life and probably buried life on Mars.

All due to the injection of complex organics from interstellar clouds. Your buddies knew about that for sure but decidedly did NOT mention that in their talks so as not to spoil their bottom line, GODDIDIT.