14 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarOne part of the common ground of scientific enquiry is that natural phenomena are explicable in terms of laws which do not change. We have a pretty good idea what these laws are and could list them if asked to do so (Maxwell's Equations, Kepler's Laws, laws of thermodynamics, Mendel's Laws, etc.). You apparently think of these as mere assumptions; they are not. They have been confirmed by massively coherent evidence.
You seem to know much about assumptions.
But as I just wrote, I am not your master and you are not mine. What is this great need of yours to try to validate your point of view and invalidate mine?
We are not talking about points of view, but claims of truth. We are talking about consistentcy.
If we are to do that, we must have common ground. Do you ...[text shortened]... rying to enslave beliefs just as European royalty of old tried to force their beliefs on others.
Another part of the common ground of science is that the universe does not behave radically differently to what we observe when we are not observing it. You apparently believe that we can know only what we directly or immediately observe, which implies that the universe behaves radically differently when we are not observing it. It is you who are making wild assumptions which are not borne out by evidence.
If you want to claim that things which happened in the distant past cannot be known by us, then the burden of proof is on you to show that laws of nature have changed, radically, within whatever time period you think the universe has been in existence.
If you want to claim that things in general which we do not immediately and directly observe cannot be known, then the burden of proof is on you to show that laws of nature do not hold in this universe and that radical changes are going on when we are not looking.
As this is the science forum, we expect you to provide evidence for such radical changes, not merely assert that we are making unwarranted assumptions.
No one is trying to force you to believe anything. I have no need to validate science; it is quite well-able to validate itself. What is patently clear to anyone following this thread is that the literalist interpretation of Genesis is in serious trouble because there is no evidence that God exists or that creation ex nihilo ever happens, and your attempt to rescue some semblance of intellectual respectability for the literalist interpretation is tenuous to say the least.
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarYou are wrong. Color does exist in the eye of the beholder, but scientific evidence is not a color; scientific evidence, as is the case regarding the hypothesis of abiogenesis, supports instead of countering this specific scientific theory of reality. If it was not a natural process, it would not be happening repeatedly as it actually does😵
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
We have no evidense of abiogenesis either. If it was a natural process it would be happening today.
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbus
One part of the common ground of scientific enquiry is that natural phenomena are explicable in terms of laws which do not change. We have a pretty good idea what these laws are and could list them if asked to do so (Maxwell's Equations, Kepler's Laws, laws of thermodynamics, Mendel's Laws, etc.). You apparently think of these as mere assumptions; they are ...[text shortened]... ce of intellectual respectability for the literalist interpretation is tenuous to say the least.
If you want to claim that things in general which we do not immediately and directly observe cannot be known, then the burden of proof is on you to show that laws of nature do not hold in this universe and that radical changes are going on when we are not looking.
As this is the science forum, we expect you to provide evidence for such radical changes, not merely assert that we are making unwarranted assumptions.
Undone by your own logic, moonbus.
If, as you suggest, the rules do not allow for radically different action when otherwise unobserved, this applies to the absurdity of abiogenesis, which, at its basest meaning, requires material and an energy source of some kind to provide the spark.
We have not yet and we will not ever observe such a lottery produce a winning ticket.
We have, in controlled--- and that should be read as "rigged for desired outcome"--- experiments been able to replicate that otherwise statistically, philosophically and physically impossible result.
The it's-here-so-it-must-have-happened reasoning is triple shades more reprehensible in the mind of a true scientist than Goddidit.
At least, it should be, if one purports to hold to scientific parameters.
Furthering the point, what appears to be lost in the shuffle is the reliance abiogenesis has on at least three factors:
• material
• conditions
• energy source
Problem: where'd that shtuff come from?!?
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhIt is not: "it's-here-so-it-must-have-happened." It is: "it is here, these are the laws of nature, do the laws of nature plausibly explain how it happened without invoking miracles (i.e., radical deviations from laws of nature)."
[quote]If you want to claim that things in general which we do not immediately and directly observe cannot be known, then the burden of proof is on you to show that laws of nature do not hold in this universe and that radical changes are going on when we are not looking.
As this is the science forum, we expect you to provide evidence for such radical c ...[text shortened]... :
• material
• conditions
• energy source
[b]Problem: where'd that shtuff come from?!?[/b]
A plausible conjunction of material, conditions, and energy are provided at sea-bed geysers, for example, as noted on page 3. Rather than sending a probe to Enceladus, it might be more profitable to park some probes around undersea geysers for a while and note what happens down there. What really doesn't work (as a scientific explanation) is supposing that God created life ex nihilo when there isn't even evidence that God exists, much less that life was created ex nihilo by God, all in one swell foop (bacteria, dinosaurs, and mankind all at once) about 6,000 years ago.
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraTell that to the sun.
There are no "flames" or "fire" on the surface of the Sun.
https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7338/27191404926_f58fae2ee3_o.jpg
And, lest you think you're being clever by drawing a distinction between words meaning the same thing:
flare
[flair]
verb (used without object), flared, flaring.
1. to burn with an unsteady, swaying flame, as a torch or candle in the wind.
2. to blaze with a sudden burst of flame (often followed by up):
The fire flared up as the paper caught.
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusYour example from page three of fails to support your claims.
It is not: "it's-here-so-it-must-have-happened." It is: "it is here, these are the laws of nature, do the laws of nature plausibly explain how it happened without invoking miracles (i.e., radical deviations from laws of nature)."
A plausible conjunction of material, conditions, and energy are provided at sea-bed geysers, for example, as noted on p ...[text shortened]... God, all in one swell foop (bacteria, dinosaurs, and mankind all at once) about 6,000 years ago.
Chemosynthesis is performed by living organisms, not inorganic substances.
Life is so hearty, so robust, it will get blood out of a rock if needs be.
But that's life, not the rock.
You have yet again pirouetted around the crux of the issue:
where did the stuff come from?
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhFreak, I don't give a damn if you read this or not but the universe is most likely the one that allows complex organics to be made even in comets far from the sun and organic molecules have been found in the cloud of dust surrounding hundreds of stars by direct spectroscopic analysis which you would assign to mere assumption but that is just your weak knowledge of science talking.
Your example from page three of fails to support your claims.
Chemosynthesis is performed by living organisms, not inorganic substances.
Life is so hearty, so robust, it will get blood out of a rock if needs be.
But that's life, not the rock.
You have yet again pirouetted around the crux of the issue:
[b]where did the stuff come from?[/b]
You don't know shyte about the workings of science or the instruments going into it but consider yourself to be a civilization changing mind (your own words) and therefore having the ability to be a final judge on all things scientific.
In reality you are a paranoid with mind blowing fantasy, not even your own making since you have not a creative bone in your body, anyone posting a BS conspiracy theory is ok with you no matter how far out in left field they are no matter how crazy they are, if they post it people will come.
You are one of the gullible ones believing in any conspiracy theory to come along. It is in fact, your religion and no amount of evidence or reasoning about the absurdities in the crazies you post will ever change that. That is one of the keys of religion, unchanging views.
People who follow science are anything but unchanging, a new paradigm comes along and millions of people WILL change their POV. You on the other hand will NEVER change your POV no matter how much refutation comes along. THAT is the difference between Paranoid fantasies and real science.
14 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhThe building blocks of life are present in the oceans and in comets and very possibly in the oceans of at least of two of Saturn's moons.
You have yet again pirouetted around the crux of the issue:
[b]where did the stuff come from?[/b]
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetlePerhaps you can site a specfic example of abiogenesis.
You are wrong. Color does exist in the eye of the beholder, but scientific evidence is not a color; scientific evidence, as is the case regarding the hypothesis of abiogenesis, supports instead of countering this specific scientific theory of reality. If it was not a natural process, it would not be happening repeatedly as it actually does😵
15 Oct 17
Originally posted by @freakykbh[/b]I'm not "being clever," just pointing out that you are wrong. The surface of the Sun consists of hot plasma; nothing is burning there.
Tell that to the sun.
https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7338/27191404926_f58fae2ee3_o.jpg
And, lest you think you're being clever by drawing a distinction between words meaning the same thing:
flarewith an unsteady, swaying flame, as a torch or candle in the w ...[text shortened]... n burst of flame (often followed by up):
[flair]
verb (used without object), flared, flaring.
1. to [b]burn
The fire flared up as the paper caught.
15 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarThe one that most likely occurred on Earth a couple billion years ago.
Perhaps you can site a specfic example of abiogenesis.
15 Oct 17
4 edits
@kazetnagorra
There are no "flames" or "fire" on the surface of the Sun.
response;
Originally posted by @freakykbh
Tell that to the sun.
https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7338/27191404926_f58fae2ee3_o.jpg
And, lest you think you're being clever by drawing a distinction between words meaning the same thing:
I am just totally appalled by freaky's arrogant ignorance. In strict science terminology, there is no real "fire" on the Sun. The correct term for what is on the Sun is "plasma" but not "fire" because there is no combustion on the Sun and "fire" in science terminology is taken to mean plasma specifically from combustion .
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
I guess if he ever did a science exam he would get a "Bad fail. Disqualified from exam resit" written on his official test result.
Here is some education for you freaky;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
"...Combustion is a high-temperature exothermic redox chemical reaction between a fuel (the reductant) and an oxidant, usually atmospheric oxygen, that produces oxidized, often gaseous products, in a mixture termed as smoke. Combustion in a fire produces a flame, and the heat produced can make combustion self-sustaining.
...
...Combustion (fire) was the first controlled chemical reaction discovered by humans,..."
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-no-combustion-in-the-Sun
Combustion doesn’t takes place in the sun.
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question36.html
The Sun does not "burn",