Another thread about abiogenesis and evolution.

@sonhouse said
It certainly helps because as you don't seem to know, the work it takes to GET a Phd means they are trained to spot issues and then bring them up to be peer reviewed. I bet you forgot about THAT bit too in your dissing science in general.

You have never seen me dispute science; you have seen me say I don’t agree with some people’s conclusions, but from someone who cannot reconcile the workings of a mind over random chance, why is that a bother to you?

@KellyJay said
You have never seen me dispute science; you have seen me say I don’t agree with some people’s conclusions, but from someone who cannot reconcile the workings of a mind over random chance, why is that a bother to you?

Scientific conclusions ARE science so you just venture your opinion, nothing more.

@sonhouse said
Scientific conclusions ARE science so you just venture your opinion, nothing more.

Scientific conclusions are conclusions; science is how you arrived at them, and science must be corrected when it’s wrong, otherwise you have dogma, not science.

@KellyJay said
Scientific conclusions are conclusions; science is how you arrived at them, and science must be corrected when it’s wrong, otherwise you have dogma, not science.

Hey, it doesn't matter WHAT I say, as far as you are concerned I am ALWAYS wrong and you are ALWAYS right.

@sonhouse said
Hey, it doesn't matter WHAT I say, as far as you are concerned I am ALWAYS wrong and you are ALWAYS right.

What exactly have you said, really? I’m a Christian, yes, and I’m all in for Jesus Christ, yes. But simple things like recognizing something done with intelligence, you think only a PhD can do that? You seem to suggest, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, that any conclusion reached through science shouldn’t be questioned, because science was used? Even though the strength of science is questioning, looking for correct answers over ones that are not correct.

I think that if informational instructions are somewhere guiding a process, only a mind can do that, because no other known possibility exists. You may have a million just-so stories surrounding fossils, the age of the universe, and the planet, but if we knew the truth, it would be because what we think and reality match.

I believe deviations from the truth are errors, no matter how fine-sounding they are. So, of all the possibilities that could generate informational instructions, unless you can produce something else that could do that, we are left with. Still, one choice, and if you cast that out because you don’t like that answer, it isn’t due to evidence; you do it.

@KellyJay said
What exactly have you said, really? I’m a Christian, yes, and I’m all in for Jesus Christ, yes. But simple things like recognizing something done with intelligence, you think only a PhD can do that? You seem to suggest, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, that any conclusion reached through science shouldn’t be questioned, because science was used? Even though the stren ...[text shortened]... e, and if you cast that out because you don’t like that answer, it isn’t due to evidence; you do it.

I wrote a paper on gravitational lensing and submitted it to my son in law who is in fact a statistical physicist. I said, so this paper is like an undergrad piece, he said no, this is stronger than that, graduate level.
I also did work on inductors, I am a ham and making antenna's is about all I can do techwise with radios so found some solutions I worked up to solve the number of turns needed on a coil form for X amount of microhenries and also worked up formula for figuring out the optimum size of a coil form and showing the minimum amount of wire to make an actual inductor and designed a capacitance end cap shortened 80 meter wire antenna, 68 feet long instead of 130 feet for full sized dipole.
I did a whole analysis about making inductors, coil forms, minimum wire to make a certain microhenry inductor and figuring capacitance Eff, of an antenna to calculate how much capacitance needed to cancel out the inductive reactance so the antenna has the widest bandwidth and such.
Among other work too. Had to hand build tools to do some jobs on my ion implanter which avoided 4 months of down time for a million dollar ion implanter, my invention of a tool meant I didn't touch the magnetic sensor in the disassembly, it was quite a development that impressed Intell engineers and saved a major recalibration which would have taken 4 months of work every day to get it back in the magnetic alignments needed which I avoided.
That is SOME of the work I did and not even close to a Phd OR MS or bachelor degree.
MY brain working stuff out by myself for DECADES.

@sonhouse said
I wrote a paper on gravitational lensing and submitted it to my son in law who is in fact a statistical physicist. I said, so this paper is like an undergrad piece, he said no, this is stronger than that, graduate level.
I also did work on inductors, I am a ham and making antenna's is about all I can do techwise with radios so found some solutions I worked up to solve the ...[text shortened]... not even close to a Phd OR MS or bachelor degree.
MY brain working stuff out by myself for DECADES.

I am not the one saying you cannot figure that out you are one suggesting it is beyond you, not me.

@KellyJay said
I am not the one saying you cannot figure that out you are one suggesting it is beyond you, not me.

So life origin is not beyond you. Makes sense since you can ONLY accept GODDIDIT. So you can reject all of life origin science since you figure you are more intelligent than any scientist.

@sonhouse said
So life origin is not beyond you. Makes sense since you can ONLY accept GODDIDIT. So you can reject all of life origin science since you figure you are more intelligent than any scientist.

Maybe if you actually focused on the actual questions being asked, that would be a nice change.

@KellyJay said
Maybe if you actually focused on the actual questions being asked, that would be a nice change.

no use, for you, ALL ROADS LEAD TO GOD.

@sonhouse said
no use, for you, ALL ROADS LEAD TO GOD.

I didn’t bring up God, you did. I limited my question to things in the we can see and calculate.

@KellyJay said
I didn’t bring up God, you did. I limited my question to things in the we can see and calculate.

With the caveat it BETTER add up to GOD DID IT.

@sonhouse said
With the caveat it BETTER add up to GOD DID IT.

You don’t listen to anything being said to you, you are on autopilot, and your opinion of me stops you from even having a conversation. Nothing I have said in this thread can you point to me saying this adds up to God; that is all you, and you do it because you are talking to me.

Do I believe in God? Yes, I’m not denying that, but I can listen to you and discuss any topic without bringing God up. You, on the other hand, are so paranoid that I may show you something you don’t want to see, and you automatically start accusing me of things that have nothing to do with the topic.

You don’t believe the same things I do; that is not a reason for me to turn every conversation into an accusation against you. If you are sure about your beliefs, defend them; if you think I am wrong, show me. You act as if being in disagreement about God is a character flaw for those who do, making them less than.

@KellyJay said
You don’t listen to anything being said to you, you are on autopilot, and your opinion of me stops you from even having a conversation. Nothing I have said in this thread can you point to me saying this adds up to God; that is all you, and you do it because you are talking to me.

Do I believe in God? Yes, I’m not denying that, but I can listen to you and discuss any top ...[text shortened]... t as if being in disagreement about God is a character flaw for those who do, making them less than.

It would be nice to have a totally SCIENTIFICLY unbiased discussion but when I
mention X.Y.Z you inevitably go You can't prove that timeline or whatever the evidence de jure is.

@sonhouse said
It would be nice to have a totally SCIENTIFICLY unbiased discussion but when I
mention X.Y.Z you inevitably go You can't prove that timeline or whatever the evidence de jure is.

You can believe any time line you want, the age does not add to any argument about either Abiogenesis or Evolution. The issues with both of those have to do more with timing and information much more than chance arrangements that could come together and move apart.