A Bio Genesis

@kellyjay said
You act as if you watched the video *all of it* you didn't. You don't have a clue but you act like you do, your views of what you didn't see, didn't listen too are meaningless.

Is there somewhere in the video you are referring to?

@wildgrass said
No.

As sonhouse has pointed out repeatedly, he omits critical information. He selectively chooses the stuff that supports his false dichotomy. By setting up the duality (that doesn't really exist), that if you don't believe in pond scum then you must believe in design, he tells you what you want to hear.

I would never disparage someone else's beliefs and views. I don' ...[text shortened]... dge of knowledge, of course there are questions.

Creation is abiogenesis. They're the same thing.

"The correct answer is... it's propaganda not science."

You didn't say this?

@kellyjay said
"The correct answer is... it's propaganda not science."

You didn't say this?

I was providing direct quotes from the lecture and your response was "you didn't even watch the video." Can you respond with something more substantial?

@wildgrass said
I was providing direct quotes from the lecture and your response was "you didn't even watch the video." Can you respond with something more substantial?

You watch the whole thing so everything you ask about can be asked because you know the context it was said in? If not go away you are not serious!

@kellyjay said
You watch the whole thing so everything you ask about can be asked because you know the context it was said in? If not go away you are not serious!

This was a direct quote from the lecture. Feel free to add context if I am missing his point. Completely different worldviews between pond scum and child of God? Really? Didn't God design the pond scum too?

According to sonhouse, the rest of the lecture is "here's why we can't be pond scum" sooooooo....... guess what...... we have to be.......... wait for it........ DESIGNED!

Propaganda through and through. Unless I'm wrong, in which case I'm sure you can explain, since you watched the lecture.

@wildgrass said
This was a direct quote from the lecture. Feel free to add context if I am missing his point. Completely different worldviews between pond scum and child of God? Really? Didn't God design the pond scum too?

According to sonhouse, the rest of the lecture is "here's why we can't be pond scum" sooooooo....... guess what...... we have to be.......... wait for it........ DESI ...[text shortened]... nd through. Unless I'm wrong, in which case I'm sure you can explain, since you watched the lecture.

If I did explain how would you know if you never watched the video that I was on topic and telling you the truth? Is that how you are with all of your topics of interest, avoid doing your own study and just take someone else’s word for it?

You wonder why I don’t take you seriously?

@kellyjay said
If I did explain how would you know if you never watched the video that I was on topic and telling you the truth? Is that how you are with all of your topics of interest, avoid doing your own study and just take someone else’s word for it?

You wonder why I don’t take you seriously?

You'll need references, of course.

Maybe you think this is not propaganda because, actually at 38:32 of the lecture, he presents a slide which I think illustrates the following point: [you can insert your point here]..e.g. Here, he acknowledges that design is non-scientific and therefore belongs nowhere near a research seminar.

Or something like that. When you just keep the broken record of "you don't know everything about everything" going, you've not advanced understanding in any way.

@wildgrass said
You'll need references, of course.

Maybe you think this is not propaganda because, actually at 38:32 of the lecture, he presents a slide which I think illustrates the following point: [you can insert your point here]..e.g. Here, he acknowledges that design is non-scientific and therefore belongs nowhere near a research seminar.

Or something like that. When you just ke ...[text shortened]... of "you don't know everything about everything" going, you've not advanced understanding in any way.

Have you watched the whole thing?

@kellyjay said
Have you watched the whole thing?

Listening to every word of the lectures doesn't change the fact they are lectures with an agenda, that is, proving mankind is too stupid to EVER solve the mystery of OOL.

But now on Mars, Curiosity found organics in a dry lake bed made of clay which shows billions of years ago there was deep water on Mars which clearly implies an atmosphere dense enough to allow liquid water.
That fact alone doesn't say squat about what the atmosphere was but it can be inferred by deep study of the clay and if and when humans get there and can drill really deep, not a few inches but a mile or more, then the full story of Mars will start to be sussed out.
Just finding carbon below the surface now where organics are destroyed by a planetwide thin layer of perchlorates which will tear organics apart which is what flummoxed the science teams of all the rovers but they finally figured that out from the Curiosity team. I happened to have turned on the NASA channel a couple of days ago and there was a documentary on Curiosity from design to landing and the travails they went through getting a beast like that VW sized rover with an atomic power supply, not much of one actually, only a bit over 100 watts but that will go on for 30 years or so, they stop at night and recharge the batteries and use some of that energy to heat up the joints with fluid lube which if not heated would make Curiosity grind to a screeching halt. Well maybe not screeching since it moves about a foot per second or so😉

@sonhouse said
Listening to every word of the lectures doesn't change the fact they are lectures with an agenda, that is, proving mankind is too stupid to EVER solve the mystery of OOL.

But now on Mars, Curiosity found organics in a dry lake bed made of clay which shows billions of years ago there was deep water on Mars which clearly implies an atmosphere dense enough to allow liquid wa ...[text shortened]... grind to a screeching halt. Well maybe not screeching since it moves about a foot per second or so😉

Cry me a river, what lecture is ever done that doesn't have an agenda or purpose.

@kellyjay said
Cry me a river, what lecture is ever done that doesn't have an agenda or purpose.

So there is the bottom line, you finally admitted those dudes HAVE an agenda, in this case touting the idea of intelligent design, thinly disguised creationism.
The fact they DIDN"T cover such subjects that they would have known about, being scientists, shows they did not WANT to bring up such concepts as interstellar clouds of organics and such. OF COURSE they knew about such things.

@sonhouse said
So there is the bottom line, you finally admitted those dudes HAVE an agenda, in this case touting the idea of intelligent design, thinly disguised creationism.
The fact they DIDN"T cover such subjects that they would have known about, being scientists, shows they did not WANT to bring up such concepts as interstellar clouds of organics and such. OF COURSE they knew about such things.

There isn't a person on the planet that doesn't have a bias, none! So every speaker has one, you included with all the things you write, you write with a bias. I've not finally admitted something, I have said that the science of the lecture is the part that needs to be looked at! Your focus from page one for this and everything else is the person, not the science. You reject creation, and when you speak about the beginning are you bias free, do you have an agenda?

The only thing you are really doing is crying foul, not that what is said us wrong, but someone is not on board with the only accepted way to look at things! You are acting like truth is meaningless, you have protect the dogma against propaganda. It cannot stand up to anyone who disagree with it, because you know the truth means that it cannot be questioned only accepted.

You want to bring up interstellar clouds in a lecture do it. Those that have other things on their minds, have other things on their minds, they focused on the parts of they wanted to.

@kellyjay said
There isn't a person on the planet that doesn't have a bias, none! So every speaker has one, you included with all the things you write, you write with a bias. I've not finally admitted something, I have said that the science of the lecture is the part that needs to be looked at! Your focus from page one for this and everything else is the person, not the science. You reject ...[text shortened]... hings on their minds, have other things on their minds, they focused on the parts of they wanted to.

It's ok to admit when you've fallen victim to propaganda. In fact, this is important to acknowledge if you don't want to be duped again in the future. I'll admit I've had a few run-ins with some very convincing "doctors" who are trying to cure a plethora of ailments with ozone or stem cells or homeopathy or what have you. Their arguments are full of facts about how expensive and ineffective western medicine is, but they fail to present their own data in support of alternative medicine (side note: alternative medicine is another word for "unproven medicine"😉 The information is incomplete and full of logical fallacies, just like Peltzer's lecture. In his case, he's convincing state legislators that that the concept of design belongs in a scientific classroom (because... other explanations don't add up). If you don't accept the science he selectively presents then you must believe in design.

It's intellectually dishonest to just say everyone's biased so everything should be questioned. You need to dig deeper, identify the bias, correct the bias, reinterpret the findings etc. That's what sonhouse has done here with your youtubes. That's also one of the major strengths of peer review, and a major weakness of YouTube clips.

@wildgrass said
It's ok to admit when you've fallen victim to propaganda. In fact, this is important to acknowledge if you don't want to be duped again in the future. I'll admit I've had a few run-ins with some very convincing "doctors" who are trying to cure a plethora of ailments with ozone or stem cells or homeopathy or what have you. Their arguments are full of facts about how expensiv ...[text shortened]... tubes. That's also one of the major strengths of peer review, and a major weakness of YouTube clips.

I don't see a problem admitting bias, if your not bias your not thinking.

@wildgrass said
It's ok to admit when you've fallen victim to propaganda. In fact, this is important to acknowledge if you don't want to be duped again in the future. I'll admit I've had a few run-ins with some very convincing "doctors" who are trying to cure a plethora of ailments with ozone or stem cells or homeopathy or what have you. Their arguments are full of facts about how expensiv ...[text shortened]... tubes. That's also one of the major strengths of peer review, and a major weakness of YouTube clips.

Any TV commercial can be called propaganda, a radio spot attempting to put into our head buy this product or that, vote for me not them. If you are being presented something to make you lean any specific way that can be called propaganda, the thing you need to look at is it misleading, not that it is bias. Truth if it is being pointed too would also be called bias and misleading by those that want to and are believing lies or simply things not clearly understood and wrong.

I continue to tell you to look at the whole in context to see if what is said is true or not. If getting your feelings hurt because he said, "pond scum", I got news for you, that was not an attempt to belittle, nor was even misrepresenting anything. People would jump up and down ecstatically happy if they could prove life started in a pond with scum with just pure natural causes, without any divine help. What would it matter how distasteful it sounds if it were true?

What sonhouse has done, and is doing, is going after the author not lecture's presentation, and you have done far worse. I presented another clip and what did he do, opposition research on the speaker to see what he could about him, why so he didn't have pay attention to what he said. That is not looking at the data, that isn't giving anything a chance. You might as well say I don't like your talk because of X whatever X happens to be, prejudice isn't always against nationality, race, sex, or whatever. If you are doing to shut something down because you don't like something about that person, then you will never get past whatever it is you dislike. Just note the information isn’t being looked at the person is, you closed your eyes, stuck fingers in your ears before the lecture began.