12 May 19
@kellyjay saidWhere do you see that? I object to supposed scientific lectures that are not lectures but lessons in religion, showing how mankind is insignificant compared to the alleged infinite intelligence of a god.
It is obvious you have no intention to entertain any idea that conflicts with you views.
You could never entertain any idea of a realization that all the books of all the religions of the world are man made pure and simple because mankind could NEVER be so intelligent as to be able to write down the wisdom of religion.
I am here to tell you the best of us ARE intelligent and creative enough and possess charisma enough to sway crowds of ordinary people who DON"T have much in the way of creativity or critical thinking and so those high intelligent folks start religions where they claim it all came from god. Actually it all came from that smart dude just swaying people into his world using a non-existent deity as the icon that people can take as real so he can maintain "This came from GOD above' and THESE are HIS words, AMEN. Go forth and tell the world about our god, and instant religion is created.
I can't deny it works extremely well, more than half of humanity is sucked into it and can't get out, don't want to get out, and will kill if you suggest the whole thing is fakery on a planetary scale.
12 May 19
@sonhouse saidI went back and looked at them, your objections are ideology in nature not science, not data. I don't think it matters what you see or hear if it hints about God it must be all wrong and belittles science. This isn't something that can be discussed with you because reasoning isn't where your real objections lay.
Where do you see that? I object to supposed scientific lectures that are not lectures but lessons in religion, showing how mankind is insignificant compared to the alleged infinite intelligence of a god.
You could never entertain any idea of a realization that all the books of all the religions of the world are man made pure and simple because mankind could NEVER be so int ...[text shortened]... don't want to get out, and will kill if you suggest the whole thing is fakery on a planetary scale.
12 May 19
@kellyjay saidAre you saying science can prove the existence of god? According to Popper, if you can't even in theory show a negative about a thesis it is not science but now in the realm of philosophy.
I went back and looked at them, your objections are ideology in nature not science, not data. I don't think it matters what you see or hear if it hints about God it must be all wrong and belittles science. This isn't something that can be discussed with you because reasoning isn't where your real objections lay.
It is the religious set who belittles science, not me. If somehow science proves life came from god, so be it, I'll run with it. I don't expect that to happen though.
So tell me what is his 'opinion' which I assume comes at the end of his lecture.
12 May 19
@sonhouse saidScience cannot prove God, it can present evidence, but only God can prove God. I'm not going to around and round with you over this, your mind appears to be made up and closed to anything that might shake your world view.
Are you saying science can prove the existence of god? According to Popper, if you can't even in theory show a negative about a thesis it is not science but now in the realm of philosophy.
It is the religious set who belittles science, not me. If somehow science proves life came from god, so be it, I'll run with it. I don't expect that to happen though.
So tell me what is his 'opinion' which I assume comes at the end of his lecture.
12 May 19
@eladar saidLike I said a hundred times. Science grows, we are in kindergarten in science, it's only been around a couple hundred years, a tiny whiff of time on the cosmic clock. So come back in another hundred years and see what science says about it.
@sonhouse
I thought the question was about how life got its first start.
Either we can explain how life came into being by natural means or we cannot. If we cannot then there is no explanation for existance of life by natural means.
In the meantime, have fun jeering.
@sonhouse saidYou are bemoaning someone is with science is showing you not how wrong you are, only how big the issues really are! You have not once brought up anything besides this creed of yours, you just repeated, that someday it will be figured out.
Like I said a hundred times. Science grows, we are in kindergarten in science, it's only been around a couple hundred years, a tiny whiff of time on the cosmic clock. So come back in another hundred years and see what science says about it.
In the meantime, have fun jeering.
That is not science that is a statement of faith, totally based on wishful thinking.
You can not even watch a talk about something you disagree with without going off and being offended by someone who wants validation on facts not your creed, that someday someone figures it out because science is growing!
You should let the data lead not your feelings, facts don’t lie, while we can be fooled.
@kellyjay saidSo you are completely on board with the final conclusions, the only explanation is GODDIDIT. That is what I saw all along. That DOES diss the science behind OOL.
You are bemoaning someone is with science is showing you not how wrong you are, only how big the issues really are! You have not once brought up anything besides this creed of yours, you just repeated, that someday it will be figured out.
That is not science that is a statement of faith, totally based on wishful thinking.
You can not even watch a talk about something y ...[text shortened]... growing!
You should let the data lead not your feelings, facts don’t lie, while we can be fooled.
The reason I say we are still in kindergarten and we will know more tomorrow than we do today is because that has already happened in OOL studies. The first shot was done many decades ago with a flask hit by electricity and some common chemicals showing more complex stuff arose.
Now in century 21, re-analysis of the original experiment showed a lot more pre-biotic chemicals were made in that original experiment of long ago.
Read this:
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/research-center-a-hub-for-origins-of-life-studies/
And this:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
I realize you WILL point out the word MAY in that link but nobody says they have the answers.
I am just pointing out work is proceeding on the subject.
It was not faith leading me to these two links. There are many others.
12 May 19
@sonhouse saidYou can not get out of your creed in this discussion. All views discussed are either with you or against your views, that creed doesn’t look at the scientific evidence instead only who agrees and disagrees with your views.
So you are completely on board with the final conclusions, the only explanation is GODDIDIT. That is what I saw all along. That DOES diss the science behind OOL.
The reason I say we are still in kindergarten and we will know more tomorrow than we do today is because that has already happened in OOL studies. The first shot was done many decades ago with a flask hit by elec ...[text shortened]... proceeding on the subject.
It was not faith leading me to these two links. There are many others.
12 May 19
@kellyjay saidI go with the scientific evidence. I don't have a 'creed' about the issue. If science shows life on Earth or Mars or wherever could not have happened naturally, I'll fall in line. I DON"T have faith in GODDIDIT. Mainly because I bottom line believe all religions are man made, otherwise there would be ONE religion on Earth, and there would be 7 billion on the rolls but then you come out with "Free Will'
You can not get out of your creed in this discussion. All views discussed are either with you or against your views, that creed doesn’t look at the scientific evidence instead only who agrees and disagrees with your views.
thinking that gets you a get out of jail card. It doesn't. All it does is show movement of the goalpost. The thing is, your post here belongs in spiritual where there would be a debate over the religious implications of your buddie's posts.
You know good and well those two dudes are in it for the religion not the science.
They work in other fields, not specifically in OOL studies and therefore they are clearly in it to kill OOL research. They don't WANT humans to figure it out and will do anything in their power to stop it.
I imagine it is another effort like forcing creationism to be taught in science classes as if it were a real science and you know good and well creationism is NOT science, it is religion pure and simple no matter how you parse it, 'intelligent design', whatever or going to court using the latest ploy, 'freedom of information' where they want again, to force creationism to be taught in a science class.
You want to push creationism fine, just do it in the proper setting, religious studies.
When I asked you if the bottom line was for those dudes to imply or otherwise that men cannot EVER figure it out and therefore that was their agenda, you said, who DOESN"T have opinions.
But they presented their arguments based on science where they used organic chemistry to show it can't be natural to have life on Earth.
But I showed you posts where I said there was no faith on my part, there will and IS progress being made, and I doubt you even bothered to read those posts which could have been done in 10 minutes. But you expect me to listen to a total of 3 HOURS of video when you and I both know the agenda of the folks giving the so-called 'lecture'.
12 May 19
@eladar saidSpeak for yourself. Do you consider yourself immortal? It looks like I am on track for another quarter century or so, several of my maternal grandparents lived to be over 100. My mom is still alive and in Dec 29 this year she will be 100 and she reads every day. She called me up one day a couple of months ago asking about quantum superposition from an article she read in National Geographic.
@sonhouse
If science can prove it could not happen. So you believe your assumptions until science can prove otherwise.
Do you believe science can prove that a bio genesis is not possible in what few years you have left?
It turns out my musical creativity has vastly increased in the last 5 years more than it had in the last 40.
I now have 83 tracks of my own music on Soundcloud, over 50 of them originals and the rest traditional Irish and American tunes and songs sung by my wife and friends, recorded in our flat when we lived in Jerusalem.
I know also you have zero interest in any of that so I won't bother giving you a link.
12 May 19
@eladar saidYou think it's a big deal you may have 50 years or so? You think science will disprove the abiogenesis idea in that time frame also?
@sonhouse
So do you think science can prove a bio genesis is not true in the next 25 years? 25 years is just a few in the overall scheme of things.