12 May 19
@eladar saidAh, yet another person totally blowing off OOL science. That was my whole point of not watching those three hours of video's since it was clear exactly what you think and what their agenda really was, not to present a factual lecture on the state of OOL studies, but to make the case that only GODDIDIT.
@sonhouse
No, I do not believe science will be able to show a bio genesis possible even in 50 years. This makes your statement anout giving up your belief in a bio genesis totally irrelevant since it can not happen.
I say you have only the next hundred years to gloat about that. Just an opinion, not based on faith but based on actual already noted growth in the science of OOL studies.
I further suggest you never bothered to read the two posts I put in here since you are set in your ways and nothing will change that. And if it happens that science DOES prove OOL to be natural in our lifetimes, you will reject that also, moving the goalpost once again.
12 May 19
@sonhouse saidIf you only went with the evidence you'd attempt to look at is as honestly as possible, but you don't. We have to take everything everyone says about the things we believe as something that could possibly poke a hole in our beliefs, if they cannot stand up to scrutiny they are not worth believing.
I 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 ...[text shortened]... of 3 HOURS of video when you and I both know the agenda of the folks giving the so-called 'lecture'.
You don't even allow for error, you don't allow for anyone using science to disagree with your creed. You didn't make it about an argument about data and findings, you simply said it was a "poo poo OOL science." in other words, don't argue with what you believe! Anything that does not line up with your already have solidified in your opinions on OOL, is poo pooing OOL science! You are acting as if that were a some holy text or something of that nature.
Those two people said that these are the things that have to be overcome they point out the issues and they acknowledge people were still trying too using science. If you cannot even look at OOL when what you believe is being under scrutiny, or tolerate it when it is, is that really science you have?
Science about testing and verification isn't it, isn't supposed to be about verification? We are not supposed to be filling in the blanks with wishful thinking, you have many blanks, you acknowledge you believe they will be filled in with what people will find later. That is a promise based on your hope, is that really science. When your arguments are all wrapped up in what the future holds instead of the facts we see today, you may as well throw chicken bones on the ground and call out what they tell you, it would carry the same weight.
Watch a whole lecture or don't, just stop pretending you know what they are all about, without giving them a fair hearing.
13 May 19
@kellyjay saidI don't have time to watch 3 hours of video. For one thing I have to be at work deep in New Jersey, an 80 mile one way trip and so I have to get up at 5 am just to get there by 8 and my wife is still ill.
If you only went with the evidence you'd attempt to look at is as honestly as possible, but you don't. We have to take everything everyone says about the things we believe as something that could possibly poke a hole in our beliefs, if they cannot stand up to scrutiny they are not worth believing.
You don't even allow for error, you don't allow for anyone using science to ...[text shortened]... or don't, just stop pretending you know what they are all about, without giving them a fair hearing.
That aside, it is easy to see the agenda so I don't have to go any further than that. Did you watch my much shorter posts about TODAY"S work on OOL? No? Why don't you read that. I have no problem with your guys saying we don't know how OOL started. I do have a problem with them concluding we will NEVER know how life started here. THAT kind of stance is clearly religious in nature. So tell me I am wrong, they are just posting lectures on the present level of OOL and are optimistic about solving the problem in the future.
13 May 19
@sonhouse saidSo you were never going to watch either. Why act otherwise there are many here who choose to not watch, and some possibly watched without comment. I want to discuss the content not justify anything beyond that. So I guess there is nothing to talk about here between us.
I don't have time to watch 3 hours of video. For one thing I have to be at work deep in New Jersey, an 80 mile one way trip and so I have to get up at 5 am just to get there by 8 and my wife is still ill.
That aside, it is easy to see the agenda so I don't have to go any further than that. Did you watch my much shorter posts about TODAY"S work on OOL? No? Why don't you re ...[text shortened]... ing lectures on the present level of OOL and are optimistic about solving the problem in the future.
13 May 19
@wildgrass saidOkay after having gone a few rounds with someone else, you were upfront and honest about not wanting to watch. I didn't really look hard, but I looked up these guys names and tried to find the text for the lectures, I saw some but none of them seemed like they were from the actual talks. If they have their talks in text form a search might find them.
Science is a method for creating knowledge. Its fine acknowledging the unknowns, in fact that is a critical part of experimental design. Its often exploited as a weakness however. For example, scientists acknowledge there are many unknowns as they relate to our climate. Deniers like to argue that, since we don't know everything we must not know anything.
Do you have a no ...[text shortened]... self? I would like to read it. YouTube is simply a vector for conspiracy theorists and toddler ADHD.
13 May 19
@kellyjay saidThe clue was a talk given in church. Come on, how can you sit there and try to say there was no religious agenda in those talks? Why would I waste 3 hours with that since I knew up front what their conclusions were going to be.
So you were never going to watch either. Why act otherwise there are many here who choose to not watch, and some possibly watched without comment. I want to discuss the content not justify anything beyond that. So I guess there is nothing to talk about here between us.
13 May 19
@sonhouse saidzzzzz
The clue was a talk given in church. Come on, how can you sit there and try to say there was no religious agenda in those talks? Why would I waste 3 hours with that since I knew up front what their conclusions were going to be.
13 May 19
@eladar saidThat is what I've been saying if the topic, and the material were faith based and not repeatable verifiable testing he would have an argument. He doesn't want to look at the science, the fact that someone is saying something that believes in God is enough to invalidate all that can be said, no matter how solid it is. Now his excuse are based on time, as if it is required that it has be watched all at once, and he cannot take a little time here, or there, to watch when he can. I don't even know why he keeps telling excuses why he doesn't watch them, none are required, I don't care one way or another.
@KellyJay
After all if they had any sort of religious belief it invalidates everything they said.
13 May 19
@kellyjay saidWhat is tested?
That is what I've been saying if the topic, and the material were faith based and not repeatable verifiable testing he would have an argument. He doesn't want to look at the science, the fact that someone is saying something that believes in God is enough to invalidate all that can be said, no matter how solid it is. Now his excuse are based on time, as if it is required tha ...[text shortened]... keeps telling excuses why he doesn't watch them, none are required, I don't care one way or another.
14 May 19
1 edit
@eladar saidI don't think so. It's an extremely complex process. We will also never demonstrate that intergalactic travel is possible.
@wildgrass
Lol
If we can demonstrate that a bio genesis possible.
It seems logical, however, that a simple replicating chemical system could have given rise to increasing levels of complexity. Even if we could hypothetically replicate the system, we would have no way of knowing that the way abiogenesis was created in the lab follows the historical path by which life on Earth came about. As I mentioned earlier, the distinction between life emerging in situ vs. extraterrestrial is not resolvable.
I would argue that the questions regarding the possibility of abiogenesis is not suitable for the current time. Let religion have this one. The question is not answerable using the scientific method given our existing knowledge. We can answer more focused questions though. In my view the diversity of life suggests a lot of natural experiments were conducted. Viruses and priors are non-cellular (and presumed to be non-living) yet they have replicative drive. Mycobacteria lack cell walls. The boundaries between chemistry, biochemistry and cells is tested in a variety of ways by parasites too.
@wildgrass
So you will simply believe a bio genesis is true without actually being able to reproduce it? Or say that you have no explanation of how life began?
14 May 19
@eladar saidNo. Why are you saying this?
@wildgrass
So you will simply believe a bio genesis is true without actually being able to reproduce it?