New version of the Miller-Urey life origin experiment:

Originally posted by Eladar
Faith is believing in something that you can't see. You believe that they will come up with something even though they have not done it. You believe in something that can't be seen. You have faith.

Faith is believing in something that you can't see.

-like the belief that there is a god. On the other hand, science isn't about faith because it is based entirely on things we CAN see; to be more specific, evidence. No faith there needed to believe the scientific evidence!

The evidence often proves that certain things exist which we cannot see (at least not directly, such as atoms ) but, again, because that is evidence based, believing those things we cannot see but that are indirectly proven by the evidence doesn't require faith -it only requires flawless logic.

Originally posted by humy

Faith is believing in something that you can't see.

-like the belief that there is a god..

Like belief in anything.

Originally posted by Eladar
Like belief in anything.

You still don't get it and it looks like, never will.
A scientist doesn't have faith in an experiment, he has results to find and he tries not to project what the experiment will result in. Could be what he suspects will happen but that is only a suspicion not a faith.

Again, you want to call it faith because you think that will some how give credibility to the thoroughly debunked idea the Earth is 6000 years old.

How can you look at places like the Grand Canyon or Red Rocks in Colorado or Mt Everest and even THINK these places could have been produced in a few thousand years?

It boggles my mind that people in the 21st century can even BEGIN to think like that after 300 years of solid scientific advancement.

You need to get out of the fringes of human thought and re-join the human race.

Originally posted by Eladar
Like belief in anything.

NO. NOT like belief in anything. NOT like the belief that the Earth is more spherical than flat or that 5+5=10. These things are clearly NOT faith-based because they are based on evidence and logic or just logic. If a belief is based on good evidence and flawless logic or just flawless logic then it is a rational belief and not faith by any sensible and complete definition of faith. Explain how believing that 5+5=10 must be just pure blind faith please....

Originally posted by humy
NO. NOT like belief in anything. NOT like the belief that the Earth is more spherical than flat or that 5+5=10. These things are clearly NOT faith-based because they are based on evidence and logic or just logic. If a belief is based on good evidence and flawless logic or just flawless logic then it is a rational belief and not faith by any sensible and complet ...[text shortened]... definition of faith. Explain how believing that 5+5=10 must be just pure blind faith please....

What makes you think your logic is flawless? Didn't your ilk evolve form a frog or rat or monkey or whatever?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What makes you think your logic is flawless? Didn't your ilk evolve form a frog or rat or monkey or whatever?

No we did not evolve from a rat or frog or monkey. You know that very well. You must really think we have no memory of your posts or something.

You and I and the rest of the human race evolved from a common ancestor in the deep past, the mammal lineage goes all the way past the time of the dinosaur's but humans, homo so-called Sapien's evolved from a past ancestor who gave the world Neanderthals and others now extinct.

You know that very well but continue to use it as a pejorative.

Why don't you take your scumball crap back to spiritual. Here you are just another troll spammer.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You still don't get it and it looks like, never will.
A scientist doesn't have faith in an experiment, he has results to find and he tries not to project what the experiment will result in. Could be what he suspects will happen but that is only a suspicion not a faith.

Again, you want to call it faith because you think that will some how give credibilit ...[text shortened]... advancement.

You need to get out of the fringes of human thought and re-join the human race.

I didn't say that a Scientist has faith, I said you have faith.

Originally posted by Eladar
I didn't say that a Scientist has faith, I said you have faith.

I am only an engineer but I have worked in science labs for 30 years. I wait till an experiment is finished before I draw conclusions.

I just did such an experiment today on a high vacuum system.

I had done the same test on the same equipment a week ago and did the same thing today.

Venting the system, cleaning it out with minimal IPA, closing it up, roughing down the vacuum to 40 microns, here is my experiment:

Rough to 40 microns, turn off roughing pump, time how long it takes to add 10 microns, ending at 50.

So the first time I tried that, it took about 4 minutes.

By the 5th try, it was taking over 40 minutes.

My conclusion was outgassing from the walls of the inside of the chamber was causing early times. Later, outgassing almost ceased and it took ten times longer.

So today I did the same experiment.

Except this time I had to do a much more thorough job, used a lot of IPA to clean inside surfaces.

Same thing, rough to 40, turn off roughing pump, time to 50.

This time it started off at 2:35 seconds.

And took 8 times to get to 4 times, double double of time.

I was a bit surprised by the longer times it took to double and such.

I had also recorded a few other parameters like the room temperature and humidity and time to pump back from 50 to 40.

I had to do the entire experiment 8 times so I could now reasonably conclude the added IPA (alcohol) was really adding to the outgassing internally so it took longer to get even close to the first experiment.

I also took down the times it took to pump from 50 back to 40 and saw a much smaller decrease each time, presumably it would reach an asymptote of time where no matter how many times I would repeat, the time to pump from 50 back to 40 would be about the same.

I saw that asymptote approach and reasoned that the first few times I pumped I was pumping out higher AMU molecules, IE, alcohol, IPA, and later only water vapor, N2, O2 and such, much lower AMU molecules.

So I went into these experiments with no faith at all. Had no idea what I would see.

As I built up data, I now know more than I did before about the vacuum system of that one machine and I will see if it applies to others of the same type.

There was no faith there, I didn't have a clue what the results would be and I didn't expect to find such a difference the second time round.

That is the nature of experimentation and science.

You don't project, have some kind of faith an experiment will turn out the way you think.

You leave your ego out of the equation completely and just record data and then figure out what happens later.

The problem with YOUR faith is your ego never leaves your head, you always project, have faith, that the age of the Earth is 6000 years old and no amount of further scientific examination of that hypothesis that would refute that would have any influence on the rational part of your mind at all.

Your dogma would stay the same. THAT is faith.

You know exactly what cognitive dissonance is.

You have it BIG TIME. You cannot process experiments and procedures that have fully refuted the Young Earth fairy tale a thousand times over.

All you can do is fall back on your own ego, your faith tells you no matter WHAT scientists come up with, they are wrong.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I am only an engineer but I have worked in science labs for 30 years. I wait till an experiment is finished before I draw conclusions.

I just did such an experiment today on a high vacuum system.

I had done the same test on the same equipment a week ago and did the same thing today.

Venting the system, cleaning it out with minimal IPA, closing it u ...[text shortened]... ck on your own ego, your faith tells you no matter WHAT scientists come up with, they are wrong.

You blather on about nothing. Go back and read what my comment was about: your faith in the scientists making the experiment better.

Originally posted by Eladar
You blather on about nothing. Go back and read what my comment was about: your faith in the scientists making the experiment better.

That is not faith but rather an inevitability. It is in the nature of science to build on both previous scientific discoveries and scientific experiments. Scientists have regularly improved on past experiments (I can give examples on request ) and there is no reason to think that they suddenly and mysterious stop doing so and make science stand still. That is because they, being scientists and generally most of them naturally caring about both progress and truth, would naturally want to and thus strive to continually improve/build on what science has already done or discovered. That is just part and parcel of what generally happens in science. This is extremely basic knowledge about science and you don't appear to have any clue (or choose not to. I don't know which ) of what science is really about.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No we did not evolve from a rat or frog or monkey. You know that very well. You must really think we have no memory of your posts or something.

You and I and the rest of the human race evolved from a common ancestor in the deep past, the mammal lineage goes all the way past the time of the dinosaur's but humans, homo so-called Sapien's evolved from a pas ...[text shortened]... hy don't you take your scumball crap back to spiritual. Here you are just another troll spammer.

Then you guys must not believe in the general theory of evolution, or is that EVIL-LUTION? You know when after millions of years a fish changes to a frog and millions of years more the frog changes to a prince.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then you guys must not believe in the general theory of evolution, or is that EVIL-LUTION? You know when after millions of years a fish changes to a frog and millions of years more the frog changes to a prince.

You know, if you actually studied evolution with a real text or something, you could come up with way better arguments than the drivel you just wrote.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You know, if you actually studied evolution with a real text or something, you could come up with way better arguments than the drivel you just wrote.

I probably could, but I consider it a waste of my time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I probably could, but I consider it a waste of my time.

So stop with the stupid arguments that you think you are going to try to convince anyone you are other than what you yourself labeled yourself, moron.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So stop with the stupid arguments that you think you are going to try to convince anyone you are other than what you yourself labeled yourself, moron.

this is why I have blocked his posts with software so that I don't ever see them -stops me constantly sighing in disappointment with my hand on my face shaking my head every time I see such posts totally devoid of even the slightest intelligence -that and him being condescending and arrogant to go with it.