subjective science

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Why do you think putting your faith in nothing is better
than putting your faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster??

If God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster were one and the same thing it would be a legitimate question. Why is it better to believe in nothing than in the God of the Bible?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
You beat me to it!

But we have him in a corner now!

Do you think he will acknowledge the existence of our deities?

I thought you were an atheist.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You submit you know what happens millions/billions of years ago do you not when it comes to the formation of life and some other things?

I'm stupid and ignorant, and yet realize a problem with your question. No one knows what happened when it didn't happen to them, and even if it did happen to us that doesn't mean we interpreted it correctly. So what are our best methods for understanding?

Because it matches our indoctrination? Because we like it? Because we were told?

We already know there is a better way to understand reality.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
You asked me these two questions:
"1. Do you disagree that a methane-ammonia-reducing atmosphere would be fatal to life-forms?
2. Also would you care to explain how the jump is made from amino-acids to life? And how this somehow involves the scientific method?"

Mind you, you had already ask me those two questions as a response to my post that con ...[text shortened]... pseudoscientific sources and you cultivate the obsession that "I keep on dodging". Interesting😵

It is a well known fact that the Urey-Miller experiment utilized water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). Do you deny this fact? Or do you deny that a methane-ammonia-reducing atmosphere would be fatal to life-forms? What is interesting is that instead of addressing the question directly you can only respond with ad-hominems. 😵

I gave you this link as well:
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl/

Are you going to attack the author of this article as well rather than deal with its contents? 😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Faith in scientific inquiry does not give a solid answer, it is always subject to change with some new piece of data. Faith is not just in God, ..,.,

What is this 'god' of which you speak? I suspect you mean a particular fantasy belief with no basis in reality.

I said your beliefs have no basis in reality. Because you have none. You make people seem stupid and ignorant.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yet you only trust what is acceptable according to specific peramaters which is treating that filter as important as doctrine. Granted you accept it can change if you see something new that warrants a change. This does however keep some things out of your acceptable filter that may be true nonetheless. This is faith in your process since all things acceptable must be processed properly to be acceptable.

Whatever is out of my ability to evaluate it, are simply not evaluated by me. I cannot make hypotheses for epistemic objects whose existence I ignore regardless of the reality or non-reality of their existence per se. Where exactly is faith in here?
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It is a well known fact that the Urey-Miller experiment utilized water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). Do you deny this fact? Or do you deny that a methane-ammonia-reducing atmosphere would be fatal to life-forms? What is interesting is that instead of addressing the question directly you can only respond with ad-hominems. 😵

I ...[text shortened]... re you going to attack the author of this article as well rather than deal with its contents? 😵

Do you understand that the experiment took place in the context of a specific theory of reality, according to which the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions? The experiment was done in order to demonstrate if the theory is viable or not. Do you understand that your question is irrelevant, and also aware of the fact that the experiment was conducted again and again with simulated atmospheres whose syntheses was different and yet the outcomes were supportive to the theory of abiogenesis, proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions?

As regards the author of this article, yes, he is a pseudoscient too, whose false assumptions are based on false and discarded assumptions of pseudoscients like Jonathan Wells and his league, amongst else.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Do you understand that the experiment took place in the context of a specific theory of reality, according to which the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions? The experiment was done in order to demonstrate if the theory is viable or not. Do you understand that your question is irrelevant, and also aware of ...[text shortened]... and discarded assumptions of pseudoscients like Jonathan Wells and his league, amongst else.
😵

Do you understand that no life forms arose spontaneously from said experiment and that you claiming that it demonstrates how first life forms could well have emerged spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions is wishful thinking at best? 😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster were one and the same thing it would be a legitimate question. Why is it better to believe in nothing than in the God of the Bible?

Better?
Who said anything about better?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Better?
Who said anything about better?

Worse it is then?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Whatever is out of my ability to evaluate it, are simply not evaluated by me. I cannot make hypotheses for epistemic objects whose existence I ignore regardless of the reality or non-reality of their existence per se. Where exactly is faith in here?
😵

In believing all the important answers can be found where and how you are looking.

Originally posted by @apathist
What is this 'god' of which you speak? I suspect you mean a particular fantasy belief with no basis in reality.

I said your beliefs have no basis in reality. Because you have none. You make people seem stupid and ignorant.

I am sure we have discussed this before and your being insulting here.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
In believing all the important answers can be found where and how you are looking.

I do not believe that😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I do not believe that😵

You believe the way your looking at everything within science isn't the proper way for inquiry into the life and the world around us? Maybe theses are not important questions? What!?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you understand that no life forms arose spontaneously from said experiment and that you claiming that it demonstrates how first life forms could well have emerged spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions is wishful thinking at best? 😵

I just told you that the experiment was conducted again and again with simulated atmospheres whose syntheses was different and yet the outcomes were supportive to the theory of abiogenesis, proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions.

How did you come to the false conclusion that "life forms arose spontaneously from said experiment" when you are repeatedly told that the outcome of the experiment was that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials?
😵