|
Reasoned Faith
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: November 11, 2007, 02:01:04 PM » |
|
# Third, the crackpot spin-offs (at least, that's my opinion of these ideas!).
Yes, terms like "crackpot spinoff" are the hallmark of unbiased science, as are sentences in all caps.
I would be interested to read where AND FINALLY, in 2004, Chris McKay gives up (without saying so)., but unfortunately, the link leads to an error page.
Ultimately, he does bring up some very good points, but I would hardly call him unbiased.
Once again, I do not have a problem with bias as everyone with a viewpoint has bias. You have a bias, I have a bias and certainly Cowen displays bias. I took issue with your presentation of just one side of an argument. I note that Cowen presented both sides and this is why I don't find it ironic. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
|
« Reply #76 on: November 11, 2007, 07:57:56 PM » |
|
RF: I wonder if the geology class textbook you referenced is from a class you took or are taking? Is that where you're going to school, if you are still in school? http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/alien.html I imagine that the professor's position is very attractive to you, since it would cohere nicely with your religious beliefs. He seems to take the more pessimistic view of the possibility of life, although he later retreats from his initial "NO LIFE OUT THERE" position to a no "complex" or "intelligent" life position. From the beginning of this thead you have been arguing against the very possibility of any life anywhere else, intelligent or otherwise. You also brought with you an attitude that to think otherwise betrayed a lack of scientific credentials: "Without presupposition and if we bring in the empirical information we have gathered on life and the requirements for life, and we restrict causation to only material causes, we should conclude that life could not originate anywhere in this universe because the odds of spontaneous generation of even one self replicating biopolymer is so poor relative even to the total number of atoms in the entire universe (10^81)."I believe I've provided a wealth of information that shows that highly trained and respected scientists do not share your position. Since I am confident that they are almost certainly more knowledgeable than you in the science this involves, I am not at all pursuaded by your argument. Thank you for the links to the articles that give us a glimpse of how far science really is from understanding how life begins. This whole topic is indeed speculative. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
|
« Reply #77 on: November 11, 2007, 08:10:14 PM » |
|
By the way, the author of the textbook RF linked to sounds like a character. His response to NASA's announcement that evidence had been found of water having been on Mars was a bit over the top, IMO. http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/wateronmars.htmlNASA wasn't claiming that oceans of water or underground seas existed today, NASA was observing that there were geological features on Mars that were probably created by running water. Therefore Mars had running surface water at some time in its past. That's all they were saying. This guy's response was way too energetic for such a mild announcement, suggesting to me that he has some overweening sense of his own insights or an ax to grind about the subject of life in space, or something. It's certainly clear that he is obsessed with government spending, an irony, since he himself is on the government payroll. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #78 on: November 11, 2007, 08:18:02 PM » |
|
I believe I've provided a wealth of information that shows that highly trained and respected scientists do not share your position. Since I am confident that they are almost certainly more knowledgeable than you in the science this involves, I am not at all pursuaded by your argument.
The science this involved is chemistry, organic chemistry, biological and biomolecular chemistry. How many of your experts have these credentials? Perhaps I missed it but looking back, I don't see even one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
|
« Reply #79 on: November 11, 2007, 08:32:35 PM » |
|
The science this involved is chemistry, organic chemistry, biological and biomolecular chemistry. How many of your experts have these credentials? Perhaps I missed it but looking back, I don't see even one.
You're right. These Ph.D.s in astrophysics, who spend their entire academic lives and reputations on questions such as the possibility of life beyond Earth are no doubt utterly oblivious to the many devastating critiques by their collegues in related scientific fields which render these pathetic astrophysicists' efforts futile. As you know, in all your undergraduate wisdom, scientific fields are hermetically sealed and there is no intercommunication whatsoever. Each scientific discipline operates in its own universe. Lord help us if they ever met at the faculty dining facility and started, you know, comparing notes. Chaos would reign, and mere anarchy loosed upon all creation. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 07:03:48 PM by jpn of Seattle »
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #80 on: November 20, 2007, 12:01:40 PM » |
|
So the undergraduate still contends that life beginning without The Hand of God is basically impossible, while the Ph. D.s contend it's entirely possible; indeed, some of them contend it's almost inevitable (see my posts above).
Why is anyone taking the undergraduate seriously?
You only indict yourself when you misrepresent your opponents position. Credentials do not make for a good scientific argument and neither does conjecture. A sound scientific basis requires empirical data a sound explanation for the data that comports with observation and a physical basis. Your friends with Ph D.'s don't have this information. Your articles in the posts above don't provide this information. Where is the empirical evidence that I am in err? You don't have it. Water, organic materials, and suitable physical conditions are indeed necessary for life, but they are not sufficient. Life also requires a great deal of information in order to preserve process, development and body plans. It is these additional requirements that raise the bar and make it so difficult for chemic evolution to be a serious contender. Oh, I missed this little gem. RF, you are claiming that a sound scientific basis requires empirical data and a sound explanation for the data, and that it comports with observation, etc... He's the delicious irony. The PhD's in quesstion are the ones collecting the data! They are the ones doing the research, they are the ones who have proven their methodology in front of a panel of their peers, and their livelihood depends on them doing a good job. You are collecting your "data" from Creationist websites. You are simply regurgitating other peoples commentary on somones work! What data have you collected with respect to origin of life? What studies have YOU made? Come on, RF, you have indicted and sentenced yourself. You are stretching all limits of your credibility. Where is YOUR empirical data? Where are your peer reviewed studies? Hell, you won't even post on a science forum but hang here with people who continually admit that they are either novices or disinterested. You have some gall to accuse people of things you have been doing in spades. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #81 on: November 21, 2007, 04:35:24 PM » |
|
So the undergraduate still contends that life beginning without The Hand of God is basically impossible, while the Ph. D.s contend it's entirely possible; indeed, some of them contend it's almost inevitable (see my posts above).
Why is anyone taking the undergraduate seriously?
You only indict yourself when you misrepresent your opponents position. Credentials do not make for a good scientific argument and neither does conjecture. A sound scientific basis requires empirical data a sound explanation for the data that comports with observation and a physical basis. Your friends with Ph D.'s don't have this information. Your articles in the posts above don't provide this information. Where is the empirical evidence that I am in err? You don't have it. Water, organic materials, and suitable physical conditions are indeed necessary for life, but they are not sufficient. Life also requires a great deal of information in order to preserve process, development and body plans. It is these additional requirements that raise the bar and make it so difficult for chemic evolution to be a serious contender. Oh, I missed this little gem. RF, you are claiming that a sound scientific basis requires empirical data and a sound explanation for the data, and that it comports with observation, etc... He's the delicious irony. The PhD's in quesstion are the ones collecting the data! They are the ones doing the research, they are the ones who have proven their methodology in front of a panel of their peers, and their livelihood depends on them doing a good job. The astronomers that jpn referenced are not collecting data on potential chemic pathways to life. Your irony argument is going down in flames. You are collecting your "data" from Creationist websites. You are simply regurgitating other peoples commentary on somones work! Have a look at the articles I linked and make that claim again. What data have you collected with respect to origin of life? What studies have YOU made?
Come on, RF, you have indicted and sentenced yourself. You are stretching all limits of your credibility.
Where is YOUR empirical data? Where are your peer reviewed studies? You are hanging yourself barney. Have a look at the links I provided. Hell, you won't even post on a science forum but hang here with people who continually admit that they are either novices or disinterested. You have some gall to accuse people of things you have been doing in spades.
I am embarrassed for you barney, throw off the noose before it is too late. Here is an accurate assessment of what one expert on this topic has to say about the topic: Origins of life pioneer Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological studies (the “father” of RNA world - the idea that RNA molecules came first), had made the difficulties clear. For example, he said, There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously - and every reason to believe they cannot The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible.
(The Language of the Genes, Revised Edition, London, harper Collins, 2000, p. 35, quoted in John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God (London: Lion 2007), pp. 134–35) Orgel’s New York Times obit makes indicates the situation: Writing in the journal Nature in 2006, Dr. Orgel reflected on his quest to comprehend the 4.5 billion years of life on Earth, a history that he described as “chaotic intellectual territory.”
Beyond the rudimentary timeline, he said, “almost everything else about the origin of life remains obscure.”
He added that only further and more penetrating research could reveal “the detailed steps that led from unconstrained abiotic chemistry to the organized complexity of biochemistry.” |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 08:02:41 AM by Reasoned Faith »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
|
« Reply #82 on: November 21, 2007, 07:27:26 PM » |
|
Why does this thread remind me so much of discussions with conservatives about global warming?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #83 on: November 22, 2007, 06:29:43 AM » |
|
Why does this thread remind me so much of discussions with conservatives about global warming?
Perhaps it is because your prejudice is so strong that you have closed your mind to the alternatives. Then when someone attempts to show you evidence that supports an alternative better, it runs smack into your prejudicial brick wall. Perhaps the problem is that the receiver has been switched off. I urge you to examine your underlying assumptions that cause you to favor the positions you take and open your mind to the possibility that your assumptions are not as sound as you think they are. Then you can have an open and frank discussion of the issue without immediately rejecting the alternatives and prejudicially concluding that your opponent is in error. Once you have done this, you can weigh the evidence on its own merit rather than falling back to the logical fallacy of appealing to authority (in your case the authority that agrees with your prejudice). I am quite certain that you are capable of understanding the issues in detail and reaching your own evidence based conclusions rather than relying on someone else to support your prejudice. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
|
« Reply #84 on: November 22, 2007, 08:02:10 AM » |
|
Why does this thread remind me so much of discussions with conservatives about global warming?
Perhaps it is because your prejudice is so strong that you have closed your mind to the alternatives. I believe psychologists call this "projection"... I urge you to examine your underlying assumptions that cause you to favor the positions you take and open your mind to the possibility that your assumptions are not as sound as you think they are. So, I should no longer assume that I must rely on the physical world alone to explain itself? I should no longer assume that the supernatural does not exist? I should "open my mind" to the possibility of superstitions, ghosts, phantoms, a spirit world, life after death, and basically anything else my imagination can conjur up, despite the utter lack of evidence of its existance? I must reject rock-ribbed scientific theories because they don't admit any space for my wishful imaginings? Thanks. But no thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #85 on: November 22, 2007, 08:52:23 AM » |
|
Why does this thread remind me so much of discussions with conservatives about global warming?
Exactly, RF has taken one quote out of context and that doesn't even represent the true position of the scientific community. That is, Orgel is saying that the spontaneous creation of a long chain is unlikely. No one claims this except RF. RF claims that a perfect, exceptionally long chain (god) sprang spontaneously and then spontaneously created a long chain on Earth. Orgel is saying this is so preposterous that anyone claiming it should go back to school. RF, if he claims that this couldn't happen, why do you propose that it did happen? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #86 on: November 22, 2007, 09:41:00 AM » |
|
Why does this thread remind me so much of discussions with conservatives about global warming?
Perhaps it is because your prejudice is so strong that you have closed your mind to the alternatives. I believe psychologists call this "projection"... I urge you to examine your underlying assumptions that cause you to favor the positions you take and open your mind to the possibility that your assumptions are not as sound as you think they are. So, I should no longer assume that I must rely on the physical world alone to explain itself? Now you are projecting. I will take this as confirmation that you believe projections could be valid. In this case though it is not. You should rely on the physical world to confirm theories of the physical world. You should not appeal to authority to support a weak position that you are unable to defend. I should no longer assume that the supernatural does not exist? where did I ask you to accept something supernatural? I should "open my mind" to the possibility of superstitions, ghosts, phantoms, a spirit world, life after death, and basically anything else my imagination can conjur up, despite the utter lack of evidence of its existance?
I did not ask you to do this either. I did ask you to consider the evidence for chemistry, theormodynamics (physical chemisty) and biology that indicates life from non-life by random chemic processes is unreasonably improbable, while genetic engineers continue to confirm the intentional design and reverse engineering processes are quite capable of coaxing out the required chemical pathways. Design is a valid answer to life from non-life while blind chemic evolution is not. This is what the evidence is telling us. This best represents the reality starring us in the face. This representation of where we are has nothing to do with supernaturalism or superstitions or imagination. It is the real world. Imagination is the idea that chance and chemistry could somehow conspire to create life from non-life. That is imagination. Appealing to infinite universes to cover the unimaginably poor odds or simply ignoring the poor odds is also imagination and it is childish or blissful ignorance. I must reject rock-ribbed scientific theories because they don't admit any space for my wishful imaginings?
Thanks. But no thanks. How ironic since your speculations about life from non-life only survives on imagination. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #87 on: November 22, 2007, 09:50:36 AM » |
|
Why does this thread remind me so much of discussions with conservatives about global warming?
Exactly, RF has taken one quote out of context and that doesn't even represent the true position of the scientific community. That is, Orgel is saying that the spontaneous creation of a long chain is unlikely. Out of context? This is precisely my point. You got it spot on and then you claim I take it out of context? Do I detect a bias against me? No one claims this except RF. RF claims that a perfect, exceptionally long chain (god) sprang spontaneously and then spontaneously created a long chain on Earth. I don't make this claim. You are a fraud barney. You are a liar and worse. Orgel is saying this is so preposterous that anyone claiming it should go back to school. Indeed preposterous. Preposterous that chemic evolution accounts for spontaneously creating self-replicating polymers. RF, if he claims that this couldn't happen, why do you propose that it did happen?
I concur with Orgle that this couldn't happen. Your attempts to improperly reframe my argument is shameful. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #88 on: November 22, 2007, 04:02:06 PM » |
|
Then how did it happen if it couldn't have happened?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #89 on: November 22, 2007, 04:40:42 PM » |
|
Then how did it happen if it couldn't have happened?
It happened by another mechanism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
