|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2007 : 09:53:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
Where is it shown that life cannot come from non-life??
|
IF |
Right. So what's your point, again? |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 10:08:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Test the hypothesis again and again. If the multitude of experiments do not show life coming from non life than science should reject that hypothesis. I think these experiments will continue for a long time; if science gives up the hypothesis it if only left with life coming from other life, as such the possibility of God.
|
I suspect that at some point possibly within our lifetimes that this gap in our knowledge will be filled. Thereby, limiting your God to smaller and fewer gaps. There is always denial I guess. But for someone who supports the "GidDidIt" hypothesis that should come naturally.
By the way. You support a "GodDidIt" hypothesis, but you have not identified any tests, you haven't provided any links to such tests, nor have you identified any other source for such tests. And you claim that such tests are being done. Why is that you continue to fail to support your assertions when asked countless times for such information? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 10:12:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
Define "life" for us.
|
As my definitions rarely suit these talks, I propose you provide a scientific definition.
According to Websters:
an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
According to science there is no currently accepted definition.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 10:16:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Test the hypothesis again and again. If the multitude of experiments do not show life coming from non life than science should reject that hypothesis. I think these experiments will continue for a long time; if science gives up the hypothesis it if only left with life coming from other life, as such the possibility of God.
|
I suspect that at some point possibly within our lifetimes that this gap in our knowledge will be filled. Thereby, limiting your God to smaller and fewer gaps. There is always denial I guess. But for someone who supports the "GidDidIt" hypothesis that should come naturally.
By the way. You support a "GodDidIt" hypothesis, but you have not identified any tests, you haven't provided any links to such tests, nor have you identified any other source for such tests. And you claim that such tests are being done. Why is that you continue to fail to support your assertions when asked countless times for such information?
|
The logical conclusion of the study of abiogenesis; if this hypothesis is rejected, is another life form initiated life on earth.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 10:22:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
As my definitions rarely suit these talks, I propose you provide a scientific definition.
According to Websters:
an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
According to science there is no currently accepted definition. |
Webster's definition will do for the purposes of this discussion.
Do you agree that non-living things can exhibit one or more of those four criteria?
A forest fire, for just one example, exhibits three out of the four criteria for life - the only one it's missing is "reaction to stimuli."
A computer, on the other hand, can react to stimuli, but lacks the other three conditions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 10:49:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave said:
| Do you agree that non-living things can exhibit one or more of those four criteria? |
Agreed.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:06:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The logical conclusion of the study of abiogenesis; if this hypothesis is rejected, is another life form initiated life on earth. |
If this hypothesis is rejected, then we're left with "we don't know" how life began. It is not evidence in favor of the "goddidit" hypothesis, which would need to be tested on it's merits in order to suffice. A lack of evidence for natural abiogenesis is not positive evidence for your "hypothesis," Jerome.
And as I stated, you're already ignoring quite a bit of evidence in favor of natural abiogenesis already in the mistaken belief that this will somehow elevate the "goddidit" conjecture to an equal playing field. It won't.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:14:20 [Permalink]
|
HH, A lack of evidence for a natural "other life" causing life on earth is not positive evidence for your hypothesis of abiogenesis.
By the way, at what point is a hypothesis deemed invalid according to the scientific method?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:39:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HH, A lack of evidence for a natural "other life" causing life on earth is not positive evidence for your hypothesis of abiogenesis. |
No, it's not. Which is why HH noted that if you're going to posit that Yahweh created life on earth, you'd have to find some way to test that hypothesis. And good luck with that! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:39:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HH, A lack of evidence for a natural "other life" causing life on earth is not positive evidence for your hypothesis of abiogenesis.
By the way, at what point is a hypothesis deemed invalid according to the scientific method?
|
When it is proven false; when it is found to untestable; when it's test results cannot be duplicated. No reputable scientist would continue the research beyond these points.
Remember Fleishmann & Pons?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:57:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HH, A lack of evidence for a natural "other life" causing life on earth is not positive evidence for your hypothesis of abiogenesis. |
Yes, and thankfully no one counts it as such. Abiogenesis has no problem coming up with lots of positive evidence in its favor all on its own. It doesn't need to rely on negative argumentation, unlike your conjecture.
| By the way, at what point is a hypothesis deemed invalid according to the scientific method? |
When a better one comes along, so obviously "goddidit" will never qualify.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/06/2007 11:57:43 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 12:08:16 [Permalink]
|
HH said:
| Abiogenesis has no problem coming up with lots of positive evidence in its favor all on its own. |
Such as?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 12:40:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HH said:
| Abiogenesis has no problem coming up with lots of positive evidence in its favor all on its own. |
Such as? |
Such as all the articles which have been linked in this thread that you refuse to read. Such as the fact that all life is chemistry, and that the chemical precursors to life have been found to form even in deep space. Or that scientists can already make viruses from scratch with off the shelf chemicals. All of this evidence points to a single conclusion--that life has a natural chemical origin, one which scientists are racing to uncover at this very moment--despite your unfounded "faith" in its impossibility.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 13:28:06 [Permalink]
|
trollboy said:
| The logical conclusion of the study of abiogenesis; if this hypothesis is rejected, is another life form initiated life on earth. |
You really are mentally handicapped, aren't you?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 14:11:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HH, A lack of evidence for a natural "other life" causing life on earth is not positive evidence for your hypothesis of abiogenesis.
By the way, at what point is a hypothesis deemed invalid according to the scientific method?
|
When it is proven false; when it is found to untestable; when it's test results cannot be duplicated. No reputable scientist would continue the research beyond these points.
Remember Fleishmann & Pons?
|
Also, when the hypothesis fails to make predictions, or is inherently unfalsifiable. ID/Creationism (goddidit) makes no valid predictions, and is not falsifiable.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
Abiogenesis
