Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

Your choice. You keep writing your made up fallacies and I won't bother with you.

Denial of logic. Inversion fallacy. No argument presented. You also seem to be bothering with me, making you a liar.

 

[Into the Night]

No, criticism does. A concept that evades you.

An argument of the stone is a fallacy, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

The word abiogenesis denotes life arising out of lifeless matter—somehow or other.

You have faith that it really happened that way, right?

Apparently he does. So?

 

[Into the Night]

I’m open to the possibility it *didn’t* happen and that it’s *scientifically* impossible for lifeless matter to self-arrange into living things.

If that makes me a ‘creationist’ so be it.

I assume you are referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Yes...this is a valid argument against the Theory of Abiogenesis.

 

[Into the Night]

science has concluded it had a beginning........

Science is not conclusions. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has NO theory about past unobserved events. It does not say anything about whether there was an ultimate beginning.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm open to the possibility that the only people claiming they know how life began are fucking morons.

If that makes me an arrogant asshole, so be it.

Not morons, just religious.

 

[Into the Night]

No.

Believing that inert chemicals organized themselves into self replicating cells was somehow providential does not make you a creationist.

In common parlance, a biblical creationist is someone who believes all life was created as it exists today by divine intervention, and literally consistent with the mythology written in the Jewish scripture of Genesis.

Nope. Not even a biblical creationist automatically discards the effects of evolution.

 

[Into the Night]

I wiah I had not mentioned Karl Popper several months ago, becasuse now you decided to latch on to his philosophy of science and make it your religion, and Popper your deity.

Fixation. Argument of the stone fallacy. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

Even my own personal theory,
that the universe and all that exists within it are merely the result of the random confluence of sub atomic particles in the vacuum of infinite space,
cannot explain the source of the sub-atomic particles.

Fine.

The big bang's initial super-mass had to itself have a source before exploding into an infinite expansion which is the universe as it exists today.
And what came before that?

According to the Theory of the Big Bang, there was nothing before that. No universe...no nothing.

We as a species haven't the bio/chemical/mechanical computing power to figure that out, obviously.
We can only think in time -relative terms.

We are locked in time, marked by our own births and deaths. Outside of this, time has little meaning, other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

But we've been all too good, it seems, at making shit up.

Such as?

The Talmud.
The Bible.
The Koran.
The Internet.

So I gather you believe all these works to be fiction, including the entire contents of the internet itself.

 

[Into the Night]

abiogenesis is not a hypothesis,

Correct. It is a theory. A nonscientific theory. It is also a religion.

that is why it is not falsifiable.

Nope. It is not falsifiable because no one can go back in time to see what actually happened.

Abiogenesis is a fact, by the standards of science.

Religion is not science. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Self-replicating cells really did emerge from a pre-biotic soup in the remote past, and this can be demostrated by fossil evidence and isotopic data.

Fossils are not pre-biotic soup. Isotopes do not contain genetic information nor indicate any history.

Abiogenesis actually happened, so no one is wasting their time trying to falsify it.

It is not possible to prove any circular argument True or False. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Attempted proof by assertion.

Scientists should ultimately be able to devise experiments to corroborate or refute the proposed hypothetical mechanisms for abiogenesis,

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

aka the RNA hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, etc.

Word salad. Try using English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

Please don't. I never heard of Popper until you mentioned him in this thread.

He thinks I learned all about Karl Popper from him. He's an idiot...and also arrogant.

INT is intelligent, but insane. Just because he latches onto something as mentally ill people often do, shouldn't cause intelligent and sane people from open discussion on anything that interests them.

Psychoquackery.

If you'd never mentioned Popper, I might have never looked him up.

Do more than just look him up. Get a book containing his philosophies. He makes some pretty powerful arguments...and not just about the definition of 'science'.

Cypress is desperately trying to deny science, confusing his religion with science.

 

[Into the Night]

Good point. At this point, there is no way to rule out life was seeded here.

There is some speculation life on earth came from Mars via meteorites, as Mars was probably hospitable to life 3.5 billion years ago.

Not possible. Mars is too small, and therefore does not have sufficient atmosphere nor liquid water.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed. It's possible life began on Mars and was transported here naturally or unnaturally by unknown forces. Again, despite the complaints of some members, it all goes under the file heading of "UNKNOWN".

Not possible. Mars is too small. It could never have developed a sufficient atmosphere nor liquid water.

 

[Into the Night]

I agree. The limitations of language place us at a disadvantage to even cogently discuss some of the deeper mysteries of physics and cosmology.

It really all has to be communicated in the language of higher mathematics.

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad. Try again...this time in English.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed....and if that math goes higher than algebra and a little Trig, I'm out.

Most of my math is formulas such as F = MA, about as high as I go but mostly Time Distance equations and fuel burn per hour or mile.

F=mA is, in my opinion, the most significant bit of physics so far to date. Newton did something that no one else was really able to: start to ask questions about what 'Force' really is, what 'mass' really is, and what 'acceleration' really is. Simply trying to answer these simple questions has brought about many new theories of science.
It is, in my opinion, more important then E=mc^2 in what it has done for science.

 

[Into the Night]

How can I have a faith in it? That doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how it happened. But I DO know it had origin(s) on Earth. An origin could be from aliens seeding Earth. That as a valid theory as others.

This is a statement of faith.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, there is a record of ancient single celled archaeon, cyanobacteria, and prokaryotes in Earth's fossil record. This is corroborated in some cases by isotopic data

It is shocking that anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion of life's origins would be oblivious to that scientific fact.

Science isn't buzzwords. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

you're dumb and a waste of time

Since the discussion is before the Big Bang and there is no time, what is being wasted???

 

[Into the Night]

He's just trying - in a really forced kind of way - to make it sound like as much of a religion as actual religion.

People don't worship or have "faith" in anything related to abiogenesis. It's just a fact that life arose at some point. And probably many points. It isn't that mystical - the ability to replicate is all that's required.

Not a fact. An argument. The Theory of Abiogenesis is a nonscientific theory. It remains a circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. You cannot prove any circular argument either True nor False.

 

[Into the Night]

Falsification is an element of scientific practice, but your worship of Karl Popper's criteria of demarcation does not reflect the reality of how professional science is practiced.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? I do not worship Karl Popper. Bulverism fallacy.

Popper had a misplaced impression of a triumphant progression of science based on the relentless falsification of bogus theories to shrink the scope of our ignorance.

Obviously you have never read his philosophies.

That is not the way it works.

Science doesn't 'work'. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less.

Scientific progress would be at a virtual standstill if we took Karl Popper literally at his word.

Why?

We did not throw out Newton's theories of gravitation because the phenomena of dark energy seemed to contradict Newtonian mechanics.

There is no need to discard Newton's theory (not theories) of gravitation because of a buzzword.

We are not going to discard the theory of general relativity because we discovered it does not work at quantum scales.

It was not supposed to. Divisional error fallacy.

Science is going to progress by inference to the best explanation as much as it does by Popper's philosophy of science.

Paradox. Which is it, dude?