|
Post by goz on Sept 23, 2020 22:11:28 GMT
I think this is a digression.
We want to know the basis of your claims. This isn't about where you've been, who you've worked for and what you've done. This is simply us asking you to support your contentions.
I contend the natural world is probably the explanation for all that we are aware of.
If you do not agree with that and think that something besides the natural world provides a (better) explanation, describe this 'other thing' and how you know...or can even have any idea that...it is a better explanation.
It's really quite simple. Just provide the data/results/observations. Otherwise admit you're basing your contention on faith and I'll be satisified.
Which lab results support my contentions? They all do. There are lots and lots of them. People have been trying to observe life assemble "randomly" since the time of Darwin and the journey has proved too steep up the ladder out of entropy time after time. That's why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a "law," not a theory. They are totally out of things to try. Time has proved that tornadoes do not assemble automobiles and the story of the origin of life is not a "false equivalence." It very much likewise cannot happen. That is the rather obvious reason life is not assembling itself after almost a century of research most of it with a complete catalog of possible agencies. What I did that no one did exactly before is call "time!" Before people had been allowing the assembly of life to happen "eventually" given millions of years of "random" actions. I noted that there are no random agencies and such agencies as there are have limited characteristics and express their entire repertoire in a short amount of time. No more waiting. Do something or get off the pot. Self replicating RNA chains developing longer and longer chains were the last hope of the "random" assembly team. After about 40 links those little buggers tear up the longer chains. That means in the prebiotic world the smaller links have the competitive advantage. Now guess what that means. s You may "contend" whatever you like, but you obviously failed the science. To me, it is entirely plausible that a 'lab' cannot recreate the conditions under which first life started. (yet?)However start it did, because we are here typing on computers as humans and there is scientific proof of our origins via Darwinism and the geological record.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2020 22:29:05 GMT
Which lab results support my contentions? They all do. There are lots and lots of them. People have been trying to observe life assemble "randomly" since the time of Darwin and the journey has proved too steep up the ladder out of entropy time after time. That's why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a "law," not a theory. They are totally out of things to try. Time has proved that tornadoes do not assemble automobiles and the story of the origin of life is not a "false equivalence." It very much likewise cannot happen. That is the rather obvious reason life is not assembling itself after almost a century of research most of it with a complete catalog of possible agencies. What I did that no one did exactly before is call "time!" Before people had been allowing the assembly of life to happen "eventually" given millions of years of "random" actions. I noted that there are no random agencies and such agencies as there are have limited characteristics and express their entire repertoire in a short amount of time. No more waiting. Do something or get off the pot. Self replicating RNA chains developing longer and longer chains were the last hope of the "random" assembly team. After about 40 links those little buggers tear up the longer chains. That means in the prebiotic world the smaller links have the competitive advantage. Now guess what that means. s You may "contend" whatever you like, but you obviously failed the science. To me, it is entirely plausible that a 'lab' cannot recreate the conditions under which first life started. (yet?)However start it did, because we are here typing on computers as humans and there is scientific proof of our origins via Darwinism and the geological record. Laboratories can create a temperature of -273.15° C, or 0° K, or "absolute zero." There is no colder than that. Laboratories can create temperature too hot for any structures to withstand, much less life. There is no pressure, high or low, not destructive of all life, that laboratories cannot create. The notion that there is something yet to be tried where the tornado will finally assemble an automobile is certifiably insane.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 23, 2020 22:53:44 GMT
I think this is a digression.
We want to know the basis of your claims. This isn't about where you've been, who you've worked for and what you've done. This is simply us asking you to support your contentions.
I contend the natural world is probably the explanation for all that we are aware of.
If you do not agree with that and think that something besides the natural world provides a (better) explanation, describe this 'other thing' and how you know...or can even have any idea that...it is a better explanation.
It's really quite simple. Just provide the data/results/observations. Otherwise admit you're basing your contention on faith and I'll be satisified.
Which lab results support my contentions? They all do. There are lots and lots of them. People have been trying to observe life assemble "randomly" since the time of Darwin and the journey has proved too steep up the ladder out of entropy time after time. That's why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a "law," not a theory. They are totally out of things to try. Time has proved that tornadoes do not assemble automobiles and the story of the origin of life is not a "false equivalence." It very much likewise cannot happen. That is the rather obvious reason life is not assembling itself after almost a century of research most of it with a complete catalog of possible agencies. What I did that no one did exactly before is call "time!" Before people had been allowing the assembly of life to happen "eventually" given millions of years of "random" actions. I noted that there are no random agencies and such agencies as there are have limited characteristics and express their entire repertoire in a short amount of time. No more waiting. Do something or get off the pot. Self replicating RNA chains developing longer and longer chains were the last hope of the "random" assembly team. After about 40 links those little buggers tear up the longer chains. That means in the prebiotic world the smaller links have the competitive advantage. Now guess what that means. You may "contend" whatever you like, but you obviously failed the science. And you have failed to address the issue. The issue isn't what we don't know about the natural world. The issue is about the 'other' world you wish to defer to and whether IT CAN BE the...source of natural life. You've not addressed that. I'll wait.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2020 23:09:26 GMT
Which lab results support my contentions? They all do. There are lots and lots of them. People have been trying to observe life assemble "randomly" since the time of Darwin and the journey has proved too steep up the ladder out of entropy time after time. That's why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a "law," not a theory. They are totally out of things to try. Time has proved that tornadoes do not assemble automobiles and the story of the origin of life is not a "false equivalence." It very much likewise cannot happen. That is the rather obvious reason life is not assembling itself after almost a century of research most of it with a complete catalog of possible agencies. What I did that no one did exactly before is call "time!" Before people had been allowing the assembly of life to happen "eventually" given millions of years of "random" actions. I noted that there are no random agencies and such agencies as there are have limited characteristics and express their entire repertoire in a short amount of time. No more waiting. Do something or get off the pot. Self replicating RNA chains developing longer and longer chains were the last hope of the "random" assembly team. After about 40 links those little buggers tear up the longer chains. That means in the prebiotic world the smaller links have the competitive advantage. Now guess what that means. You may "contend" whatever you like, but you obviously failed the science. And you have failed to address the issue. The issue isn't what we don't know about the natural world. The issue is about the 'other' world you wish to defer to and whether IT CAN BE the...source of natural life. You've not addressed that. I'll wait. Actually the original source of life is not known. That is the point. It is not found in "nature" or anywhere else you might imagine. What else is there to do here? What am I supposed to connect with what exactly? What you might want is a better understanding of the "psi" particle that indeed has not been found, or if it has it was never reported. I do not mean the J/psi particle, that is something entirely different and off topic and claimed to be found. I mean the "psi" particle that is the hypothetical material world transducer of thought.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Sept 23, 2020 23:20:03 GMT
I'd post a lot of nudie pics, but I'd get kicked off.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 23, 2020 23:32:10 GMT
And you have failed to address the issue. The issue isn't what we don't know about the natural world. The issue is about the 'other' world you wish to defer to and whether IT CAN BE the...source of natural life. You've not addressed that. I'll wait. Actually the original source of life is not known. That is the point. It is not found in "nature" or anywhere else you might imagine. What else is there to do here? What am I supposed to connect with what exactly? What you might want is a better understanding of the "psi" particle that indeed has not been found, or if it has it was never reported. I do not mean the J/psi particle, that is something entirely different and off topic and claimed to be found. I mean the "psi" particle that is the hypothetical material world transducer of thought. So if you don't know the source of life you don't know that it's not natural. All you can say is it hasn't been found in nature yet. So we're on the same page. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 23, 2020 23:39:06 GMT
Which lab results support my contentions? They all do. There are lots and lots of them. People have been trying to observe life assemble "randomly" since the time of Darwin and the journey has proved too steep up the ladder out of entropy time after time. That's why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a "law," not a theory. They are totally out of things to try. Time has proved that tornadoes do not assemble automobiles and the story of the origin of life is not a "false equivalence." It very much likewise cannot happen. That is the rather obvious reason life is not assembling itself after almost a century of research most of it with a complete catalog of possible agencies. What I did that no one did exactly before is call "time!" Before people had been allowing the assembly of life to happen "eventually" given millions of years of "random" actions. I noted that there are no random agencies and such agencies as there are have limited characteristics and express their entire repertoire in a short amount of time. No more waiting. Do something or get off the pot. Self replicating RNA chains developing longer and longer chains were the last hope of the "random" assembly team. After about 40 links those little buggers tear up the longer chains. That means in the prebiotic world the smaller links have the competitive advantage. Now guess what that means. s You may "contend" whatever you like, but you obviously failed the science. To me, it is entirely plausible that a 'lab' cannot recreate the conditions under which first life started. (yet?)However start it did, because we are here typing on computers as humans and there is scientific proof of our origins via Darwinism and the geological record. This reminds me a of story about when the first Russian cosmonaut was sent into orbit, the story goes that he looked outside his capsule and didn't see God...so he guessed God didn't exist. I'm sure he was just joking, but we see that some people really do think that way. If we haven't found something in...oh wow, a hundred years in a handful of labs around the world under a few hundred or thousand conditions...it just couldn't have happened despite the fact that there were hundreds of millions of years and an almost infinite number of 'mini-laboratories' representing a myriad of conditions...many of which we don't and probably can't know.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 0:11:46 GMT
To me, it is entirely plausible that a 'lab' cannot recreate the conditions under which first life started. (yet?)However start it did, because we are here typing on computers as humans and there is scientific proof of our origins via Darwinism and the geological record. Laboratories can create a temperature of -273.15° C, or 0° K, or "absolute zero." There is no colder than that. Laboratories can create temperature too hot for any structures to withstand, much less life. There is no pressure, high or low, not destructive of all life, that laboratories cannot create. The notion that there is something yet to be tried where the tornado will finally assemble an automobile is certifiably insane. So, YOU are now claiming to know the conditions upon which life started? WOW!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 8:16:37 GMT
Actually the original source of life is not known. That is the point. It is not found in "nature" or anywhere else you might imagine. What else is there to do here? What am I supposed to connect with what exactly? What you might want is a better understanding of the "psi" particle that indeed has not been found, or if it has it was never reported. I do not mean the J/psi particle, that is something entirely different and off topic and claimed to be found. I mean the "psi" particle that is the hypothetical material world transducer of thought. So if you don't know the source of life you don't know that it's not natural. All you can say is it hasn't been found in nature yet. So we're on the same page. Thanks. Science isn't your only failing. So is English. If you cannot find the agency in nature then it is not there by definition. That is all that the word "supernatural" means. The "natural" world refers to those things you have found, understand and can predict. If you want to argue that simply because you do not understand something today does not mean that you cannot understand it someday soon, that might buy you a little time, but after six or seven decades you need to face how very far it is from your understanding. You are in a state of shock. You grew up believing there cannot possibly be any "spiritual" phenomena. You are not able to confront the truth that there must be some. If science could find some natural combination that did lead from lifeless to living matter, that would prove your point, not the point here. The point here is that they can't. You are failing to understand the significance because you are in a state of shock. "But, but, but, ... we're going to find it in a few weeks ... " No, you are not. You are not being sensible. You desperately want to believe that you are sensible, yet you are not making any sense. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 8:31:48 GMT
Laboratories can create a temperature of -273.15° C, or 0° K, or "absolute zero." There is no colder than that. Laboratories can create temperature too hot for any structures to withstand, much less life. There is no pressure, high or low, not destructive of all life, that laboratories cannot create. The notion that there is something yet to be tried where the tornado will finally assemble an automobile is certifiably insane. So, YOU are now claiming to know the conditions upon which life started? WOW! You are not facing the limitations. There are not that many different conditions that you cannot try them all. I mean when you get an estimate how long a job will take it can happen often to take a somewhat longer. Many people have that experience. The time does arrive however that you must do something or get off the pot. You cannot make the origin of life happen within your limitations. At one time when people believed in "animalcules" they believed that they could witness the origin of life within the limitation of their science. That was a long time ago. It was very comforting to insecure people to imagine they could explain away any gods. Isn't that funny? Atheists often say people believe in a god because it is "comforting." It is obviously not very "comforting" if you run screaming from the room at the prospect. Like rizdek you are in shock. It does not matter one whit if their is some "science" that can originate life using only lifeless matter. The point is that it is not your science.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 24, 2020 8:49:48 GMT
So, YOU are now claiming to know the conditions upon which life started? WOW! You are not facing the limitations. There are not that many different conditions that you cannot try them all. I mean when you get an estimate how long a job will take it can happen often to take a somewhat longer. Many people have that experience. The time does arrive however that you must do something or get off the pot. You cannot make the origin of life happen within your limitations. At one time when people believed in "animalcules" they believed that they could witness the origin of life within the limitation of their science. That was a long time ago. It was very comforting to insecure people to imagine they could explain away any gods. Isn't that funny? Atheists often say people believe in a god because it is "comforting." It is obviously not very "comforting" if you run screaming from the room at the prospect. Like rizdek you are in shock. It does not matter one whit if their is some "science" that can originate life using only lifeless matter. The point is that it is not your science. The point is and always will be, that science is not anyone's. It is a compendium of the accumulation of knowledge over time, adding and amending. THIS is the mistake that YOU make...because you are so Dunning Kruger... esque. Science is no-one's and everyone's. God is, and never has been proven part of it. Since we know, because we observe this world that it is there of its own volition......from nature.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 9:03:36 GMT
You are not facing the limitations. There are not that many different conditions that you cannot try them all. I mean when you get an estimate how long a job will take it can happen often to take a somewhat longer. Many people have that experience. The time does arrive however that you must do something or get off the pot. You cannot make the origin of life happen within your limitations. At one time when people believed in "animalcules" they believed that they could witness the origin of life within the limitation of their science. That was a long time ago. It was very comforting to insecure people to imagine they could explain away any gods. Isn't that funny? Atheists often say people believe in a god because it is "comforting." It is obviously not very "comforting" if you run screaming from the room at the prospect. Like rizdek you are in shock. It does not matter one whit if their is some "science" that can originate life using only lifeless matter. The point is that it is not your science. The point is and always will be, that science is not anyone's. It is a compendium of the accumulation of knowledge over time, adding and amending. THIS is the mistake that YOU make...because you are so Dunning Kruger... esque. Science is no-one's and everyone's. God is, and never has been proven part of it. Since we know, because we observe this world that it is there of its own volition......from nature. The truth of the matter is that there is something very essential that you do not know. Maybe you should give more credit to the people who have been working around it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 9:28:35 GMT
To me, it is entirely plausible that a 'lab' cannot recreate the conditions under which first life started. (yet?)However start it did, because we are here typing on computers as humans and there is scientific proof of our origins via Darwinism and the geological record. This reminds me a of story about when the first Russian cosmonaut was sent into orbit, the story goes that he looked outside his capsule and didn't see God...so he guessed God didn't exist. I'm sure he was just joking, but we see that some people really do think that way. If we haven't found something in...oh wow, a hundred years in a handful of labs around the world under a few hundred or thousand conditions...it just couldn't have happened despite the fact that there were hundreds of millions of years and an almost infinite number of 'mini-laboratories' representing a myriad of conditions...many of which we don't and probably can't know. Oh the wonders science will soon make available, huh? But there is a limit to science. Notice the period chart of the elements came to end. It does not go on forever. Although there is no telling what goes on in other galaxies, it is certain we have to live in this one. Call the attitude "sour grapes" but the periodic chart of the elements is probably identical in the other galaxies. What are you expecting? What are you waiting for? Do you expect a new element to be discovered? Atomic mass 125? It can sing the choral to Beethoven's Ninth while assembling a rottweiler from clay and swamp gas?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 10:19:57 GMT
So if you don't know the source of life you don't know that it's not natural. All you can say is it hasn't been found in nature yet. So we're on the same page. Thanks. Science isn't your only failing. So is English. If you cannot find the agency in nature then it is not there by definition. That is all that the word "supernatural" means. The "natural" world refers to those things you have found, understand and can predict. If you want to argue that simply because you do not understand something today does not mean that you cannot understand it someday soon, that might buy you a little time, but after six or seven decades you need to face how very far it is from your understanding. You are in a state of shock. You grew up believing there cannot possibly be any "spiritual" phenomena. You are not able to confront the truth that there must be some. If science could find some natural combination that did lead from lifeless to living matter, that would prove your point, not the point here. The point here is that they can't. You are failing to understand the significance because you are in a state of shock. "But, but, but, ... we're going to find it in a few weeks ... " No, you are not. You are not being sensible. You desperately want to believe that you are sensible, yet you are not making any sense. You're welcome. I assure you, I'm not in shock and I'm not averse to believing in the supernatural or god(s). I was raised believing in God.
That's not the definition of nature. It is not the case that nature only consists of what has been found/discovered by humans. Nature is all there is, as far as I (and you) know. But neither of us know its extent and properties. If what you contend is true...nature has been expanding each time something new is discovered. You know that's not true.
You haven't shown that ife cannot have come about naturally...you haven't even quoted a scientific journal article that says it cannot be found in nature. Granted if you did, all that would mean is someone else believes as you do, not that it is true. Scientists can be wrong. But you haven't even shown that. So far you've done the easy part... ie explain what we know ie that we haven't yet discovered how life could've started naturally. And they may never be able to do it that. But that would still be irrelevant.
I await your explanation of how you know about this this 'other' world and that IT can somehow do what you believe the natural world cannot do. This other world has not been studied, so people find it easy to assign it properties and capabilities, but it is just guessing and conjecture...nothing based on observations of that world.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 10:27:59 GMT
This reminds me a of story about when the first Russian cosmonaut was sent into orbit, the story goes that he looked outside his capsule and didn't see God...so he guessed God didn't exist. I'm sure he was just joking, but we see that some people really do think that way. If we haven't found something in...oh wow, a hundred years in a handful of labs around the world under a few hundred or thousand conditions...it just couldn't have happened despite the fact that there were hundreds of millions of years and an almost infinite number of 'mini-laboratories' representing a myriad of conditions...many of which we don't and probably can't know. Oh the wonders science will soon make available, huh? But there is a limit to science. Notice the period chart of the elements came to end. It does not go on forever. Although there is no telling what goes on in other galaxies, it is certain we have to live in this one. Call the attitude "sour grapes" but the periodic chart of the elements is probably identical in the other galaxies. What are you expecting? What are you waiting for? Do you expect a new element to be discovered? Atomic mass 125? It can sing the choral to Beethoven's Ninth while assembling a rottweiler from clay and swamp gas? The limits of science are due to the limits of humans observation and how we interact with the world. We're not talking about the limits of humans are limited to. We may never know everything...or even most things about science. No new elements would need to be discovered since all the elements of life have been discovered.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 10:41:38 GMT
Science isn't your only failing. So is English. If you cannot find the agency in nature then it is not there by definition. That is all that the word "supernatural" means. The "natural" world refers to those things you have found, understand and can predict. If you want to argue that simply because you do not understand something today does not mean that you cannot understand it someday soon, that might buy you a little time, but after six or seven decades you need to face how very far it is from your understanding. You are in a state of shock. You grew up believing there cannot possibly be any "spiritual" phenomena. You are not able to confront the truth that there must be some. If science could find some natural combination that did lead from lifeless to living matter, that would prove your point, not the point here. The point here is that they can't. You are failing to understand the significance because you are in a state of shock. "But, but, but, ... we're going to find it in a few weeks ... " No, you are not. You are not being sensible. You desperately want to believe that you are sensible, yet you are not making any sense. You're welcome. I assure you, I'm not in shock and I'm not averse to believing in the supernatural or god(s). I was raised believing in God.
That's not the definition of nature. It is not the case that nature only consists of what has been found/discovered by humans. Nature is all there is, as far as I (and you) know. But neither of us know its extent and properties. If what you contend is true...nature has been expanding each time something new is discovered. You know that's not true.
You haven't shown that ife cannot have come about naturally...you haven't even quoted a scientific journal article that says it cannot be found in nature. Granted if you did, all that would mean is someone else believes as you do, not that it is true. Scientists can be wrong. But you haven't even shown that. So far you've done the easy part... ie explain what we know ie that we haven't yet discovered how life could've started naturally. And they may never be able to do it that. But that would still be irrelevant.
I await your explanation of how you know about this this 'other' world and that IT can somehow do what you believe the natural world cannot do. This other world has not been studied, so people find it easy to assign it properties and capabilities, but it is just guessing and conjecture...nothing based on observations of that world. Now you're just playing word games. It does not matter what labels you apply to it. That won't change what it is. You want to call something that is rather obviously far beyond your understanding "nature" as if that makes any difference or puts it any closer to your reach. It does not. You're just wasting time playing with words and obviously very averse to accepting the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 10:47:37 GMT
Oh the wonders science will soon make available, huh? But there is a limit to science. Notice the period chart of the elements came to end. It does not go on forever. Although there is no telling what goes on in other galaxies, it is certain we have to live in this one. Call the attitude "sour grapes" but the periodic chart of the elements is probably identical in the other galaxies. What are you expecting? What are you waiting for? Do you expect a new element to be discovered? Atomic mass 125? It can sing the choral to Beethoven's Ninth while assembling a rottweiler from clay and swamp gas? The limits of science are due to the limits of humans observation and how we interact with the world. We're not talking about the limits of humans are limited to. We may never know everything...or even most things about science. No new elements would need to be discovered since all the elements of life have been discovered.
Now who's being close minded?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 13:47:11 GMT
I assure you, I'm not in shock and I'm not averse to believing in the supernatural or god(s). I was raised believing in God.
That's not the definition of nature. It is not the case that nature only consists of what has been found/discovered by humans. Nature is all there is, as far as I (and you) know. But neither of us know its extent and properties. If what you contend is true...nature has been expanding each time something new is discovered. You know that's not true.
You haven't shown that ife cannot have come about naturally...you haven't even quoted a scientific journal article that says it cannot be found in nature. Granted if you did, all that would mean is someone else believes as you do, not that it is true. Scientists can be wrong. But you haven't even shown that. So far you've done the easy part... ie explain what we know ie that we haven't yet discovered how life could've started naturally. And they may never be able to do it that. But that would still be irrelevant.
I await your explanation of how you know about this this 'other' world and that IT can somehow do what you believe the natural world cannot do. This other world has not been studied, so people find it easy to assign it properties and capabilities, but it is just guessing and conjecture...nothing based on observations of that world. Now you're just playing word games. It does not matter what labels you apply to it. That won't change what it is. You want to call something that is rather obviously far beyond your understanding "nature" as if that makes any difference or puts it any closer to your reach. It does not. You're just wasting time playing with words and obviously very averse to accepting the truth. I assure you it's not word games or avoiding the truth. I would be perfectly happy to accept the idea of supernature or god(s) if I thought there was something to those things or someone offered some basis for its existene other than conjecture.. I'm simply not as anxious to scrap the idea that perhaps life arose naturally...i mean it's only been studied seriously for a couple hundred years. I think it's an interesting concept...To take your approach would mean to stop seeking, stop experimenting, stop thinking of it, stop trying...giving up. To continue to seek something that absolutely cannot exist would be insanity, right? And it leaves us with something that will be forever unknowable...I mean it may be unknowable anyways if the goal is to know exactly how life started on earth. The best that could be done would come up with some method, not necessarily THE method.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 13:48:32 GMT
The limits of science are due to the limits of humans observation and how we interact with the world. We're not talking about the limits of humans are limited to. We may never know everything...or even most things about science. No new elements would need to be discovered since all the elements of life have been discovered.
Now who's being close minded? Which elements...atoms....make up life or are found in living things that they haven't identified?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 12:31:56 GMT
Now who's being close minded? Which elements...atoms....make up life or are found in living things that they haven't identified? There's no prize for asking the stupidest question imaginable, but I might be able to arrange a free pizza for you for that one.
|
|