Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 03:56 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 03:43 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Do you consider:
1. An hypothesis with a lack of supporting evidence for even the premises

Superior to:

2. An hypothesis with supporting evidence for the premises and conclusion?

This sounds like an a priori materialist bias (or so I've been told).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 04:04 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 04:16 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Hypotheticals lacking supporting evidence are a priori, hypotheticals with empirical evidence would be a posteriori.

Context: Alpha Male has argues that an hypothesis with less empirical evidence is less likely to be true.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 12:49 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 12:40 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  So you're presenting arguments with zero supporting evidence as an alternative to arguments with supporting evidence? Is that correct?
Do you consider organic compounds to be life?

The abiogenesis of life as we know it consisted of organic compounds coming together and forming life.

The only single defining characteristic common to all forms of life is that it has a metabolism. That means free-energy enters the system, entropy is increased and energy less able to be put to work leaves the system.

So if you are going to study the abiogenesis of life as we know it then you need to find out how systems made up of organic compounds grow in complexity to the point where they start metabolising in order to maintain their state and then start reproducing.

The very first experiments started back in the 50's with the famous Miller & Urey experiment where organic compounds grew in complexity under conditions similar to Earth's early environment.

There are several steps that we still need to make and which are actively being researched with varying levels of success.

This is at the forefront of science and therefore there are still gaps in the theory. The probability of abiogenesis being correct though is increasing as more evidence comes in to explain the process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 04:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  The very first experiments started back in the 50's with the famous Miller & Urey experiment where organic compounds grew in complexity under conditions similar to Earth's early environment.
You're behind the times - it's now generally thought that the early atmosphere was not that used in Urey-Miller.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 05:29 PM
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Did you have a momentary lapse of blindness and miss the rest of that post, and others requesting you present evidence?

What is your proposed alternative?

Does the proposed alternative have empirically verifiable support?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 05:42 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 04:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 04:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  The very first experiments started back in the 50's with the famous Miller & Urey experiment where organic compounds grew in complexity under conditions similar to Earth's early environment.
You're behind the times - it's now generally thought that the early atmosphere was not that used in Urey-Miller.

You don't get it.

It doesn't matter that the early atmosphere was not what was used in Urey-Miller.

All they needed to establish is that it is possible to get organic compounds via natural processes.

So, organic compounds (leading to life) could have started naturally on a planet with the same early atmosphere as Urey-Miller, but not in earth's early atmosphere. Earth needed a god to start life, but not planets with the Urey-Miller atmosphere. Got it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Simon Moon's post
26-02-2014, 05:42 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 04:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 04:14 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  The very first experiments started back in the 50's with the famous Miller & Urey experiment where organic compounds grew in complexity under conditions similar to Earth's early environment.
You're behind the times - it's now generally thought that the early atmosphere was not that used in Urey-Miller.

The precise composition of the early atmosphere is probably not that important. Glycine (an amino acid) has been found in interstellar gas clouds, which are quite a bit different from any model of the early earth atmosphere.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like toadaly's post
26-02-2014, 05:51 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 05:42 PM)toadaly Wrote:  The precise composition of the early atmosphere is probably not that important.
It is if you're citing Urey-Miller. Actually that's just the first fail of U-M. The next big hurdle is that the product was racemic. You need all left-handed aminos if you're gonna get anywhere with life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 06:01 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 05:42 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 04:41 PM)alpha male Wrote:  You're behind the times - it's now generally thought that the early atmosphere was not that used in Urey-Miller.

You don't get it.

It doesn't matter that the early atmosphere was not what was used in Urey-Miller.

All they needed to establish is that it is possible to get organic compounds via natural processes.

So, organic compounds (leading to life) could have started naturally on a planet with the same early atmosphere as Urey-Miller, but not in earth's early atmosphere. Earth needed a god to start life, but not planets with the Urey-Miller atmosphere. Got it.

Notice he did not directly respond to this post, and doesn't seem to understand Mathilda's post before it.

What we have here is a creationist who has found an article on Abiogenesis, and is only able to use talking points from that article to respond to objections.

Otherwise, he has no response.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
26-02-2014, 05:57 PM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 05:51 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 05:42 PM)toadaly Wrote:  The precise composition of the early atmosphere is probably not that important.
It is if you're citing Urey-Miller. Actually that's just the first fail of U-M. The next big hurdle is that the product was racemic. You need all left-handed aminos if you're gonna get anywhere with life.

Cosmic radiation from supernovae has been shown to take care of the racemic issue.

"A mechanism for creating an enantioenrichment in the amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins, that involves global selection of one handedness by interactions between the amino acids and neutrinos from core-collapse supernovae is defined. The chiral selection involves the dependence of the interaction cross sections on the orientations of the spins of the neutrinos and the 14N nuclei in the amino acids, or in precursor molecules, which in turn couple to the molecular chirality. It also requires an asymmetric distribution of neutrinos emitted from the supernova. The subsequent chemical evolution and galactic mixing would ultimately populate the Galaxy with the selected species. The resulting amino acids could either be the source thereof on Earth, or could have triggered the chirality that was ultimately achieved for Earth’s proteinaceous amino acids."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131570/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Simon Moon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: