Apologetics is bad for Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 06:08 PM
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.

Do you have an alternate hypothesis supported by more evidence than abiogenesis has as support?

Spoiler: Alpha is too dishonest to respond. He'll continue copy-pasting Abiogenesis talking point.

“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, 10:27 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.

How is it a fail? The experiment did what it was desinged to do, which is a proof of principle. Also, it wasn't a single experiment. Miller did many such experiments over the course of his life, varying all kinds of parameters, and others have continued to do the same. Amino acids form in almost all of them.

Organic chemistry is just not that picky. It works over very broad ranges of conditions.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2014, 02:59 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2014 03:14 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(26-02-2014 10:50 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 02:27 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Drich. Do not dismiss arguments by telling people that they are doing something completely different to what they know they are doing or that their history happened differently. How can you hope to convince anybody if you make this stuff up?
It's like you guys simply switch off when someone points out that your not doing something you think you can argue the oppsite way.


Quote:You tell me why I have respect for Buddhists and Quakers yet I never said why I do. You can make an assumption why I am thinking about things in a certain way but do not tell me what I am thinking or what I remember.
Not true what you are thinking is demonstrated in your post. The only thing you haven't done is to freely admit what your thoughts on the subject has already revealed.

Let me tell you that you are wrong.

The reason I have respect for Buddhists is because they recognise that desire can lead to never being happy and they also believe in the concept of karma and try not to harm others. It is close to my own personal morality regarding minimising suffering.

The reason why I respect Quakers is because they have a history of being very sincere pacifists with strong convictions who do not proselytise.

The reasons I respect them is not because I 'can erect a box around them and predict what to expect from them'. The same could be said of Catholicism and I do not respect that religion.

I respect religions when they focus on providing a means to make yourself a better person and not about growing the religion by gaining new members. If all religions were like this then the world would be a much better place.

There, I have now freely admitted as to what my original thoughts were and you were wrong. You were being arrogant in telling me that my thoughts were something different because it fitted your world view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2014, 03:12 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2014 03:18 AM by Mathilda.)
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.

This is either deliberately disingenuous or you do not understand that the scientific method operates on building on what is successful and discarding what is not successful or consistent with new data. I am going for deliberately disingenuous because I did explicitly say "The very first experiments started back in the 50's"

But in case you don't understand the scientific method:

Just because the original experiment did not accurately replicate the Earth's atmosphere, does not mean to say that it is now irrelevant, it shows how organic compounds grow in complexity given an influx of free-energy. And we cannot disregard the experiment if we find out that panspermia is true and that life did not originate on Earth. Why? Because it broadens our understanding of the underlying mechanisms involved in abiogenesis.

Science is a search and if your hypothesis is shown to be wrong, it does not mean to say that it was a waste of time testing it. It needed to be demonstrated as being incorrect so as it allows us to come up with new hypotheses that can be tested that may be correct.

For example Einstein spent the last part of his career trying to demonstrate that quantum mechanics was not random. He failed. But he admitted himself that if he could not demonstrate it then it would stop younger scientists from wasting their careers on the same endeavour.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
27-02-2014, 08:02 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(27-02-2014 03:12 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  This is either deliberately disingenuous or you do not understand that the scientific method operates on building on what is successful and discarding what is not successful or consistent with new data. I am going for deliberately disingenuous because I did explicitly say "The very first experiments started back in the 50's"

But in case you don't understand the scientific method:

Just because the original experiment did not accurately replicate the Earth's atmosphere, does not mean to say that it is now irrelevant,
Yes, it does.
Quote:it shows how organic compounds grow in complexity given an influx of free-energy.
All it shows is that scientists can take some compounds and change them into others - a rather NSS point.
Quote:And we cannot disregard the experiment if we find out that panspermia is true and that life did not originate on Earth. Why? Because it broadens our understanding of the underlying mechanisms involved in abiogenesis.
If you need to resort to panspermia, I'm happy. Smile
Quote:Science is a search and if your hypothesis is shown to be wrong, it does not mean to say that it was a waste of time testing it. It needed to be demonstrated as being incorrect so as it allows us to come up with new hypotheses that can be tested that may be correct.
I agree. It wasn't a waste of time testing it. It is, however, a waste of time for people to later cite it as if it's relevant. Unfortunately, things like U-M are still taught in textbooks and the mass media. Instead of being mad at me for calling you out on it, you should be mad at those who continue to teach it without noting that it's no longer relevant.
Quote:For example Einstein spent the last part of his career trying to demonstrate that quantum mechanics was not random. He failed. But he admitted himself that if he could not demonstrate it then it would stop younger scientists from wasting their careers on the same endeavour.
Miller noted problems with the RNA world hypothesis before his death, but it isn't stopping people from wasting their careers on the same endeavour.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
So are you saying that being able to demonstrate that organic compounds can grow in complexity given an influx of free energy is irrelevant to the understanding of abiogenesis?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(27-02-2014 08:09 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  So are you saying that being able to demonstrate that organic compounds can grow in complexity given an influx of free energy is irrelevant to the understanding of abiogenesis?
If done in an environment which didn't exist on earth at the time abiogenesis supposedly occurred, yes, it's irrelevant. People can put compounds together, add energy, and change them to something else. This is a NSS point. It was happening well before Miller. The major point of Miller was that he supposedly mimicked the atmosphere of the earth at the time abiogenesis supposedly occurred. That's why you mentioned it yourself. That's why obituaries of Miller erroneously mentioned it. Face it flounder, you screwed up. Just admit it and move on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(27-02-2014 08:23 AM)alpha male Wrote:  If done in an environment which didn't exist on earth at the time abiogenesis supposedly occurred, yes, it's irrelevant. People can put compounds together, add energy, and change them to something else. This is a NSS point. It was happening well before Miller. The major point of Miller was that he supposedly mimicked the atmosphere of the earth at the time abiogenesis supposedly occurred. That's why you mentioned it yourself. That's why obituaries of Miller erroneously mentioned it.

Say we're trying to create an experiment which does mimic one of the many plausible environments that exist in which life could develop. Maybe for understanding how it could have formed on Earth, or maybe we want to see if it could have formed in space and was brought to Earth because of panspermia, or because we want to understand the probability of life existing in extraterrestrial environments so we can go out looking for it.

Can we be more confident in performing these experiments because we know that we can make organic compounds grow in complexity using very simple naturally occurring chemicals and an influx of free energy?


(27-02-2014 08:23 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Face it flounder, you screwed up. Just admit it and move on.

You doth protest too much methinks. Either that or you just enjoy trying to wind people up. Probably both.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
27-02-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(27-02-2014 08:35 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Say we're trying to create an experiment which does mimic one of the many plausible environments that exist in which life could develop. Maybe for understanding how it could have formed on Earth, or maybe we want to see if it could have formed in space and was brought to Earth because of panspermia, or because we want to understand the probability of life existing in extraterrestrial environments so we can go out looking for it.

Can we be more confident in performing these experiments because we know that we can make organic compounds grow in complexity using very simple naturally occurring chemicals and an influx of free energy?
"More confident" is an ambiguous and relative, and so a very low, bar to get over. So, er, sure, you can be "more confident" in such searches due to Miller.
(27-02-2014 08:23 AM)alpha male Wrote:  You doth protest too much methinks. Either that or you just enjoy trying to wind people up. Probably both.
Did you know that U-M had the atmosphere wrong and disingenuously make the claim anyway, or did you not know they had it wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: Apologetics is bad for Christianity
(27-02-2014 08:55 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Did you know that U-M had the atmosphere wrong and disingenuously make the claim anyway, or did you not know they had it wrong?

I did not know that they had the atmosphere wrong but I would have mentioned it anyway regardless because I was referring to how it has established that one fundamental requirement for abiogenesis is plausible (i.e. that organic compounds can grow in complexity in an environment made up solely of simple naturally occurring chemicals and an influx of free energy)

In the same way that Darwin's theory of evolution has been improved in many ways since he first wrote his book on it. Or that Erwin Schrödinger made some mistakes in his lectures about the thermodynamical basis of life (e.g. using the term negative entropy). Both theories are still relevant to this day because they still form the basis of scientific enquiry. The scientific method does not work by discarding everything that is not 100% correct because that would leave us with nothing. It works by refining theories as new evidence is found and correcting the parts that are wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: