Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 11:28 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Hello Huggy! Big Grin

(O_o)

Wait? What? 'Incorporeal life'?

Dafaq is that even grok?
Hi Smile

It means that it doesn't need a physical body to exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 12:21 PM
Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 11:20 AM)Huggy Wrote:  Ahh, but between these two ideas exist diametrically opposing views of what defines 'life', is life something that is corporeal or incorporeal?

I deal with empirical reality. I assume you deal with flights of fantasy. If so, you really shouldn’t be positing what is and what is not science on the basis of falsifiability.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rachel's post
27-12-2017, 12:23 PM
Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 12:15 PM)Huggy Wrote:  It means that it doesn't need a physical body to exist.

Please cite one example of life without a physical body. Then please explain how you know this to be a fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rachel's post
27-12-2017, 12:33 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 09:14 AM)Huggy Wrote:  I believe Robvalue accepts abiogenesis as the most plausible scenario for the origin of life, which means he has also accepted an untested, unfalsifiable claim.

You do understand that it is possible to accept something as the most plausible, without accepting it with absolute certainty, right?

In other words, a wise person proportions their beliefs to the quality of the evidence.

And who says it abiogenesis is untested and unfalsifiable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Simon Moon's post
27-12-2017, 01:43 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 12:15 PM)Huggy Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 11:28 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Hello Huggy! Big Grin

(O_o)

Wait? What? 'Incorporeal life'?

Dafaq is that even grok?
Hi Smile

It means that it doesn't need a physical body to exist.

Please provide evidence of life that does not need a physical form.

Otherwise this is an unfalsifiable assertion.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 12:23 PM)Rachel Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 12:15 PM)Huggy Wrote:  It means that it doesn't need a physical body to exist.

Please cite one example of life without a physical body. Then please explain how you know this to be a fact.

You literally just stated that abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation for how life began when you yourself cannot cite one example of life being produced from non-life and you acknowledge that abiogenesis is not a fact.

So in order for me to believe something is plausible, I must provide an example AND explain how I know it to be fact?

Why the double standard?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 02:04 PM
Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 01:58 PM)Huggy Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 12:23 PM)Rachel Wrote:  Please cite one example of life without a physical body. Then please explain how you know this to be a fact.

You literally just stated that abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation for how life began when you yourself cannot cite one example of life being produced from non-life and you acknowledge that abiogenesis is not a fact.

So in order for me to believe something is plausible, I must provide an example AND explain how I know it to be fact?

Why the double standard?


It’s not a double standard. I set forth the position that, given the preponderance of the evidence, a naturalistic explanation for the question of the origin of life in earth was more likely than a supernatural one. You responded with the absurd argument by definition which implies that life could exist without a physical body.

Instead of supporting your far-fetched assertion, you then deflected by accusing me of a double standard.

My conclusion is that you have nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Rachel's post
27-12-2017, 02:20 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 02:04 PM)Rachel Wrote:  It’s not a double standard. I set forth the position that, given the preponderance of the evidence, a naturalistic explanation for the question of the origin of life in earth was more likely than a supernatural one. You responded with the absurd argument by definition which implies that life could exist without a physical body.

Instead of supporting your far-fetched assertion, you then deflected by accusing me of a double standard.

My conclusion is that you have nothing.
*emphasis mine*

This is incorrect, I made no argument one way or another, I was simply pointing out the fact the science and religion define life differently.

(27-12-2017 11:20 AM)Huggy Wrote:  Ahh, but between these two ideas exist diametrically opposing views of what defines 'life', is life something that is corporeal or incorporeal?

Please point out the assertion I apparently made.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Huggy's post
27-12-2017, 02:28 PM
Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 02:20 PM)Huggy Wrote:  This is incorrect, I made no argument one way or another, I was simply pointing out the fact the science and religion define life differently.

You pointed out nothing, but the implication was clear.

For the record, are you making an argument or are you just playing games? If you are, make it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rachel's post
27-12-2017, 03:25 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 02:20 PM)Huggy Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 02:04 PM)Rachel Wrote:  It’s not a double standard. I set forth the position that, given the preponderance of the evidence, a naturalistic explanation for the question of the origin of life in earth was more likely than a supernatural one. You responded with the absurd argument by definition which implies that life could exist without a physical body.

Instead of supporting your far-fetched assertion, you then deflected by accusing me of a double standard.

My conclusion is that you have nothing.
*emphasis mine*

This is incorrect, I made no argument one way or another, I was simply pointing out the fact the science and religion define life differently.

Where does religion define life? Citation please.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: