Five Stages of Grief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2015, 04:48 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 12:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We arguably have, actually. Again, the Miller-Urey experiment, among others.


False on essentially every level.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, so this is logically invalid. Your premise is circular, as you assert "cannot" in place of the proper "have not" to try and prop up your predetermined conclusion, which renders it logically unsound as well. And with a sample size of the entirety of existence, it doesn't matter how close to zero the odds are.

The sample size is not the universe. The sample size is the known chemicals and compounds on the Earth, given eons of time. Statistically, nil. Thousands of scientists attempting to do this, nil.

I like how you somehow rationally can think less than over 75 years of doing something means the results wont shift given eons of time.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 10:45 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The sample size is not the universe.

Yes, it is.

(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The sample size is the known chemicals and compounds on the Earth

Which are, rather tautologically, sufficient.

(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  given eons of time. Statistically, nil.

False.

(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Thousands of scientists attempting to do this, nil.

Irrelevant unless you can demonstrate an actual reason why it cannot be done. Practical difficulty does not equal impossibility, no matter how much you wish it did.

You remain wrong on every conceivable level.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-10-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 12:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We arguably have, actually. Again, the Miller-Urey experiment, among others.


False on essentially every level.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, so this is logically invalid. Your premise is circular, as you assert "cannot" in place of the proper "have not" to try and prop up your predetermined conclusion, which renders it logically unsound as well. And with a sample size of the entirety of existence, it doesn't matter how close to zero the odds are.

The sample size is not the universe. The sample size is the known chemicals and compounds on the Earth, given eons of time. Statistically, nil. Thousands of scientists attempting to do this, nil.

You do not understand the time scales. That no one has accomplished this in the very tiny amount of time it has been studied is not in any way an argument that it didn't happen.

And selection is not random, so quit repeating that horseshit. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2015, 03:49 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(09-10-2015 10:45 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The sample size is not the universe.

Yes, it is.

(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The sample size is the known chemicals and compounds on the Earth

Which are, rather tautologically, sufficient.

(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  given eons of time. Statistically, nil.

False.

(09-10-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Thousands of scientists attempting to do this, nil.

Irrelevant unless you can demonstrate an actual reason why it cannot be done. Practical difficulty does not equal impossibility, no matter how much you wish it did.

You remain wrong on every conceivable level.

Q will continue to repeat this drivel ad nauseum. He seems incapable of learning. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
All,

It is actually rather simple and you are overcomplicating the argument in an attempt (hardly veiled!) at obfuscation.

Scientists can reverse engineer a wide range of compounds even after catalysts have enacted changes--just watch any chef on Shark Tank who is told, "Without protection, your recipe and ingredients will be reverse engineered by corporate competitors..."

The issues:

"Given eons of time, elements and compound substances came together in an open system with input from volcanism, solar radiation, etc. to form the building blocks of eventual highly specified and complex things--simple life."

"Given a vast amount of human knowledge compiled about chemistry, volcanism, solar radiation, time, catalysts, chemicals, compounds--including literally hundreds of thousands of patents and industrial products, some of them world-changing like plastics and explosives--scientists cannot by any effort, directed, guided effort, come up with the basic building blocks of the basic building blocks of specialized cells, life."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 08:49 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(13-10-2015 08:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

It is actually rather simple and you are overcomplicating the argument in an attempt (hardly veiled!) at obfuscation.

Scientists can reverse engineer a wide range of compounds even after catalysts have enacted changes--just watch any chef on Shark Tank who is told, "Without protection, your recipe and ingredients will be reverse engineered by corporate competitors..."

The issues:

"Given eons of time, elements and compound substances came together in an open system with input from volcanism, solar radiation, etc. to form the building blocks of eventual highly specified and complex things--simple life."

"Given a vast amount of human knowledge compiled about chemistry, volcanism, solar radiation, time, catalysts, chemicals, compounds--including literally hundreds of thousands of patents and industrial products, some of them world-changing like plastics and explosives--scientists cannot by any effort, directed, guided effort, come up with the basic building blocks of the basic building blocks of specialized cells, life."

There is no Overcompletation being made. You along made some assumption that it matters or means something negative against the argument of life arising in the manner of your first quoted paragraph because it's not discovered.

So what? It doesn't mean anything that Humanity at this stage hasn't. So what they can make marvelous chemicals, compounds, and plastics... That's not a direct negation to say that because they haven't unfounded something X it's not possible too or inaccurate.

There's no adjusting of your argument, it's merely entirely assumption based. You assume this is some issue but there is no logically connection there. Just your rambling assumptions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(13-10-2015 08:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It is actually rather simple

Yes, it is.

(13-10-2015 08:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  "Given a vast amount of human knowledge compiled about chemistry, volcanism, solar radiation, time, catalysts, chemicals, compounds--including literally hundreds of thousands of patents and industrial products, some of them world-changing like plastics and explosives--scientists cannot by any effort, directed, guided effort, come up with the basic building blocks of the basic building blocks of specialized cells, life."

Aside from the fact that this is blatantly false, as has been explained to you multiple times in this very thread, this is irrelevant. Practical difficulty is not equivalent to impossibility, no matter how much you wish it were.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 05:45 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(13-10-2015 08:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

It is actually rather simple and you are overcomplicating the argument in an attempt (hardly veiled!) at obfuscation.

Scientists can reverse engineer a wide range of compounds even after catalysts have enacted changes--just watch any chef on Shark Tank who is told, "Without protection, your recipe and ingredients will be reverse engineered by corporate competitors..."

The issues:

"Given eons of time, elements and compound substances came together in an open system with input from volcanism, solar radiation, etc. to form the building blocks of eventual highly specified and complex things--simple life."

"Given a vast amount of human knowledge compiled about chemistry, volcanism, solar radiation, time, catalysts, chemicals, compounds--including literally hundreds of thousands of patents and industrial products, some of them world-changing like plastics and explosives--scientists cannot by any effort, directed, guided effort, come up with the basic building blocks of the basic building blocks of specialized cells, life."

Wrong again.

The basic building blocks form naturally.

You keep ignoring the vast amount of time available versus the very few years anyone has worked on this.

Try again. Drinking Beverage

Actually, don't until you have learned some science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 06:15 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
As Chas pointed out in some thread awhile back, there is no delineation between life and non-life. A fragment of mineral dust is unambiguously non-life; a microbe is life. I believe a comprehensive definition of life has yet to be formulated that helps locate where in the vast difference between a fleck of mineral dust and a microbe the property of life takes hold.

This means that stirring up some chemicals over a bunsen burner on a lab bench will most likely NOT produce something unambiguously life, but something between a particle of mineral and a microbe - with no clear indication of what subsequent transformative action will take it closer to life or closer to disintegration. No rabbit is going to hop out of test tube fully developed.

THAT has retarded synthesis of life, not that it can't be done outright. That fact that science has achieved immense biological success elsewhere does not indicate that life synthesis is impossible, it indicates the opposite, that life synthesis lies ahead, next week or next century. But probably not by creation of a microbe wholesale, instead by a chain of transformation across stages.

Man had yearned to fly for millenia before actually getting aloft, and possessed the technology to build steerable gliders the moment light fabrics could be stretched taut on wood frames. The fact that hundreds of years went by without positive results with this technology at hand was no indication that heavier than air flight was impossible, it took counter-intuitive insights to finally succeed (among them the insight that mimicking birds was the wrong approach).

Likewise there may yet still be counter-intuitive insights undiscovered necessary to life synthesis, but to insist it's impossible is to presume FULL knowledge of every principal involved so as to be able to make such a declaration, and so far the only such declarations are made by those who have far LESS knowledge about the subject than the scientists actively engaged in it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
15-10-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(13-10-2015 08:49 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 08:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

It is actually rather simple and you are overcomplicating the argument in an attempt (hardly veiled!) at obfuscation.

Scientists can reverse engineer a wide range of compounds even after catalysts have enacted changes--just watch any chef on Shark Tank who is told, "Without protection, your recipe and ingredients will be reverse engineered by corporate competitors..."

The issues:

"Given eons of time, elements and compound substances came together in an open system with input from volcanism, solar radiation, etc. to form the building blocks of eventual highly specified and complex things--simple life."

"Given a vast amount of human knowledge compiled about chemistry, volcanism, solar radiation, time, catalysts, chemicals, compounds--including literally hundreds of thousands of patents and industrial products, some of them world-changing like plastics and explosives--scientists cannot by any effort, directed, guided effort, come up with the basic building blocks of the basic building blocks of specialized cells, life."

There is no Overcompletation being made. You along made some assumption that it matters or means something negative against the argument of life arising in the manner of your first quoted paragraph because it's not discovered.

So what? It doesn't mean anything that Humanity at this stage hasn't. So what they can make marvelous chemicals, compounds, and plastics... That's not a direct negation to say that because they haven't unfounded something X it's not possible too or inaccurate.

There's no adjusting of your argument, it's merely entirely assumption based. You assume this is some issue but there is no logically connection there. Just your rambling assumptions.

Chemistry isn't yet discovered?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: