The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2016, 11:10 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 10:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  You missed my point. Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened, I can't present data to prove this. It is a thought experiment.

How have I been dishonest?

Science has unequivocally proven many things. Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property. That is it's weakness.
It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that.

"Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened..."

There are many hypotheses. Your ignorance of them does not mean they do not exist.

Organic molecules could have come from extraterrestrial sources (and we have found organic molecules on asteroids now, giving credibility to this hypothesis directly).

Primordial soup hypothesis (the Miller-Urey experiment and those that have modified and/or replicated it have shown that organic molecules can be produced from inorganic chemistry).

Hydrothermal vents plus primordial soup (different energy source, same process as above. Suggesting that chemosynthesizing organisms are the ancestor to all life. Which is corroborated by phylogenetic studies of life).

Even the formation of simple lipid spheres that could have served as the basis of the first cell have been shown plausible in lab settings.


"How have I been dishonest?"

For example: "Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened..." <- ignoring science in order to promote your irrational beliefs, is dishonest

"Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property."

This is nonsensical. And a red herring.

" That is it's weakness. "

No, that's YOUR weakness. Science and the philosophy of science have been tackling this issues and questions for centuries. Your failings and misunderstandings of science and the scientific process don't translate into science failing.

"It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that."

You're hardly qualified to tell anyone what "real scientists" believe. But this statement is a no true scotsman.

There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis. That is why there is a $1M reward for anyone that can provide one. (Proof is not required to collect the reward; a plausible story is all that is needed.)
So until we have that, there is nothing on which data can be collected.

(btw - All of the basic hypothesis that you listed all hit a brick wall at some point.)

Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature. it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties. (E.g. Without prior knowledge, you can analyze sodium and chlorine and determine that if you combine them, it tastes good on a pretzel.)
Name one emergent property that science has predicted or explained by looking at it's components/constituents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 11:17 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 12:00 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 11:10 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 10:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened..."

There are many hypotheses. Your ignorance of them does not mean they do not exist.

Organic molecules could have come from extraterrestrial sources (and we have found organic molecules on asteroids now, giving credibility to this hypothesis directly).

Primordial soup hypothesis (the Miller-Urey experiment and those that have modified and/or replicated it have shown that organic molecules can be produced from inorganic chemistry).

Hydrothermal vents plus primordial soup (different energy source, same process as above. Suggesting that chemosynthesizing organisms are the ancestor to all life. Which is corroborated by phylogenetic studies of life).

Even the formation of simple lipid spheres that could have served as the basis of the first cell have been shown plausible in lab settings.


"How have I been dishonest?"

For example: "Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened..." <- ignoring science in order to promote your irrational beliefs, is dishonest

"Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property."

This is nonsensical. And a red herring.

" That is it's weakness. "

No, that's YOUR weakness. Science and the philosophy of science have been tackling this issues and questions for centuries. Your failings and misunderstandings of science and the scientific process don't translate into science failing.

"It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that."

You're hardly qualified to tell anyone what "real scientists" believe. But this statement is a no true scotsman.

There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis. That is why there is a $1M reward for anyone that can provide one. (Proof is not required to collect the reward; a plausible story is all that is needed.)
So until we have that, there is nothing on which data can be collected.

(btw - All of the basic hypothesis that you listed all hit a brick wall at some point.)

Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature. it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties. (E.g. Without prior knowledge, you can analyze sodium and chlorine and determine that if you combine them, it tastes good on a pretzel.)
Name one emergent property that science has predicted or explained by looking at it's components/constituents.

"There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis. That is why there is a $1M reward for anyone that can provide one. (Proof is not required to collect the reward; a plausible story is all that is needed.)
So until we have that, there is nothing on which data can be collected."


Asserting something as fact when there are a variety of scientific papers on these very hypotheses, is arrogant and stupid.

"(btw - All of the basic hypothesis that you listed all hit a brick wall at some point.)"

All of these hypotheses are tested and demonstrate plausibility. The "brick walls" you assert that they hit are typically limitations on the laboratory setting and/or the fact that we can't simulate millions of years of time in the lab. This does NOT disprove these hypotheses. Asserting that it does, just makes you look desperate.

"Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature."

No, science is not. Because science and the philosophy of science are also cumulative.

"it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties. (E.g. Without prior knowledge, you can analyze sodium and chlorine and determine that if you combine them, it tastes good on a pretzel.)"

Holy shit this is stupid. A subjective claim isn't an objective fact.

"Name one emergent property that science has predicted or explained by looking at it's components/constituents."

You don't appear to know what the fuck an "emergent" property is if you assert that subjective opinions are emergent properties.

How about this, the molecular structure of Na and Cl covalently bonded together result in a cubic crystalline structure, which is an emergent property of the covalent bond and the angles between the the positively charged Na cation and the negatively charged Cl anion.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
04-08-2016, 11:46 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  How have I been dishonest?

You said:
Quote:Show me the chemistry involved in abiogenesis, and then I can publish a paper.

To me that quote sounds like you want me to show you how abiogenesis works and then you can publish a paper on it. If I misunderstood you then I apologize.

(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property. That is it's weakness.

There are many things that science has yet to accomplish. The key word is yet.

(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea.

I don't remember anyone saying it was. But for all of the imperfections, science is our best tool.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 11:10 AM)u196533 Wrote:  There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis.

You are making a "god-of-the-gaps" argument.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
04-08-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 11:10 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property.

Consciousness. It hasn't been completely explained, but they're working on it. Not having all your infantile answers this morning is no reason to jump to "gawd done it".

Quote:"It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that."

Tell us what "real scientists" are, pray tell. Facepalm

Quote:There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis. That is why there is a $1M reward for anyone that can provide one. (Proof is not required to collect the reward; a plausible story is all that is needed.)
So until we have that, there is nothing on which data can be collected.

There are many labs working on it. You are just too ignorant of the field to know who and where they are. Not having a complete explanation is no reason to stop working, and say "Oh fuck, Jebus done it".

Quote:(btw - All of the basic hypothesis that you listed all hit a brick wall at some point.)

They have not. You are an ignoramus. If they had, no one would be working on the question.

Quote:Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature. it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties.

There is nothing more idiotically reductionistic than "I have no answer, so it's SUPERNATURAL". THE most idioticly ignorant idea EVER proposed

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-08-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 11:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:10 AM)u196533 Wrote:  There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis. That is why there is a $1M reward for anyone that can provide one. (Proof is not required to collect the reward; a plausible story is all that is needed.)
So until we have that, there is nothing on which data can be collected.

(btw - All of the basic hypothesis that you listed all hit a brick wall at some point.)

Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature. it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties. (E.g. Without prior knowledge, you can analyze sodium and chlorine and determine that if you combine them, it tastes good on a pretzel.)
Name one emergent property that science has predicted or explained by looking at it's components/constituents.

"There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis. That is why there is a $1M reward for anyone that can provide one. (Proof is not required to collect the reward; a plausible story is all that is needed.)
So until we have that, there is nothing on which data can be collected."


Asserting something as fact when there are a variety of scientific papers on these very hypotheses, is arrogant and stupid.

"(btw - All of the basic hypothesis that you listed all hit a brick wall at some point.)"

All of these hypotheses are tested and demonstrate plausibility. The "brick walls" you assert that they hit are typically limitations on the laboratory setting and/or the fact that we can't simulate millions of years of time in the lab. This does NOT disprove these hypotheses. Asserting that it does, just makes you look desperate.

"Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature."

No, science is not. Because science and the philosophy of science are also cumulative.

"it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties. (E.g. Without prior knowledge, you can analyze sodium and chlorine and determine that if you combine them, it tastes good on a pretzel.)"

Holy shit this is stupid. A subjective claim isn't an objective fact.

"Name one emergent property that science has predicted or explained by looking at it's components/constituents."

You don't appear to know what the fuck an "emergent" property is if you assert that subjective opinions are emergent properties.

How about this, the molecular structure of Na and Cl covalently bonded together result in a cubic crystalline structure, which is an emergent property of the covalent bond and the angles between the the positively charged Na cation and the negatively charged Cl anion.

Simply not true. There are many proposals (none of them are worthy of being a hypothesis yet) related to a singular process associated with abiogenesis. (E.g. How a membrane may have formed) If what you say is true, then why is there still a $1M reward?
Please do your research before you display your ignorance on the topic.

You don't know what an emergent property is either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 11:46 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  How have I been dishonest?

You said:
Quote:Show me the chemistry involved in abiogenesis, and then I can publish a paper.

To me that quote sounds like you want me to show you how abiogenesis works and then you can publish a paper on it. If I misunderstood you then I apologize.

(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property. That is it's weakness.

There are many things that science has yet to accomplish. The key word is yet.

(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea.

I don't remember anyone saying it was. But for all of the imperfections, science is our best tool.

Science never has and never will explain an emergent property. It is like using a microscope to dig a whole. It is the wrong tool.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 12:32 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis. That is why there is a $1M reward for anyone that can provide one. (Proof is not required to collect the reward; a plausible story is all that is needed.)
So until we have that, there is nothing on which data can be collected."


Asserting something as fact when there are a variety of scientific papers on these very hypotheses, is arrogant and stupid.

"(btw - All of the basic hypothesis that you listed all hit a brick wall at some point.)"

All of these hypotheses are tested and demonstrate plausibility. The "brick walls" you assert that they hit are typically limitations on the laboratory setting and/or the fact that we can't simulate millions of years of time in the lab. This does NOT disprove these hypotheses. Asserting that it does, just makes you look desperate.

"Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature."

No, science is not. Because science and the philosophy of science are also cumulative.

"it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties. (E.g. Without prior knowledge, you can analyze sodium and chlorine and determine that if you combine them, it tastes good on a pretzel.)"

Holy shit this is stupid. A subjective claim isn't an objective fact.

"Name one emergent property that science has predicted or explained by looking at it's components/constituents."

You don't appear to know what the fuck an "emergent" property is if you assert that subjective opinions are emergent properties.

How about this, the molecular structure of Na and Cl covalently bonded together result in a cubic crystalline structure, which is an emergent property of the covalent bond and the angles between the the positively charged Na cation and the negatively charged Cl anion.

Simply not true. There are many proposals (none of them are worthy of being a hypothesis yet) related to a singular process associated with abiogenesis. (E.g. How a membrane may have formed) If what you say is true, then why is there still a $1M reward?
Please do your research before you display your ignorance on the topic.

You don't know what an emergent property is either.

There are a number of proposals for how membranes formed. You just don't know what they are. You have proven by your ignorant reply to my post about what the Manchester Group has done, that you are totally out of touch with research in 2016. It's no longer 1950, pops.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 12:37 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 11:49 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:10 AM)u196533 Wrote:  There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis.

You are making a "god-of-the-gaps" argument.

I see it as more than that. It is not just that we don't know how it happened. It is that science tells us that it should not happen and it does not happen to non-living things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 12:34 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science never has and never will explain an emergent property. It is like using a microscope to dig a whole. It is the wrong tool.

Aaaaaand that's why you're here and not with the "real scientists".

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: