The missing ingredient is ... probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:20 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 01:09 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It hasn't been proven.
That's the most honest statement on abiogenesis you guys have made so far.
Quote:It is suggested and seems plausible.
What do you mean by "it"? You act as if there's one accepted scenario which is just lacking in proof. That's not the case. There are multiple suggestions.

Yes which is why asking for 1 study is stupid and reductionist and you know this. Go take an organic chemistry course and you will find out all about it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-02-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:26 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 01:20 PM)alpha male Wrote:  That's the most honest statement on abiogenesis you guys have made so far.
What do you mean by "it"? You act as if there's one accepted scenario which is just lacking in proof. That's not the case. There are multiple suggestions.

Yes which is why asking for 1 study is stupid and reductionist and you know this. Go take an organic chemistry course and you will find out all about it.
First, to repeat, take as many studies as you want.

Second, this is why claiming that abiogenesis has been proven, or even that a plausible theory exists, is stupid, and you should know this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:30 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 01:26 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes which is why asking for 1 study is stupid and reductionist and you know this. Go take an organic chemistry course and you will find out all about it.
First, to repeat, take as many studies as you want.

Second, this is why claiming that abiogenesis has been proven, or even that a plausible theory exists, is stupid, and you should know this.

Magic talking snakes STFU

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-02-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:34 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Magic talking snakes STFU
Word on the streets is that disparaging my position does nothing to boost your own. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:40 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 01:34 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Magic talking snakes STFU
Word on the streets is that disparaging my position does nothing to boost your own. Smile

No but I have shown you where to get the info you claim to want but you refuse to do so and yet still spout off that the hypothesis, note not a theory since it has not been proven, is flawed or wrong when that is not the case. You are horrible insultingly dense to the point of lying and frankly repeating the same point 3+ times and you ignoring it because it answered your question is why I disparage you. Anyone reading this has seen how you inane infantile questions have been answered or at least have been shown where to get the answer so my work here is done and I thank you for showing how stupid your position is.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-02-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No but I have shown you where to get the info you claim to want but you refuse to do so
Well, yes, I refuse to go take a college course because some guy on the internet says it will prove his point. I don't think your suggestion is reasonable. If I responded with a charge against Christianity with Go to a seminary or even read Hodge's Systematic Theology, that wouldn't fly.
Quote:and yet still spout off that the hypothesis,
Here you go with the again, when there are multiple hypotheses.
Quote:note not a theory since it has not been proven, is flawed or wrong when that is not the case. You are horrible insultingly dense to the point of lying and frankly repeating the same point 3+ times and you ignoring it because it answered your question is why I disparage you.
I think you're just pissed because you don't like to face how weak the support for abiogenesis is. Heck, that's why you guys attempt to divorce it from evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 02:10 PM by le_bard.)
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:30 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 01:26 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes which is why asking for 1 study is stupid and reductionist and you know this. Go take an organic chemistry course and you will find out all about it.
First, to repeat, take as many studies as you want.

Second, this is why claiming that abiogenesis has been proven, or even that a plausible theory exists, is stupid, and you should know this.

So, came back from class, nice quick moment to clear my head. Arguing about abiogenesis is a little silly.
No, it's not proven but yes, it's plausible. "It's not proven" in that we are not at a point where we can say as fact that this was the model that life originated, but the research shows that it's plausible and that's what matters. It ain't the grand answer, the origin of life on this planet, but revealing that certain circumstances in the environment can in fact produce what is considered to be the building blocks of life is a start.

We all got hyped up because you labelled something that supports abiogenesis as a plausible explanation, though in no way proven yet, as not abiogenesis. Big whoop, we just spent hours talking literally about semantics. I wanted to talk about other shit but this whole argument became, again, a pissing contest and no one wanted to clarify why we're arguing about a trivial point as this.

Yes, there is debate about whether or not organic compounds are considered life. But no debate is had over whether or not organic compounds are the building blocks of life, which gives many hope that with more research we can see if such compounds can form anything more complex through the same processes, like they did with rna.

You asked if organic compounds was life three times to no avail in another thread. To no direct answer. I realized at that point that we got so off topic, defending theory as if it were our tenet because, not to name blame, you brought it up like it was a tenet. Then someone pointed out that the theory wasn't a tenet of atheists, and yet we all talked about it as if it's a tenet. Can we stop doing that? It's a theory, it's plausibility is debated and the end of the day more research will either ground it as fact or demolish it.

Quote:The fact that there are currently no other explanations (aside from variations on "being," but still a creator of some sort).

This was your response to why the disproval of abiogenesis would make intelligent design more plausible. But, as I'll restate, this will not. Creationism isn't even plausible because they claim a god is the designer.

Quote:At first I thought you guys just weren't willing to back down from a mistake. Now I'm beginning to think that you actually believe that you've demonstrated that abiogenesis has been proven.

somewhere along the line I facepalmed at this and yet continued to argue over abiogenesis, for no reason. Probably because shit got more heated, whatever. BUT either way, the concern shouldn't be if abiogenesis, a slowly working theory on a path to either destruction or revelation with possible new findings, is plausible and should be whether creationism, "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.", is even an evidentially backed opinion to have. Because, as we pointed out before this shit storm, we can abandon abiogenesis if it crumbles and still be an atheist for a good reason. So we don't try to hold on to it like it would, though the encouraging of ignorance that many religious beliefs promote piss people off. and then argue. And then in the end LOOKING like we hold somethings as a tenet.

Quote:I think you're just pissed because you don't like to face how weak the support for abiogenesis is. Heck, that's why you guys attempt to divorce it from evolution.

Whoa, hold on there bud. divorcing the study of the origin of life with from the study of the course of life? Those ARE two different things. Abiogenesis and evolution may have very similar topics, but you're trying to peg on abiogenesis to evolution as if it makes the facts we have because of the study of evolution weak because the study of abiogenesis and life creation is weak. That's bullshit, and you should know that

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes le_bard's post
26-02-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:07 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 01:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Take an intro to Organic Chemistry class at your local Community College. What you want will never be in a study as it is too broad a subject.
It doesn't have to be in a single study. I would think that if abiogenesis had been proven, there would be a site with all the steps and references laid out. It is one of the biggest questions of all time, you know.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science doesn't prove anything. It makes conclusions based upon supporting evidence, but those conclusions can be revised anytime additional evidence warrants it.

And, while you're demanding proof, where is yours regarding a god creator? Where even is your evidence? Hint: "We're here so therefore god created us" doesn't qualify.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
26-02-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 01:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 01:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No but I have shown you where to get the info you claim to want but you refuse to do so
Well, yes, I refuse to go take a college course because some guy on the internet says it will prove his point. I don't think your suggestion is reasonable. If I responded with a charge against Christianity with Go to a seminary or even read Hodge's Systematic Theology, that wouldn't fly.

If I asked repeatedly what the tenants of christianity were and where you got your moral codes and where did everything you believe in came from you would point me to the bible. Or possibly an intro to theology course. It is a fair point to make but of course that rarely comes up as most people on this site have a far greater education on your religion it's foundational book and it's history than you do.

(26-02-2014 01:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:and yet still spout off that the hypothesis,
Here you go with the again, when there are multiple hypotheses.

Abiogenesis has multiple hows not multiple whats. That is why I can refer to it in the singular as opposed to the plural.

(26-02-2014 01:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:note not a theory since it has not been proven, is flawed or wrong when that is not the case. You are horrible insultingly dense to the point of lying and frankly repeating the same point 3+ times and you ignoring it because it answered your question is why I disparage you.
I think you're just pissed because you don't like to face how weak the support for abiogenesis is. Heck, that's why you guys attempt to divorce it from evolution.

No it has been explained multiple times where the level of support is for it, there is a lot of data that suggests it but nothing that proves it happened, yet. Which of course is way more than creationism which has nothing but a book that has been proven wrong about almost any other scientific stance it has ever taken.

As to divorcing it from evolution that is because it is not the same thing. Evolution is the explanation of how we got from single cell to multicell lifeforms not an attempt to explain how single cellular life began. But do please keep talking you are making it very clear to the silent parties that read this site just how batshit crazy your stance is.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-02-2014, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 03:06 PM by rampant.a.i..)
The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 12:58 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 12:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is a you problem, you want a peer reviewed study that gives you an intro into organic chemistry.
No, I want peer-reviewed evidence of abiogenesis. A study which starts with RNA is ridiculous to present as such.

You've been provided with peer-reviewed studies which support abiogenesis.

You admit to having zero supporting evidence to support even the premises you assume to be true if abiogenesis isn't true.

What are you arguing again? That you don't understand basic principles of logical probability?
(26-02-2014 01:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  I think you're just pissed because you don't like to face how weak the support for abiogenesis is.
Heck, that's why you guys attempt to divorce it from evolution.

Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.

This thread is fast becoming a list or things Alpha Male doesn't understand:

Burden of Proof
Logical probability
What constitutes evidence
Evolution
Basic science
Peer review
Logical fallacies
That organic compounds are organic

And his remaining argument is:

(26-02-2014 01:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  I think you're just pissed because you don't like to face how weak the support for abiogenesis is.

After repeatedly stating he has no evidence to support:
<God exists>
<God created life>

β€œIt 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: