Discussion:
biogenesis a theory, abiogenesis not?
(too old to reply)
Dale
2015-11-02 03:18:29 UTC
Permalink
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable

as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses

to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested

biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory

as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed

it is a lot easier to abstract a creator, even if metaphoric,
considering the abundance of observation of biogenesis, it is also
easier to abstract no abiogenesis due to the same observations and no
observation of such
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-11-02 04:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
Good thing it's not just an hypothesis, imbecile.

Abiogenesis simply means "life where there previously wasn't life".

It is a definition that is parsimonious and almost tautological.

And it is blindingly obvious that there hasn't always been life.
Post by Dale
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
You've already demonstrated you know hardly anything.
Post by Dale
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
Good thing it's not a theory but a fact.
Post by Dale
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
Idiot.
Post by Dale
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
It has been, in lab research, imbecile.
Post by Dale
it is a lot easier to abstract a creator, even if metaphoric,
No, moron - because there is nothing that points towards one - it is
always a pre-existing religious belief.
Post by Dale
considering the abundance of observation of biogenesis, it is also
easier to abstract no abiogenesis due to the same observations and no
observation of such
Don't be so stucking fupid.

If you object to the term, then explain how there can always have been
life, even before the Earth's crust had cooled sufficiently to support
it.

What made you so mind-bogglingly stupid?

As well as so dishonest you came here with nonsense that had been
refuted in talk.origins?
Dale
2015-11-02 21:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It has been, in lab research, imbecile.
I don't think it has

citation?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-11-02 22:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It has been, in lab research, imbecile.
I don't think
We know. You're deliberately ignorant and remarkably stupid as well.
Post by Dale
it has
citation?
You've been given this many tines, but always ignored it.

Do you seriously imagine the world's scientists, governments and
universities are part of some global conspiracy to lie about their
results?

Of course, it is highly unlikely it happened exactly the same way
three or four billion years ago, but that is irrelevant. It shows that
a magical superbeing isn't necessary for it, and what they claim is
impossible without one, has been demonstrated without one....

A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.

They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

An abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team concerning
their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell

Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu

Abstract

Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (“sulfobes”) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM.

The proven serial liar has been given this many times but never
addressed it.

Part of the problem would seem to be that these morons refuse to
accept that the earliest life was extremely simple and evolved from
there. They expect abiogenesis research to come up with fully formed
modern life because they imagine their religion's god did.
Dale
2015-11-03 00:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.
They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.
okay, I agree with non-sentient life

what about sentient life? wouldn't there be some ethical considerations with
this?

in both cases safety considerations?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-11-03 00:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.
They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.
okay, I agree with non-sentient life
Trying to move the goalposts?
Post by Dale
what about sentient life? wouldn't there be some ethical considerations with
this?
Like I said, moving the goalposts.

If you had a functioning brain, you would understand that life on
Earth originated 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

And that modern life evolved from that over gajillions of generations.

How long do you think (not a word that comes to mind about you) there
has been sentient life?

Do you honestly (another word that doesn't come to mind when
describing you) expect sentient life to be produced straight away?

But in any case, yes, there would be ethical problems.

Science fiction deals with this sort of thing, eg whether or not
sentient androids count as people.

But that would be far in the future.
Post by Dale
in both cases safety considerations?
Autoclaves and sterilisation of the equipment.

The researchers don't just pour the results down the sink and wash the
equipment.
Dale
2015-11-03 03:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
okay, I agree with
Just for shits & giggles, try passing off a local
news story as a scientific paper published in a
peer-reviewed journal, the way the collective just
did using the Chrissy handle.
THEN follow up this shit stain ignorance by finding
one whole actual paper partially authored by a highly
controversial figure, pretending that this somehow
proves that all the KOOKY ideas of the controversial
figure are actually sound science.
You know, EXACTLY as the collective just did posting
as Chrissy...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/132240303328
maybe I haven't looked enough, but, did the internet expand the peer-review
process? shouldn't the lesser publishing costs at least expand
consciousness?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-11-03 13:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
okay, I agree with
Just for shits & giggles, try passing off a local
news story as a scientific paper published in a
peer-reviewed journal, the way the collective just
did using the Chrissy handle.
THEN follow up this shit stain ignorance by finding
one whole actual paper partially authored by a highly
controversial figure, pretending that this somehow
proves that all the KOOKY ideas of the controversial
figure are actually sound science.
You know, EXACTLY as the collective just did posting
as Chrissy...
What a fucking moron.
Post by Dale
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/132240303328
maybe I haven't looked enough, but, did the internet expand the peer-review
process? shouldn't the lesser publishing costs at least expand
consciousness?
What another fucking moron.
Bob Casanova
2015-11-03 17:26:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:45:02 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
okay, I agree with
Just for shits & giggles, try passing off a local
news story as a scientific paper published in a
peer-reviewed journal, the way the collective just
did using the Chrissy handle.
THEN follow up this shit stain ignorance by finding
one whole actual paper partially authored by a highly
controversial figure, pretending that this somehow
proves that all the KOOKY ideas of the controversial
figure are actually sound science.
You know, EXACTLY as the collective just did posting
as Chrissy...
What a fucking moron.
Yep. Killfiles are Your Friend (TM).
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/132240303328
maybe I haven't looked enough, but, did the internet expand the peer-review
process? shouldn't the lesser publishing costs at least expand
consciousness?
What another fucking moron.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Christopher A. Lee
2015-11-03 18:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:45:02 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
okay, I agree with
Just for shits & giggles, try passing off a local
news story as a scientific paper published in a
peer-reviewed journal, the way the collective just
did using the Chrissy handle.
What "local news story"?

All you need to do is Google Fox and protocells, and you will find
peer-revived research going back decades.

The Harbinger link was because it was for the non-expert but educated
and intelligent layman.

One of these days, McShitforbrains McGuinness might actually address
what people have taken the time and trouble to explain, instead of
lying about it (and us).
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
THEN follow up this shit stain ignorance by finding
one whole actual paper partially authored by a highly
controversial figure, pretending that this somehow
proves that all the KOOKY ideas of the controversial
figure are actually sound science.
Does the moron seriously imagine the entire scientific community,
schools, universities, etc are conspiring together to repeat a lie?
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
You know, EXACTLY as the collective just did posting
as Chrissy...
What a fucking moron.
Yep. Killfiles are Your Friend (TM).
We shouldn't have to use them, if people were honest.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/132240303328
maybe I haven't looked enough, but, did the internet expand the peer-review
process? shouldn't the lesser publishing costs at least expand
consciousness?
What another fucking moron.
Whether or not McShitforbrains McGuinness actually believes his
nonsense, he is seriously mentally ill.

I suspect he doesn't because he gets too much totally wrong, but in
that case why would he want the whole world to treat him as an idiot?

Either way, the obsession with which he stalks atheists to attack them
by lying about things which are nothing to do with atheism, only
demonstrates his mental illness.
BruceS
2015-11-04 17:26:54 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Casanova
Yep. Killfiles are Your Friend (TM).
We shouldn't have to use them, if people were honest.
That's a very big "if", but not big enough. Some people clearly are
*not* honest. On top of that, some are not sane, and some are not
intelligent. Killfiles help with that, saving you from wasting time on
consistent liars, trolls, loons, and idiots. You're free to keep
talking to them, of course. There are some with whom I enjoy
conversing, not so much in spite of their shortcomings as because of
them. Where's "Adam of the Bible" when you need him?
Jeanne Douglas
2015-11-03 08:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.
They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.
okay, I agree with non-sentient life
what about sentient life? wouldn't there be some ethical considerations with
this?
What are you talking about? How does sentient life have to do with
anything?
Post by Dale
in both cases safety considerations?
Safety for what? From what?
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Christopher A. Lee
2015-11-03 13:52:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:42:48 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.
They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.
okay, I agree with non-sentient life
what about sentient life? wouldn't there be some ethical considerations with
this?
What are you talking about? How does sentient life have to do with
anything?
Post by Dale
in both cases safety considerations?
Safety for what? From what?
He needed to say something, however irrelevant to my reply.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-11-03 08:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It has been, in lab research, imbecile.
I don't think it has
citation?
Didn't go to high school, eh?
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Christopher A. Lee
2015-11-03 13:51:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:41:26 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It has been, in lab research, imbecile.
I don't think it has
citation?
Didn't go to high school, eh?
I doubt many American high schools teach it, because they don't want
trouble from creationists.

Although in less fundamentalist places, it's routine course work even
at high school level.

He'd been given the usual examples many times but never took any
notice, until now.

This time he actually did, and then moved the goalposts from life to
sentient life, with a red herring about its safety and its ethics.

Oddy enough, he could have made the same point about his hypothetical
god destroying the sentient life he imagines it created.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-11-02 05:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Dale
2015-11-02 05:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Jeanne Douglas
2015-11-02 07:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
What is "ad hominid"?

And how is it whatever you claim?
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Bob Casanova
2015-11-02 18:25:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
BruceS
2015-11-02 20:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
Dale
2015-11-03 00:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
wonder why atheism isn't embraced so much?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
BruceS
2015-11-03 17:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
wonder why atheism isn't embraced so much?
There's nothing in atheism to embrace. You seem confused.

(See, I can do it too!)

I have to wonder whether the screwup of the group list was due to mental
illness, or was some attempt by a troll to be funny.
Bob Casanova
2015-11-03 17:28:43 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:09:09 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
wonder why atheism isn't embraced so much?
Do you "embrace" a lack of belief in the Easter Bunny?
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
2015-11-04 17:53:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:28:43 -0700, the following appeared
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:09:09 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
wonder why atheism isn't embraced so much?
Do you "embrace" a lack of belief in the Easter Bunny?
Well, Dale?
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
2015-11-06 17:34:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:53:30 -0700, the following appeared
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:28:43 -0700, the following appeared
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:09:09 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
wonder why atheism isn't embraced so much?
Do you "embrace" a lack of belief in the Easter Bunny?
Well, Dale?
Still waiting, Dale...
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
2015-11-03 17:24:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:13:39 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
What can I say? I'm retired, and have too much free time.
;-)
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
BruceS
2015-11-03 17:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:13:39 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
What can I say? I'm retired, and have too much free time.
;-)
Is that like having too much money? I may also be retired, but there
never seems to be quite enough time.
Bob Casanova
2015-11-04 17:51:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:35:12 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:13:39 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
What can I say? I'm retired, and have too much free time.
;-)
Is that like having too much money? I may also be retired, but there
never seems to be quite enough time.
Point. Maybe it's actually a character flaw, like slowing
down to gawk at an accident on the freeway...
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
BruceS
2015-11-06 21:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:35:12 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:13:39 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
What can I say? I'm retired, and have too much free time.
;-)
Is that like having too much money? I may also be retired, but there
never seems to be quite enough time.
Point. Maybe it's actually a character flaw, like slowing
down to gawk at an accident on the freeway...
LOL. I'm egocentric enough to characterize all of my "character flaws"
as positive traits. I take this to the extent of looking down my nose
at anyone who isn't also egocentric.
Bob Casanova
2015-11-08 02:02:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 14:49:01 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:35:12 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:13:39 -0700, the following appeared
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
You know nothing.
ad hominid
Nope, it's an observation of the apparent lack of knowledge
evidenced by what you expressed above. If she had said "You
are "X", and therefore your argument is wrong" *that* would
be ad hominem (note the term). But she didn't.
Every once in a while, someone crossposts one of these to sci.skeptic,
which is otherwise pretty empty these days. I am repeatedly amazed that
those of you with functioning minds continue to respond to certain
posters who can only be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or trolling.
It does provide some amusement, so I'm not trying to dissuade you, I'm
just surprised you take the time.
What can I say? I'm retired, and have too much free time.
;-)
Is that like having too much money? I may also be retired, but there
never seems to be quite enough time.
Point. Maybe it's actually a character flaw, like slowing
down to gawk at an accident on the freeway...
LOL. I'm egocentric enough to characterize all of my "character flaws"
as positive traits. I take this to the extent of looking down my nose
at anyone who isn't also egocentric.
I guess my positive traits are legion...

Dale
2015-11-02 05:33:04 UTC
Permalink
When you have nothing to say, keep it to yourself.
apparently I said "something"

when I have "nothing" to say it will be obvious

exactly what is the "something" you want to hear?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Olrik
2015-11-02 05:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
When you have nothing to say, keep it to yourself.
apparently I said "something"
when I have "nothing" to say it will be obvious
exactly what is the "something" you want to hear?
It's already have been heard.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Dale
2015-11-02 05:36:28 UTC
Permalink
[...]
So what, idiot troll? That's another minute we'll never get back.
When you have nothing to say, keep it to yourself.
the correct pecking order for complaints in your case might be

alt.usenet.kooks
news.groups
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Malcolm McMahon
2015-11-03 21:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is testable
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a scientific
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
it is a lot easier to abstract a creator, even if metaphoric,
considering the abundance of observation of biogenesis, it is also
easier to abstract no abiogenesis due to the same observations and no
observation of such
Its certainly easy, providing it doesn't bother you that you have no
explanation for the origins of such a God. But all you're actually doing
is moving the problem a step further away.

God is a far _harder_ thing to explain than the emergence of
conventional biology.

We don't _know_ how life came to be, and will probably never be sure.
Have the humility to live with "I don't know".
Dale
2015-11-05 01:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
to be a scientific hypothesis you need an explanation that is
testable
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
as far as I know, both biogenesis and abiogenesis are scientific
hypotheses
to be a scientific theory you need a hypothesis that has been
inductively tested
biogenesis is observed all that time, I would say it is a
scientific
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
theory
as far as I know abiogenesis has never been observed
it is a lot easier to abstract a creator, even if metaphoric,
considering the abundance of observation of biogenesis, it is also
easier to abstract no abiogenesis due to the same observations and no
observation of such
Its certainly easy, providing it doesn't bother you that you have no
explanation for the origins of such a God. But all you're actually doing
is moving the problem a step further away.
God is a far _harder_ thing to explain than the emergence of
conventional biology.
We don't _know_ how life came to be, and will probably never be sure.
Have the humility to live with "I don't know".
I'll admit anything cosmological is not testable.

Will you?

I often say metaphors and parables have value.

I think faith has value.

I've said abstraction is a quicker way to the truth than
philosophically navigating all the logical fallacies.

methinks the Renascence and "pure science" ended with the Copenhagen
Interpretation, with some last threads being finished up with
relativity and the standard particle model and what that leads to
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Loading...