Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually the only folly started way back when you started to infest this thread with your unscientific ID nonsense, as opposed to science. The first I remember fondly, when you aped your hero Tour and claimed the time factor for Abiogenesis was wrong. It wasn't and stands as evidence for Abiogenesis to be highly possible. And of course as you already know, not withstanding more of your Tour aping, and conspiracy crap, Abiogenesis is still the only scientific theory we have for the emergence of life. And of course the many articles from reputable scientists I have included, all agree to that positivity of Abiogenesis, despite some doubt as to methodology and pathway. A few definitions you may find interesting.... gullible: Cambridge Dict: Easily deceived and/or tricked and ready to believe anything. [Good company in that regard with river.] Intelligent design: Wiki: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, Abiogenesis: WIKI: In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood.
Actually it's your absolute trust in mainstream dogma that constitutes gullibility. No point debating you on that - you just go into an incoherent rant and unfettered cut & paste spree. This is typical of your careless and impudent tactics. Tour as a highly experienced and accomplished synthetic chemist gave careful reasons why 'time is often not your friend'. All you do as uneducated layman is make an entirely unsupported assertion, and imagine that carries some weight. It doesn't.
Absolutely correct q-reeus, particularly when its supported by evidence and correct. Only necessary when you come out with your mythical nonsense and unscientific garbage, Nup, wrong again q-reeus, the only reasons given by Tour are those "fettered" [see what I did there? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!]by the chains and manacles of his religious beliefs and taking that obscure book they call the bible, so stupidly literally. Wanna try again? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And of course mainstream science, as opposed to your pseudoscience, supports the fact of Abiogenesis.
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty A frustrating basic pitfall: The philosophers' final downfall. They try and they try But they can't reason why The real world should make sense at all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Grass-roots support for intelligent design is growing. The latest ploy of "evolution deniers" is the notion of "Intelligent Design", being promoted as a "scientific theory" worthy of (a) replacing the theory of evolution, and (b) sitting alongside Newton's mechanics as one of the great ideas of science. It has a few problems. The Intelligent Design (ID) argument doesn't qualify as a proper scientific theory. The ID argument has the trappings of a logical argument, but it is full of logical gaps and holes. It is "pseudo-logic". No scientific evidence specifically supports the assumptions of the theory. Any evidence seemingly supportive of it could equally support countless other fantastic theories, even contradictory ones. The argument uses words in deceptive ways, without carefully defining them. As an argument purportedly about "intelligence", ID is pretty "dumb". Upon careful examination it is revealed as a "con", so cleverly constructed that it's hard to see it as anything but a deliberate fraud. It is something like the magician's illusion, distracting and misdirecting the attention of the audience, while hiding the nature of the deception and the hanky-panky skillfully executed where the audience doesn't notice. And the result is—a miracle! Like all magicians' tricks, the result is, as perceived by the audience, an apparently impossible event. That's the definition of a miracle. The intelligent design hypothesis, stripped to its essential core, is this: Physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator. If this is to be taken seriously as anything more than an unfounded assertion, it must be supported by evidence that specifically supports this hypothesis (excluding all other alternatives), supporting logical arguments, and it must make predictions that lead to testable experiments that could confirm or deny it conclusively. more at link...................
I'm back Asteroid space capsule completes 5-billion-kilometre mission, touching down in a blaze of light in outback South Australia Has been away 6 years Have put here because might have answers to questions put here (and to lazy to start another thread ✅ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) https://amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproje...-mission-capsule-lands-in-outback-sa/12949898 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
“Mainstream dogma” is how the scientific method works. A synonym for ‘dogma’, in this context, is ‘theory’. A theory stands until there is verifiable quantifiable evidence to refute it. Until that evidence is found, scientists proceed based on established theories.
I wrote in part 'absolute trust'. Miss that part? And please point me to an accepted theory of unguided abiogenesis. As apposed to an ever growing collection of disparate 'hopeful hypotheses'.
Oh, I often watch Youtube lectures when presented at the Royal Institute or, MIT, or Carnegie Institute for Science, or some other reputable higher institute for learning. But I make no mistake that these lectures can serve as formal peer reviewed papers. They usually are condensed overviews of "current" science and considered "informational" rather than "formal" Aww, you found a pdf that must be purchased, a definitive disqualification for scientific information. Nice try, but I wasn't selling the pdf, but the ABSTRACT which directly adresses prebiotic Evolution, complete with illustration.
Abstracts can't be used to establish anything. The illustrations are simply a highly condensed pictorial representation of one of those hopeful hypotheses. Nothing established as fact. Certainly nothing approximating an actual theory.
Again trying to pull a swifty q-reeus? or just ignorant? I stand moslty behind scientific theories as formulated by the scientific methodology, and available data. That is far more sensible and logical then putting absolute trust in a bible thumping fanatic and your own built in fears re the finality of death. Your's is an opinion, like Tour based on fear and an uncaring dispassionate universe. Abiogensis is the only scientific theory of the existence of life. Just because we do not know the exact pathway is not any reason to gullibly grab hold of some ID myth. Grow up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You impudent arsehole! I have NEVER expressed any fear of death at SF or any other online platform. Pull your head in and stick to the facts, instead of imputing motives and feelings you have absolutely no access to! You conveniently forget I at your instigation earlier declared complete agnosticism regarding any afterlife, being completely separate from any belief in ID.
But your Youtube submissions establish anything as fact? Anything even approximating an actual theory..? What are the properties of an Intelligent Designer? Until you can answer that question you are talking about a land where the buses don't run, my friend, I'm sorry to remind you of that persistent fact........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Neglected your medication again? Such qualities!!! conceit, gullibility, hypocrisy, will it ever end? You have never admitted being gullible and a hypocrite either, but they follow you around constantly.
Will you never get it? Tour re abiogenesis, and Behe re Darwinian evolution, are not trying to construct a rival theory, instead content to establish the total unworkability of the respective mainstream positions. It's impossible in principle to construct a theory when the (perfectly reasonable) premise is a higher power guided or outright created biological life, via processes necessarily outside of human knowledge. If you can somehow overcome your huge prejudice against ID purely on the basis of what opponents portray it as, actually watch that YouTube vid. You may be in for quite a shock. Otherwise, don't bother me with more uninformed opinions.
Japan’s asteroid sample return mission lands in Australian desert More here https://www-theverge-com.cdn.amppro...sion-asteroid-sample-return-landing-australia Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Where the busses don't run????? Try where there is not even a dirt track leading to Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Anyway ignoring the nonsensical unevidenced claims, back to science...... https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/Why_Intelligent_Design.html extract: It is because proponents of ID utilize a subtle perversion of the axioms of science themselves to arrive at their conclusions. They wish their conclusions to be advanced as a scientific theory, not as a result of pure logic. They claim that there is empirical evidence for the existence of Go-, um, oops, they try not to use the ``God word'' because then ID would become a religion and not something to be taught in science class - so let's say ``an Intelligent Designer'' and let those good old Capital Letters say it all. They're perfectly content for that designer to be space aliens from an advanced civilization or God, especially if you're the one who then goes ``gee, given a choice between E.T. and God, what to choose, what to choose...'' and (of course) makes the ``right'' choice. To me this is the silliest thing imaginable. First of all, as we shall see, I used the word perversion deliberately. There is no scientific basis or empirical basis for the conclusion that there is an intelligent designer based on the evidence (usually evolutionary evidence) that they cite, at least none that would ever under any circumstances convince an unbiased scientific observer, and to get to where they can conclude that there is, they play fast and loose with silly things like the supposed difference between a ``theory'' and a ``fact''. As I clearly explained, there are no scientific facts. Scientists use the word ``fact'' to mean ``an assertion that is so thoroughly borne out empirically that their degree of conditional belief hovers around nine-nines or better'' as in ``it is a fact that this penny will fall if it is dropped'' because of their firm belief in Newton's Theory of Gravitation. Second, they ignore the essential point to focus on an almost irrelevant set of details. The essential point is that there is a Universe at all not any particular detail of that Universe. We undeniably exist. We are (while we are existing, in present tense, as an immediate empirical experience) not-Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!! Given this miraculous truth, they need to focus on crap about watches in the desert and the eye? Screw that. Time for the ol' banana, but a boatload of bananas won't suffice to Enlighten the unprepared mind. As long as they cling to their scriptural preconceptions about God, as long as they cannot free themselves from a need to clothe their arguments in the moth-eaten trappings of Science (which has its own set of rational problems and limitations to deal with) they will continue to be an annoyance to both scientist and philosopher alike.
