Evolution applies to everything

1] "Scientific proof" is an oxymoron. Science does not prove things. Science builds accurate models (theories) that match our observations and strengthens them with evidence. But the next piece of evidence that comes along could validate the theory. So it is never "proven".

2] There is strong evidence that life began on Earth.

The earliest forms of life known are found on this planet. We have a pretty good record going back to the most primitive forms right here on Earth. No forms of life early or later are found anywhere else.

This is evidence that the first place it appeared was on this planet.

What it is not - and I can't stress this enough - is compelling evidence. It does not compellingly preclude life having started elsewhere.

This is a basis from which you can launch your thesis. All you have to do is show evidence that life started elsewhere. See point 1. Any sign of life off Earth would invalidate the theory that it began here (or at least cause it to need modification).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think Karl Popper has said approximately all that needs to be said on scientific methodology. Its known that scientific laws can only be disproven.

But successful communication presupposes a common language and logic and we are not (yet) able to correctly interprete each others texts.

To me texts in here seem to be written by personal enemies of mine(I hasten to add that I dont believe that actually is the case, it only looks that way to me perhaps as a result of unsuccessful communication.)

I dont know what your reaction to MY text is...do you (not YOU in particular) find me arrogant closeminded incompetent and lunatic as is my interpretation of reactions to my writings?
I think my def above needs correction:Successful communication presupposes a common language, logic and manner.

That said ill return to the matter at hand, but first:

Why do you think I should consider believing in creationism? What will the effect on other readers be?
If I imply the same of you...would you be insulted? ARE YOU insulting me on purpose? Is that not against forum rules?

Now business:

Why did you ignore all numbered questions but the last two?
And yes, together they indicate something:

IF we find a situation in a gravity weak volume where conditions are sufficient for life to arise
THEN because of having gravity as a factor
it is impossible that exactly the same condition will occur on any planet under natural conditions!

How can you say that this is irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? Why, if such a situation is found, is it not evidence or proof ?
And, at last: I have no wish what so ever to insult you...is that communicated?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am puzzled that if you are aware of this that you would have made the error in thinking that seems evident in your posts, which I implicitly addressed in my prior reply and which DaveC addressed explicitly in his.

Perhaps. I think I have understood you thus far - I have not understood why you are saying some things.

I freely confess that I am intolerant of sloppy or inaccurate thinking. In claiming there was no evidence that life originated on Earth you were guilty of both. I pointed this out to you, directly. Perhaps you associate being told you are wrong with enemies. I associate it with friends. Enemies are much happier seeing you delude yourself. Friends seek to prevent that.

I think you are getting hung up on unimportant detail that is incidental to your arguments. I think the presentation of your arguments seems to have an uneccesary emotional content.

This is a trivial observation. I'm mildly annoyed that I have to point that out.

You were appalled at the suggestion we could not have proof. "What a useless concept" you said. You thought that there shoul dbe some volume of evidence that would assure us that something was true.

I told you that assurance is what you get from creationists. You know that creationists are unscientific. So to is the expectation of assurance. I wished to point this out to you dramatically.

This would only be an insult if you chose to turn to creationism, or to insist upon science delivering assurances. In that case you would be insulting yourself.

Because they were a new topic that I had no interest on commenting on at this time.

Because you are assuming that life can only arise in one set of conditions. There is no obvious reason that life might not arise in space and independently on a high gravity planet. Therefore the fact that life could be shown to have arisen in space does not mean it cannot arise on the Earth.

I didn't think you did wish to insult me. I didn't think you had insulted me. But I do find your giant I intimidating and aggressive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SEE!

Lets forget about the past unless it has to do with business.

Im not assuming that there cannot be solutions able to occur on planets.
(where did I accidentally do that?) If we find conditions that includes very low gravitation(an enormous amount of drops of water in weightless surroundings) then THAT condition can not be replicated on a planet. (Where an other not identical set of circumstances by all means may produce life.)
But I find it probable that IF life can start in weightless space THEN maybe weightlessness is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

PS How and why did you interest youself on stellar clouds. And can you refere to research done on finding areas...sorry volumes... where conditions for cellular life may be found counted from the beginning of the cloud up to the present?
Im under the impression that the thought is thought to be so unlikely and preposterous so nobody bothered to do any research. Am I wrong in that?

 

You do have a ... unique style of communicating that tends to goad people into dismissing you. A few things you could change:
1] "So you HAVE no evidence!? Just as I thought!" This is a highly combative tone. It sets you up as a fighter, not a discusser.
2] "I consider my claim to be proven true! " This pretend ignorance of making one's case destroys your value in a serious discussion.
2] Putting an exclamation mark after every sentence makes your posts read like a children's book.

I'm not saying you are these things, I'm saying it is a lot of work to overcome them in responding and give your arguments their due credit. Most people won't. I've been trying.

 

Thanks them"!" come automatically...This constructive critic is appreciated

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS But please no more personal shit for a day or two! I need to digest this.

Im a foreigner... have been on the net one year and am used to getting enemies...sort of stopped wondering why... Im used to it ... I dont get banned much...The idea that I MYSELF could do something about it is absolutely new...habits die hard ...ill think about it...Its rather fun to fight though...
still i guess one could fight over more important things...Its ideas im interested in...perhaps you noticed im no copy cat? ... I prefer to think my own thoughts wherever they may lead...and if my MANNER prevents ppl from trying to catch my idea ??? Yeah!!! IM interested. (But sceptic: the chanses of a fast U-turn seems nil!!!)

 

Just cleaning up after a quarrel

Me too.

It is not trivial, but I feel no need to argue about it in this thread.

We used the same word for different concepts, I use it more like the legal sence:
If I see evidence for x then x is true. Not: if I see evidence for x then x might be true.
(that is indication to me, and no amount of it makes evidence or truth)

We dont agree on terminology: Mathematics is a science where you can get absolute assurance. Also im assured cancer can be lethal. Its simply the case that we can get assured. There is absolute assurance AND scientific assurance.

So goodbye thread :http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=114094