Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[HARK!]

Where has that been done?

Have you ever heard of these wind storms called hurricanes?

It's fun to follow their projected landfall with computer models; but I wouldn't bet my life on those models.

 

[HARK!]

Oh my! That was an explanation of the Miller-Urey experiment. I can see that you did not understand it. That does not "prove abiogenesis" I doubt if they claimed that it does. But it is scientific evidence for abiogenesis.

Like I said, that one was tame. The ones I watched in school made outright assertions.

The one for the military is still good for a few laughs though.

 

[HARK!]

When they are derived from other empirically tested concepts/ideas and then they, themselves are tested, then peer reviewed, they are.

Are you familiar with the peer review process? Does peer review constitute proof?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you ever heard of these wind storms called hurricanes?

It's fun to follow their projected landfall with computer models; but I wouldn't bet my life on those models.

Yet they models are getting more and more accurate, even if Trump does try to change them with a Sharpie. It appears that you do not understand that science is a progressive process. Incomplete models are constantly replaced with better and more accurate ones. Fifty years ago there were almost no models to work with. Today our models have improved to the point that they have saved lives. Today if the model says "evacuate" you better evacuate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, that one was tame. The ones I watched in school made outright assertions.

The one for the military is still good for a few laughs though.

And yet you could find no flaws with it, even though it was simplified to an elementary school level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you familiar with the peer review process? Does peer review constitute proof?

Science fail.

 

[HARK!]

And yet you could find no flaws with it, even though it was simplified to an elementary school level.

The flaw is that it's a biased presentation, built on assumptions.

 

[SelfSim]

So? No one said they were simple! .. However, whole cell biochemical process models have already been developed .. ie: the tested knowledge is there.

Life-functional artificial DNA has also been developed and tested in the lab.

Artificial functional ribozymes have also been created
Oh .. and the other key research on:

i) constraint closure in open non equilibrium systems, was done by Monteville and Mossio and;
ii) phase transitions of autocataytic sets, was done by Erdos And Renyl.

(Haven't got handy links/references to the above relevant papers/work, just yet).

Stuart Kauffman used (i) and (ii) above in his work on his Autocatalytic Set Abiogenesis Hypothesis , too.

Notice how science provides all the above evidence .. whilst those folk who rely on their belief-centered notions of reality sit back and criticise it?

I suppose that demonstrates how science actually leads the way into the unknown and leaves belief behind trying to figure out how to fit all that evidence back into the belief-based reality structures (which has kept folks at a standstill for centuries)?

This is why science needs to be taught in the classroom in order to actually progress thinking into the unknowns, in societies interested in progressing thinking into the unknowns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flaw is that it's a biased presentation, built on assumptions.

Really? What assumptions? Be specific. When you make a claim of assumptions you take on a huge burden of proof. You not only need to show that they did rely on those assumptions, but that they were unjustified assumptions to start with.

 

[HARK!]

Yet they models are getting more and more accurate, even if Trump does try to change them with a Sharpie. It appears that you do not understand that science is a progressive process. Incomplete models are constantly replaced with better and more accurate ones. Fifty years ago there were almost no models to work with. Today our models have improved to the point that they have saved lives. Today if the model says "evacuate" you better evacuate.

50 years later, and science is nowhere remotely close to creating life in a lab. The fact remains that science does not understand how life was created.

Let's see if you can come up with a refutation to this elephant in the room, without falling back on more ad hominem arguments.

If you have the proof; let's spill it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

50 years later, and science is nowhere remotely close to creating life in a lab. The fact remains that science does not understand how life was created.

Let's see if you can come up with a refutation to this elephant in the room, without falling back on more ad hominem arguments.

If you have the proof; let's spill it.

Not so. It is a lot closer. But you probably do not follow the sciences. They have built cells, granted they copied parts of working cells to do so. They have answered many of the questions of abiogenesis, no one has claimed that they answered all of them .


And where have I ever used an ad hominem argument? I have merely observed when and how you have failed. That is not an ad hominem. You keep attacking scientists with false claims and when accurate observations. That could be claimed to be an ad hom.

 

[HARK!]

Really? What assumptions? Be specific.

That life was created from airborne chemicals exposed to electricity. If you are purporting this to be a fact; then let's see your proof.

 

[SelfSim]

50 years later, and science is nowhere remotely close to creating life in a lab. The fact remains that science does not understand how life was created.

Let's see if you can come up with a refutation to this elephant in the room, without falling back on more ad hominem arguments.

If you have the proof; let's spill it.

Are you reading my posts?
Your 1st sentence claim is simply falsified by the creation of artificial RNA/Ribsomes and cell structures and detailed models.

Not proofs as you keep demanding .. but objective results ..

 

[HARK!]

They have built cells, granted they copied parts of working cells to do so.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between creation and modification.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That life was created from airborne chemicals exposed to electricity. If you are purporting this to be a fact; then let's see your proof.

No one made that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently you don't understand the difference between creation and modification.

Actually I do. But apparently you do not understand the scientific method.

 

[SelfSim]

Actually I do. But apparently you do not understand the scientific method.

I thought all that was called for there, was to counter the two claims of:

50 years later, and science is nowhere remotely close to creating life in a lab.

Falsified by the links to the creation of artificial life and:

The fact remains that science does not understand how life was created.

Falsified by numerous linked papers relating to biochemical evolutionary hypotheses(?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought all that was called for there, was to counter the two claims of:
Falsified by the links to the creation of artificial life and:
Falsified by numerous linked papers relating to biochemical evolutionary hypotheses(?)

He appears to be relying largely on strawman arguments. For example the claim that in the video they said that they made life in the lab. No such claim was made. The claim was that they made amino acids which were accurately described as "the building blocks of life". The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids could form naturally. They are the building blocks of life. Even that was denied by the creationists of that time.

 

[SelfSim]

He appears to be relying largely on strawman arguments. For example the claim that in the video they said that they made life in the lab. No such claim was made. The claim was that they made amino acids which were accurately described as "the building blocks of life". The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids could form naturally. They are the building blocks of life. Even that was denied by the creationists of that time.

The silly thing here is that I'm not even sure that I like any particular Abiogenesis Hypothesis .. let alone believe any of them.

What I do know however, is that when it comes to the question of how did life start, the objective answer is simply that: 'we don't know yet'.
(I often argue the contrary position of criticising abiognesis hypotheses, because its a legitimate position to take from a scientific viewpoint).

If something resembling a 'new' lifeform, or life processes, shows up, either in the lab or via astronomical object exploration, one can bet these hypotheses will be tested on it .. and if we don't have those well thought out, evidence based hypotheses, which ask the right questions, those tests couldn't happen .. and that's why we need science education in our schools .. (and not so much Creationism).

 

[Subduction Zone]

The silly thing here is that I'm not even sure that I like any particular Abiogenesis Hypothesis .. let alone believe any of them.

What I do know however, is that when it comes to the question of how did life start, the objective answer is simply that: 'we don't know yet'.
(I often argue the contrary position of criticising abiognesis hypotheses, because its a legitimate position to take from a scientific viewpoint).

If something resembling a 'new' lifeform, or life processes, shows up, either in the lab or via astronomical object exploration, one can bet these hypotheses will be tested on it .. and if we don't have those well thought out, evidence based hypotheses, which ask the right questions, those tests couldn't happen .. and that's why we need science education in our schools .. (and not so much Creationism).

I know. I am far from being an expert in the field so my opinion of what is most likely right is most likely wrong since there are several present hypotheses and other possible ones that have not even been formed yet. Saying "we don't know yet" when that is the current state of affairs is a strength, not a weakness. Denying what is known is simply a losing strategy.

What is amazing is that when one offers to go over the basics of science, in other words what the scientific method is and how it is applied, and the concept of scientific evidence, there is only the sound of crickets in response.