Now tell me the scientist is capable of logic without bias.

[Subduction Zone]

But the reality is the protections don’t always work.
Warnings are not always heeded.
Scientists are people.
People are flawed and biased.
Disciplines can be systemically biased.
Groupthink happens in science.

Does it? Show how a major field has that. Please do not slander others without evidence since that would be a breaking of the Ninth Commandment even if you believed your nonsense.

 

[Mountainmike]

Does it? Show how a major field has that. Please do not slander others without evidence since that would be a breaking of the Ninth Commandment even if you believed your nonsense.

On all the issues where science has a credo. Science looks through the window of that systemic credo.

( like declaring consciousness IS a chemical process confined to the brain, without having any framework to understand consciousness. That is a credo, shared by most in science, that defies many inexplicable experiences that contradict it. But interestingly even some of the prime medical researchers in that field now have doubt over it. Take Greyson.

Or that abiogenesis WAS an unguided chemical accident , with nothing but conjecture for how , or where, or when small parts of that process may have occurred, no evidence let alone proof that the conjecture was how it occurred, nor even any proof it did occur. No evidence of repeat. No means to repeat it. So it is A credo, and sadly it is taught to schoolchildren as more or less a fact.
It might of course even be right. But is is only as yet a "Might be". You cannot even say "might possibly be", because the possibility of it has yet to be demonstrated)

And there are some very flawed people in science. Why?
Because scientists are people and there are some VERY flawed people, so it is not immune to hubris or incompetence. As I stated elsewhere, most people in all walks of life are conscientious but they also occasionally fallible, and some go rotten. That’s life. That’s people. That’s scientists on a rare occasion.

"CEO disease" which afflicts some new CEO of big companies (something akin to infallibility, that wont let evidence in they are wrong) also seems to infect a few professors too!

We have already raised several incidents of hubris and bias getting in the way of good science. No point in raising them again. There have been plenty in history. Harry Gove inventor of AMS condemned himself of bias in his very own autobiography, nobody needed to do it for him! I really do wish some of you would research the behaviour of Gove, Tite et al. It was shocking...

 

[Subduction Zone]

On all the issues where science has a credo. Science looks through the window of that systemic credo.

( like declaring consciousness IS a chemical process confined to the brain, without having any framework to understand consciousness. That is a credo, shared by most in science, that defies many inexplicable experiences that contradict it. But interestingly even some of the prime medical researchers in that field now have doubt over it. Take Greyson.

Or that abiogenesis WAS an unguided chemical accident , with nothing but conjecture for how , or where, or when small parts of that process may have occurred, no evidence let alone proof that the conjecture was how it occurred, nor even any proof it did occur. No evidence of repeat. No means to repeat it. So it is A credo, and sadly it is taught to schoolchildren as more or less a fact.
It might of course even be right. But is is only as yet a "Might be". You cannot even say "might possibly be", because the possibility of it has yet to be demonstrated)

And there are some very flawed people in science. Why?
Because scientists are people and there are some VERY flawed people, so it is not immune to hubris or incompetence. As I stated elsewhere, most people in all walks of life are conscientious but they also occasionally fallible, and some go rotten. That’s life. That’s people. That’s scientists on a rare occasion.

"CEO disease" which afflicts some new CEO of big companies (something akin to infallibility, that wont let evidence in they are wrong) also seems to infect a few professors too!

We have already raised several incidents of hubris and bias getting in the way of good science. No point in raising them again. There have been plenty in history. Harry Gove inventor of AMS condemned himself of bias in his very own autobiography, nobody needed to do it for him! I really do wish some of you would research the behaviour of Gove, Tite et al. It was shocking...

Why do keep repeating that abiogenesis is just conjecture? How are you going to prove that when you do not understand the science. It has been demonstrated not to be conjecture many times and yet you continue to repeat this falsehood. Why even make a claim that puts the burden of proof upon you when you have no understanding of the topic?

You are now making it look as if you know that you are breaking the Ninth Commandment but do not care about it. When you make a claim about others or about their work you take on a burden of proof. All that you did was to confirm my prior post when you repeated your false claims.

 

[Mountainmike]

Why do keep repeating that abiogenesis is just conjecture?

Because it IS just conjecture!

It is Interesting conjecture. It might even be true!

But it cannot be repeated, it does not repeat, there is nothing like a complete mechanism for it, no place or time conjectured where it actually did happen. No proof it actualy did happen or how it happened if it did. Reality is there are just ideas on how parts of it MIGHT have happened, parts that do not join up and even if they are validated, it does not say that IS how it happened , only how it MIGHT have happened.

That is the definition of conjecture. Let me remind you off the dictionary definition:

"an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of INCOMPLETE information"

"Incomplete" is overstating the case. Very Little solid information is a better characterization of abiogenesis. But I shall be optimisic and call it "conjecture" despite the fact it probably does not qualify even as conjecture.

Even designers struggle to either conceive or replicate smallparts of what they think MAY havehappened, and they dont get even small pieces viable till many attempts later so the chances of it happening by accident without a lab and an army of PHds is staggeringly small.

So You have done well to illustrate BIAS ( the subject of this thread)
towards a piece of most atheists credo. You believe it, and as a result you way overstate the certainty of the scientific case for it, which is at best a set of "plausibility arguments" for parts of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it IS just conjecture!

It is Interesting conjecture. It might even be true!

But it cannot be repeated, it does not repeat, there is nothing like a complete mechanism for it, no place or time conjectured where it actually did happen. No proof it actualy did happen or how it happened if it did. Reality is there are just ideas on how parts of it MIGHT have happened, parts that do not join up and even if they are validated, it does not say that IS how it happened , only how it MIGHT have happened.

That is the definition of conjecture. Let me remind you off the dictionary definition:

"an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information"

"Incomplete" is overstating the case. Very Little solid information is a better characterization. But I shall be optimisic and call it "conjecture" despite the fact it probably does not qualify even as conjecture.

Even designers struggle to either conceive or replicate smallparts of what they think MAY havehappened, and they dont get even small pieces viable till many attempts later so the chances of it happening by accident without a lab and an army of PHds is staggeringly small.

So You have done well to illustrate BIAS ( the subject of this thread)
towards a piece of most atheists credo. You believe it, and as a result you way overstate the certainty of the scientific case for it, which is at best a set of "plausibility arguments" for parts of it.

I am sorry but you are making me laugh.. You need more than a declarative statement. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand how far the science has advanced. You almost certainly do not know what problems they have solved and which ones they haven't.

How are you going to prove that it is conjecture?

 

[Mountainmike]

How are you going to prove that it is conjecture?

I don’t need to prove anything.
You need to prove you have COMPLETE understanding of abiogenesis. You haven’t. Nobody has, not even close.

That is the definition of conjecture! Look it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t need to prove anything.
You need to prove you have COMPLETE understanding of abiogenesis. You haven’t. Nobody has, not even close.

That is the definition of conjecture! Look it up.

You are abusing the definition of conjecture. Yes, there are unanswered questions in abiogenesis. But there is strong evidence for it. Meanwhile you demonstrated rather extreme hypocrisy since you have no valid evidence fort our religious beliefs by your standards Christianity is conjecture.

 

[Mountainmike]

I can only remind you of the dictionary definition of conjecture.

"an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of INCOMPLETE information"

The thread related scientific bias based on belief. It exists, as here.

You are abusing the definition of conjecture. Yes, there are unanswered questions in abiogenesis. But there is strong evidence for it. Meanwhile you demonstrated rather extreme hypocrisy since you have no valid evidence fort our religious beliefs by your standards Christianity is conjecture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can only remind you of the dictionary definition of conjecture.

"an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of INCOMPLETE information"

The thread related scientific bias based on belief. It exists, as here.

Except in science, it's a hypothesis, not conjecture.

 

[Mountainmike]

Except in science, it's a hypothesis, not conjecture.

Not so. That is a misunderstanding

A hypothesis is something very specific.

A hypothesis for abiogenesis ( defined as no life to life) itself needs something that can be tested something that repeats or can be repeated , as the transition from no life to life. So The critical step is the one that produces a self evolving , self replicating cell from a precursor that is not. Ie no life to life . No such cell is as yet defined whose transition can be tested by experiment.

The first protocell postulated I read about was in the pages of new scientist 50 years ago, but there was no mechanism defined from non replicating / evolving to that cell.

The other two processes needed are how that evolves to present cells and how the non living Immediate precursors came to be. Until the first is defined the others can only be guessed at.

The status of abiogenesis research really is just conjecture . Sure there are hypothesis and experiments: but they are not the critical step. The difficulty is defining a minimum cell that is complex enough to evolve but simple enough to arise from non living chemistry. There is a minimum complexity for that first cell.

Whoever, solves the problem also has to explain why the process is not visible anywhere.

Abiogenesis is fascinating. It may even be right in some form. But as yet all there is is conjecture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not so. That is a misunderstanding

A hypothesis is something very specific.

A hypothesis for abiogenesis ( defined as no life to life) itself needs something that can be tested something that repeats or can be repeated , as the transition from no life to life. So The critical step is the one that produces a self evolving , self replicating cell from a precursor that is not. Ie no life to life . No such cell is as yet defined whose transition can be tested by experiment.

The first protocell postulated I read about was in the pages of new scientist 50 years ago, but there was no mechanism defined from non replicating / evolving to that cell.

The other two processes needed are how that evolves to present cells and how the non living Immediate precursors came to be. Until the first is defined the others can only be guessed at.

The status of abiogenesis research really is just conjecture . Sure there are hypothesis and experiments: but they are not the critical step. The difficulty is defining a minimum cell that is complex enough to evolve but simple enough to arise from non living chemistry. There is a minimum complexity for that first cell.

Whoever, solves the problem also has to explain why the process is not visible anywhere.

Abiogenesis is fascinating. It may even be right in some form. But as yet all there is is conjecture.

Except that the idea of abiogenesis has more scientific validation behind it to be more than conjecture, while the alternative, special creation from a deity, has... well, ZERO scientific validation.

Creationism is conjecture. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

 

[Mountainmike]

Except that the idea of abiogenesis has more scientific validation behind it to be more than conjecture, while the alternative, special creation from a deity, has... well, ZERO scientific validation.

Creationism is conjecture. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

Stick to scientific process.

Abiogenesis is conjecture. It does not repeat, there is no way to repeat it. There is no end to end process for it. There is no proof it happened, or how, or where , or when. No explanation for why there are no simpler cells extant , or why the process is no longer continuing.

It may even be true.

But the scientific status of abiogenesis is pure conjecture. You cannot bend the rules to suit your beliefs. That is bias.

It is not a hypothesis until the critical step ( no life to life ) is defined and an experiment Is defined to test it, then after that experiments that demonstrate the generation of precursors and the possibility of the development of the protocell to present.

It is a common atheist bias that promotes abiogenesis way past it’s true status.

As for creation, you would be surprised. It’s not the place to discuss it and so I won’t, but there is actual forensic evidence of inert host , to living heart in the Eucharist. Creation of life. However weak or strong you consider it it is far stronger than abiogenesis because at least there is some evidence of where and when it actually happened.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Stick to scientific process.

Abiogenesis is conjecture. It does not repeat, there is no way to repeat it. There is no end to end process for it. There is no proof it happened, or how, or where , or when. No explanation for why there are no simpler cells extant , or process continuing.

It may even be true.
But the scientific status of abiogenesis is pure conjecture.
It is not a hypothesis until the critical step ( no life to life ) is defined and an experiment defined to test it.

It is a common atheist bias that promotes abiogenesis way past it’s true status.

As for creation, you would be surprised. It’s not the place to discuss it and so I won’t, but there is actual forensic evidence of inert host , to living heart. Creation of life. However weak or strong you consider it it is far stronger than abiogenesis because at least there is evidence of where and when it happened.

I am sticking to the scientific process, and that is that abiogenesis is a scientifically valid hypothesis. Creationism is not a scientifically valid hypothesis. It's not even conjecture. It is not science at all.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am sticking to the scientific process, and that is that abiogenesis is a scientifically valid hypothesisl.

Then you need to study the meaning of hypothesis.


I gave an idea of where to find some evidence of creation.
But that’s not what this thread is about.

This thread is about the kind of bias that promotes abiogenesis way past the actual status. Conjecture.

Until you define the critical step in a way that can be tested there is no hypothesis.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then you need to study the meaning of hypothesis.


I gave an idea of where to find some evidence of creation.
But that’s not what this thread is about.

it’s the kind of bias that promotes abiogenesis way past the actual status. Conjecture.

Until you define the critical step in a way that can be tested there is no hypothesis.

I see a claim from you with zero evidence to support it, and having argued with you before, I know that I will not receive any evidence for it because you feel that, for some reason, you shouldn't given evidence for your claims. So your claims are worthless.

Meanwhile, the Millery-Urey experiment shows that the fundamental building blocks of live can form, which support my claim that abiogenesis is a scientifically valid hypothesis.

 

[Mountainmike]

The Miller Urey experiment was not evidence of abiogenesis itself.

A pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing , self building self evolving houses, or the minimum complexity form of them. It’s a pile of bricks, that stays a pile of bricks until you postulate what next.

I’m disappointed your knowledge of abiogenesis descends to that level. There are far more interesting parts.

Anyway the thread is drifting. The promotion of Abiogenesis as anything beyond conjecture is proof of common atheist bias.

There is no reason to suppose that science can actually determine what exists in a fundamental sense. It models what repeats in observations. And that’s the problem for abiogenesis it doesn’t repeat, and can’t be made to repeat. So the rest is just conjecture.

There are plenty of tissue sections out there for host to heart and the reports of pathologists who investigated them. It’s up to you if you look.

I see a claim from you with zero evidence to support it, and having argued with you before, I know that I will not receive any evidence for it because you feel that, for some reason, you shouldn't given evidence for your claims. So your claims are worthless.

Meanwhile, the Millery-Urey experiment shows that the fundamental building blocks of live can form, which support my claim that abiogenesis is a scientifically valid hypothesis.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Miller Urey experiment was not evidence of abiogenesis itself.

A pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing , self building self evolving houses, or the minimum complexity form of them. It’s a pile of bricks, that stays a pile of bricks until you postulate what next.

I’m disappointed your knowledge of abiogenesis descends to that level. There are far more interesting parts.

And yet, it's a lot more than what creationism has in terms of scientific validity.

 

[Mountainmike]

And yet, it's a lot more than what creationism has in terms of scientific validity.

I’ve given you an example of evidence of creation.

Regardless of that. Miller Urey Is not evidence of abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is just conjecture. Promoting it to hypothesis is bias. It might even be true. But I can take an unbiased view of it. Unlike atheists I don’t need abiogenesis to be true.

Science has limits. There is no academic paper that says my house exists. I assure you it does. There is a book of legal and other papers that says it does. In that context they are the truth.
There’s a book of forensic reports that says host to heart are real heart myocardium. It doesn’t need an academic paper to prove it. The pathologists and their reports conclude it has.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I’ve given you an example of evidence of creation.

Regardless of that. Miller Urey Is not evidence of abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is just conjecture. Promoting it to hypothesis is bias. It might even be true. But I can take an unbiased view of it. Unlike atheists I don’t need abiogenesis to be true.

No, you gave me a claim, nothing more.

The Miller-Urey experiment is 100% more than anything you can give. You saying it isn't evidence of abiogenesis means nothing.

 

[Mountainmike]

You saying it isn't evidence of abiogenesis means nothing.

It means I understand the definitions of:
Abiogenesis.
Hypothesis.
Conjecture.
Bias. ( that in this case tries to promote mere conjecture to status hypothesis)
Not surprisingly. I am ( or I was before moving on to other things ) a scientist!