A new development to watch closely

[SkyWriting]

Not all abiogenesis hypotheses involve sunlight - in the deep oceanic hydrothermal vents (a popular choice for abiogenesis research), sunlight doesn't reach that far and ecosystems are based on based on bacteria that metabolize sulphur and iron compounds rather than photosynthesis.

Bacteria are also found deep underground in rocks and clays (clays are another popular subject of abiogenesis studies) where sunlight doesn't reach.

Simple life just needs a source of energy and materials to metabolize.

I thought most scientists lean toward sunlight as a given.

 

[SkyWriting]

All your pontificating and 'paraphrasing', and yet still not a single example of scientific evidence supporting intelligent design or creation.

If such an example were offered, it would promote a natural
explanation, not a supernatural one. There is no way to
reproduce a supernatural event to test it.

 

[tas8831]

If such an example were offered, it would promote a natural
explanation, not a supernatural one. There is no way to
reproduce a supernatural event to test it.

Non sequitur.

We do not "reproduce" volcanic eruptions to conclude that they happened.

The claimed supernatural events in Genesis (and other parts of the bible) should have left evidence (or in some cases, witnesses, or in others - no witnesses, e.g., the flood).

 

[AV1611VET]

The claimed supernatural events in Genesis (and other parts of the bible) should have left evidence ...

I can just see you educated guys out there on the Sea of Galilee, floating around with magnifying glasses and your fancy Johnny Seven archaeology kits, looking for Jesus' footprints.

Scientist 1: D'uhhhh, nope, boss. No feetprints over here.
Scientist 2: Let's forget it. Jesus walking on water must be a myth. Let's go in before someone drowns.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can just see you educated guys out there on the Sea of Galilee, floating around with magnifying glasses and your fancy Johnny Seven archaeology kits, looking for Jesus' footprints.

You are the one claiming that we would find Jesus' footprints on the bed of the Sea of Galilee, if you are being consistent. You are arguing that God created a false history for no other purpose than to fool us into thinking that Genesis is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are arguing that God created a false history for no other purpose than to fool us into thinking that Genesis is false.

As easily as you guys are fooled, I can see why you would think this.

It doesn't take a universe to fool you guys.

All it takes is a loaf of raisin bread.

And for the record, Embedded Age is maturity without history; not maturity with a false history.

Without ≠ False

Would you put a false O-ring on something, if they told you not to put an O-ring on something?

 

[Loudmouth]

As easily as you guys are fooled, I can see why you would think this.

It doesn't take a universe to fool you guys.

All it takes is a loaf of raisin bread.

Would that bread have holes in it from meal worms that never ate it? Would it have a bite mark in it from a kid who never took a bite from it?

And for the record, Embedded Age is maturity without history; not maturity with a false history.

Then the Earth doesn't have embedded age since it does have a history. You need another explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would that bread have holes in it from meal worms that never ate it? Would it have a bite mark in it from a kid who never took a bite from it?

No and no.

It's the aged grapes that would allow you to spout your "false history" nonsense.

Then the Earth doesn't have embedded age since it does have a history.

Not in Genesis 1, it doesn't.

You need another explanation.

I doubt it would help.

 

[Loudmouth]

No and no.

Those are the kinds of things we find in and on the Earth. For example, we find rocks with scars from millions of years of uranium decay which are called uranium radiohalos. Those are exactly like holes in bread from meal worms.

Not in Genesis 1, it doesn't.

Why don't you cure your myopia and look at the actual world. The actual world has an actual history that spans billions of years.

 

[SkyWriting]

Non sequitur. We do not "reproduce" volcanic eruptions to conclude that they happened. The claimed supernatural events in Genesis (and other parts of the bible) should have left evidence (or in some cases, witnesses, or in others - no witnesses, e.g., the flood).

Actually we model them constantly to attempt to analyse
conditions what caused them then predict the next one.

What we DON"T do is claim God blew up the mountain.
Not anymore. Your example illustrates perfectly
how science cannot support any supernatural
explanation for anything. It's outside of the
definition of science to do so.

 

[tas8831]

Actually we model them constantly to attempt to analyse
conditions what caused them then predict the next one.

So thank you for unwittingly admitting your error - for "modeling" is NOT "reproducing".

I should hope at least that much is clear?

What we DON"T do is claim God blew up the mountain.
Not anymore. Your example illustrates perfectly
how science cannot support any supernatural
explanation for anything. It's outside of the
definition of science to do so.

Wow... That is quite an illogical and unjustified extrapolation.

You declared that we cannot "reproduce" the supernatural, therefore, we cannot study it scientifically. Here, you just admitted that we do not have to REPRODUCE volcanic eruptions, we can model them.
You keep contradicting yourself and declaring victory.

Amazing.

 

[tas8831]

I can just see you educated guys out there on the Sea of Galilee, floating around with magnifying glasses and your fancy Johnny Seven archaeology kits, looking for Jesus' footprints.

Scientist 1: D'uhhhh, nope, boss. No feetprints over here.
Scientist 2: Let's forget it. Jesus walking on water must be a myth. Let's go in before someone drowns.

Yes, that is exactly what we would do.... You YECs are regular comedians and so witty...

 

[AV1611VET]

You YECs are regular comedians and so witty...

I'm not a YEC, chief.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wow... That is quite an illogical and unjustified extrapolation. You declared that we cannot "reproduce" the supernatural, therefore, we cannot study it scientifically. Here, you just admitted that we do not have to REPRODUCE volcanic eruptions, we can model them. You keep contradicting yourself and declaring victory. Amazing.

You can't model supernatural events, becasue you have no guidelines to use for modeling.

You can model natural events becasue they provide natural rules you can use and count on.

 

[SkyWriting]

So thank you for unwittingly admitting your error - for "modeling" is NOT "reproducing". I should hope at least that much is clear?

Modeling is attempting to reproduce original conditions and results.
By reproducing the event and altering only one factor you can
determine what might be the influencing the outcome.

With multivariate testing you can alter multiple variables and
deduce from the results the influence of multiple variable at the
same time. Otherwise you would need to reproduce the experiment
1000's of times for only a few variables.

You can't test with non natural influences except for you own use:
Answered Prayer - Steps 1, 2, 3

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not a YEC, chief.

Yes, you are. You can deny it as much as you like, but that does not change the fact.

 

[Tanj]

IF we were to discover free floating RNA or DNA (outside of a living system of part of a designed/controlled experiment dependent on Intelligent intervention) that self-replicates

We already found them

Viroid - Wikipedia

they would claim to have discovered the key to life

No we didn't, Feel free to retract or apologize, or both.

 

[tas8831]

You can't model supernatural events, becasue you have no guidelines to use for modeling.

Irrelevant. You keep shifting goalposts.

You can model natural events becasue they provide natural rules you can use and count on.

And you can infer that the events took place without modelling or observing them because of what they leave behind.

Are you being so obtuse because you realize that there is no evidence for the supernatural events as portrayed in your bible?

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you being so obtuse because you realize that there is no evidence for the supernatural events as portrayed in your bible?

There can not be any evidence for supernatural events
becasue no person can reproduce the effect.

On the other hand, Christianity is the only religion
based on historical people and facts. Not only are
the background stories well documented in history
but the scriptures are the most well documented
writings of any ancient texts.

 

[tas8831]

Modeling is attempting to reproduce original conditions and results.

No it isn't.

If modelling were "attempting to reproduce original conditions and results" it would be reproducing.

By reproducing the event

Like volcanoes? I thought you said we didn't have to reproduce volcanoes?

and altering only one factor you can
determine what might be the influencing the outcome.

With multivariate testing you can alter multiple variables and
deduce from the results the influence of multiple variable at the
same time. Otherwise you would need to reproduce the experiment
1000's of times for only a few variables.

So to conclude, you don't know the difference between modelling and reproducing something. You admit that one can study an event (like a volcanic eruption) despite not observing or modelling it, but provide special pleading to exclude bible events from these general principles.

I think we're done.