Abiogenesis

[muichimotsu]

But it's infantly closer to 100%. Which I'll defend.

No, it's not, because you've ignored the basic objection of categorical conflation: if I grant 80% of matter in the universe doesn't replicate, then of course you're going to be right in terms of slapping organic and inorganic together rather than the specific topic of life from non-life with gradation (pretty sure no one says we just go from non-life to DNA, it's a few steps to that in the process)

 

[HARK!]

Ah, what does 1 Timothy 6:10 say? Not sure you should care about such a thing if you're about saving souls and whatnot. *tsk*

If I was worried about it I would have copyrighted it from the getgo. In hindsight I made the right choice.

 

[SkyWriting]

Its not a scientific theory, its barely a hypothesis.

You won't get that published anywhere.

Panspermia according to Hoyle
C Wickramasinghe - Astrophysics and space science, 2003 - Springer
… The Hoyle-Wickramasinghe panspermia theory requires life to have been introduced
to Earth for the first time by comets some 4 billion years ago, with an ongoing
incidence of microorganisms continuing to the present day …
Cited by 4
Related articles

 

[klutedavid]

You realize the earth has an elliptical orbit right? It's not nearly that precise in regards to our proximity to the sun that we'd just start baking if we got an inch closer relative to our closest position, that's speculative at best

Did I say anything that is related to what your talking about?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, it's not, because you've ignored the basic objection of categorical conflation: if I grant 80% of matter in the universe doesn't replicate, then of course you're going to be right in terms of slapping organic and inorganic together rather than the specific topic of life from non-life with gradation (pretty sure no one says we just go from non-life to DNA, it's a few steps to that in the process)

You need to show that 80% of matter in the universe doesn't replicate.
Why avoid proving me dead wrong? Obviously I am clueless if you are correct.

If 20% of matter replicates, I'll admit I was dead wrong. You sound intelligent.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm referring to an axiom such as; between any two points there exists a straight line between those two points.

That is an axiom because it is impossible to know if a straight line even exists.

You can assume that by observation and measurement that you can understand the universe. That is an assumption. It is unknown whether we will ever understand the universe.

Science is in essence a faith driven paradigm, you must believe that you can derive an understanding of the universe. I for one, am not a believer in this idea; that by observational evidence that we can know the universe.

Actually we can, because we have precise measurements and we can observe something as basic as a line, that's 4th grade math, practically. If you're just going to keep going to something we cannot prove scientifically as undermining science, you're fundamentally missing the point, because science is descriptive, not prescriptive, in its goals

I can understand the universe, I never claimed, nor do any honest scientists, that we can understand it perfectly, because there is pretty much always room for further investigation, which is the beauty of it (see my quote on perfection in signature for slight elaboration). It's not a matter of faith that I can derive understanding of the universe if the understanding is essentially provisional in nature, not something that would require faith, but a general trust in cogency of principles that are neutral in application with proper methodology, unlike the dogmatic doctrinal quibblings in faith and religion

And knowing the universe is not the same as understanding the universe, you're equivocating between 2 terms and thinking that because you change paragraphs I won't notice that detail, not a good sign of critical thought if you rely on people being short-sighted and being convinced by your "argument"

 

[muichimotsu]

You need to show that 80% of matter in the universe doesn't replicate.

Why avoid proving me dead wrong? Obviously I am clueless if you are correct.

Appeal to ignorance fallacy? Or do you not care about being intellectually honest here? You're the one making a positive claim, not me, it's on you to demonstrate that, I was speaking very much hypothetically, because I'm not engaging in grandiose statements about the universe like I think I can remotely know such things and point to an ancient religious text to "support" it

 

[Strathos]

Non sequitur doesn't help, scientists creating a cult and incidentally using pseudoscience doesn't undermine scientific principles, to say nothing of engaging in tu quoque as well

And you have evidence of this where? Just asserting it is no better than saying the Tooth Fairy exists because I found money under my pillow after putting my tooth under it the night before

L. Ron Hubbard got rich by convincing people that the science fiction he wrote was reality.

And I was just explaining my take on the subject from a Christian perspective.

 

[SkyWriting]

Appeal to ignorance fallacy? Or do you not care about being intellectually honest here? You're the one making a positive claim, not me, it's on you to demonstrate that, I was speaking very much hypothetically, because I'm not engaging in grandiose statements about the universe like I think I can remotely know such things and point to an ancient religious text to "support" it

So what's the number then? What percent of the cosmos self replicates?
What is your data? You don't have to be very accurate to prove me wrong.
What's the correct number? Cite your sources.

I took about a year of Library and Information Science courses, so I know citing sources is not that hard.

 

[muichimotsu]

Did I say anything that is related to what your talking about?

Your goldilocks zone is fundamentally oversimplifying universal constants and engaging in anthropic principle fallacy, insinuating agency behind the earth because we're "special" rather than having the humility to consider our position may not be as unique as you think and even if it is, still doesn't follow to the conclusions of intelligent design you make

 

[Larniavc]

What do the tests show? Has anyone been able to create even a single simple cell, in ideal lab conditions?

Not yet afaik, but take a look at this: you may find it interesting.

Artificial cells: from basic science to applications

Artificial cells: from basic science to applications

 

[muichimotsu]

So what's the number then? What percent of the cosmos self replicates?
What is your data? You don't have to be very accurate to prove me wrong.
What's the correct number? Cite your sources.

If you're going to dishonestly strawman my claims as remotely suggesting I had such data, this conversation is over, you're not helping to have an exchange, you're just putting words in my mouth and trying to make your own position seem more compelling, a reductio ad absurdum, practically

 

[muichimotsu]

L. Ron Hubbard got rich by convincing people that the science fiction he wrote was reality.

And I was just explaining my take on the subject from a Christian perspective.

That's not the same as science in science fiction as being roughly rooted in science without claiming the science fiction is reality, you're cherry picking

 

[muichimotsu]

If I was worried about it I would have copyrighted it from the getgo. In hindsight I made the right choice.

Not sure you can copyright evangelist tactics, it's too broad in nature

 

[SkyWriting]

If you're going to dishonestly strawman my claims as remotely suggesting I had such data, this conversation is over, you're not helping to have an exchange, you're just putting words in my mouth and trying to make your own position seem more compelling, a reductio ad absurdum, practically

Any authoritative source will do. What is the correct percentage...ok...just earth......how much matter on earth self replicates? What percent...roughly.

 

[Larniavc]

You need to show that 80% of matter in the universe doesn't replicate.
Why avoid proving me dead wrong? Obviously I am clueless if you are correct.

If 20% of matter replicates, I'll admit I was dead wrong. You sound intelligent.

But we know that some percentage of the universe self replicates so you cannot then say that 100% of it does not self replicate.

 

[klutedavid]

Actually we can, because we have precise measurements and we can observe something as basic as a line, that's 4th grade math, practically. If you're just going to keep going to something we cannot prove scientifically as undermining science, you're fundamentally missing the point, because science is descriptive, not prescriptive, in its goals

I can understand the universe, I never claimed, nor do any honest scientists, that we can understand it perfectly, because there is pretty much always room for further investigation, which is the beauty of it (see my quote on perfection in signature for slight elaboration). It's not a matter of faith that I can derive understanding of the universe if the understanding is essentially provisional in nature, not something that would require faith, but a general trust in cogency of principles that are neutral in application with proper methodology, unlike the dogmatic doctrinal quibblings in faith and religion

And knowing the universe is not the same as understanding the universe, you're equivocating between 2 terms and thinking that because you change paragraphs I won't notice that detail, not a good sign of critical thought if you rely on people being short-sighted and being convinced by your "argument"

It is not my argument that you accept axioms and assumptions without proof.

Nor is it my argument that you believe that you can understand the observable universe. Given that science these days believes that the majority of the universe is invisible, and not observable at all. Think Dark Matter and Dark Energy!

You really believe that you have the kind of superior intelligence that can unlock the mystery of sub atomic physics. When even the experts themselves question whether the mathematics that they employ, is even adequate to explain the bizarre behavior of these sub atomic entities.

Even today, String theory proposes the existence of an array of universes beyond our own universe.

Do you really think for one moment that we are really up to the task of understanding the universe. I think the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

 

[Larniavc]

So what's the number then?

I can tell what it is not: it is not zero. I can't be more accurste than that, though.

 

[SkyWriting]

But we know that some percentage of the universe self replicates so you cannot then say that 100% of it does not self replicate.

I admit 100% might be off a bit. An infinitely small number off of 100%.

 

[Larniavc]

I admit 100% might be off a bit.

Great!