Abiogenesis

[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"

Look up the axioms of mathematics. And no straight lines can never exist, there cannot exist any straight line in a curved universe.

Finite numbers on a number line cannot ever approach infinity, as infinity is not defined within the domain of finite numbers.

 

[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

I have put no words in your mouth. Use the research skills you have used on publishing your scientific articles in journals, and reveal to us what percent of the earth's mass replicates. I'll admit I was wrong if that's the case.

 

[SkyWriting]

And no straight lines can never exist, there cannot exist any straight line in a curved universe.

We consider them straight if they function as a straight line.
If we perceive they are straight, then they are close enough.

 

[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

I admit I was wrong. The earths core is considered crystalline, and I was completely unaware of that. It's about 20% of the size of the earth.
That blows my claim sky high out of the water. I was dead wrong.

 

[klutedavid]

We consider them straight if they function as a straight line.
If we perceive they are straight, then they are close enough.

You are aware of course that a straight line is an idea, rather than an actual entity. The concept of a straight line in mathematics is a perfect straight line, otherwise the definition itself is incorrect.

A straight line is not an approximation.

 

[muichimotsu]

No it's not because you have to believe the assumptions and axioms are valid. Before you can conduct the scientific endeavor.

No one accepts assumptions, truth statements, without exercising a level of faith!

Incorrect, because faith is uncritical at its core, trust is vindicated by consistency, it isn't making absolute certainty the goal, but reliability in correcting mistaken beliefs with more investigation. You seem to think science just rests on its laurels in terms of discovery or wants some ultimate answer, but that's a massive strawman that I can't believe still persists (except I can, due to massive scientific illiteracy that spreads like wildfire)

 

[muichimotsu]

I admit I was wrong. The earths core is considered crystalline, and I was completely unaware of that. It's about 20% of the size of the earth.
That blows my claim sky high out of the water. I was dead wrong.

See? Not sure why you need to characterize me as if I claimed I was an expert or had stuff to disprove your claims, because I didn't, I'm speaking as a layperson in terms of natural science, if not most sciences (like applied and social, only having some general notions of formal science in analyzing some general informal fallacies of logic)

 

[muichimotsu]

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

Again, didn't claim I had sources on that, you're putting words in my mouth. And then you backtrack and say you were wrong because you potentially realized how dishonest this rhetorical tactic is?

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

"Invisible" in a sense is not invisible in the spiritual notion often touted in regards to "God", so let's make sure we understand what meaning we're conveying with such a term first

No, I never claimed that, you're strawmanning consistently because you don't seemingly have a leg to stand on otherwise but to criticize everything you claim to understand, but only appear to have a superficial grasp at best, sophistry.

I'm fully willing to admit I'm a layperson in regards to science, particularly on the higher order stuff like quantum physics, but I'm not remotely convinced by intelligent design and creationism when they demonstrably have no substantive claims of their own, only attempts to poke holes in modern science that they barely understand and can't even utilize it to demonstrate their unfalsifiable points

Understanding and comprehending the universe are 2 different things, methinks you should try to have some more nuance in your vocabulary here.

 

[muichimotsu]

Look up the axioms of mathematics. And no straight lines can never exist, there cannot exist any straight line in a curved universe.

Finite numbers on a number line cannot ever approach infinity, as infinity is not defined within the domain of finite numbers.

Absolutely straight, no, but straight in terms of relatively precise measurements on a localized scale, sure, but you're asking for some perfect notion with our ultimately limited perception. We can find a flat plane in regards to building a foundation for a house, that doesn't mean the earth is flat, we can agree on that. But if you're just going to increase the scale and claim there cannot be absolutely flat lines, you're already hyperbolizing the whole discussion

I never claimed anything regarding infinity, that's borderline non sequitur to the discussion, because infinity is not part of mathematic axioms, far as I'm aware

 

[muichimotsu]

I have put no words in your mouth. Use the research skills you have used on publishing your scientific articles in journals, and reveal to us what percent of the earth's mass replicates. I'll admit I was wrong if that's the case.

Pretty sure I never claimed to be a scientist, so YES, you actually did put words in my mouth and strawmanned my position in regards to the confidence level and justification I could offer for my arguments, which never was based on my being a scientist that was published or anything like that. It's like you're not remotely even checking back on your old posts to consider what you said and just assume your memory is without flaw...dangerous precedent, even if you can occasionally admit you're wrong.

If you're going to scale it that way, you're still asking for something I feel like most scientists in that field would not be able to answer as precisely as you demand, so it's seeming like goalpost shifting or the like to suggest that science cannot answer the question and thus your position is somehow vindicated (argument from ignorance fallacy, easily the most common around in these discussions, I think)

 

[Ophiolite]

Scientists have been trying for 60 years, in perfect, controlled laboratory conditions.

I ask for clarification. You made the above statement, seemingly, in regard to abiogenesis. Are you asserting that scientists have been trying to duplicate abiogenesis for sixty years? A direct yes, or no would be welcome.

 

[Ophiolite]

So you went from definitely, to probably, to probably; but I can't express the probability?

Disingenuous goading on your part. The "definitely" refers to the occurrence of abiogenesis, the "probability" relates to specific mechanisms by which this might be achieved.

Manipulative rhetoric is dishonest and disagreeable.

 

[SkyWriting]

Again, didn't claim I had sources on that, you're putting words in my mouth. And then you backtrack and say you were wrong because you potentially realized how dishonest this rhetorical tactic is?

What happened was,
I checked. It was really really easy.

But it's not that I consider crystals to be reproducing. I should try raising some as pets. I should be able to make money selling reproducing crystals as easy-care pets.

 

[Ophiolite]

But it's not that I consider crystals to be reproducing. I should try raising some as pets. I should be able to make money selling reproducing crystals as easy-care pets.

I think you will find the crystal reproduction market is already cornered, even if they don't push the pet angle. Crystal Growing Kits - Walmart.com
Though I think that has also been covered. Pet Rock - Wikipedia

 

[muichimotsu]

What happened was,
I checked. It was really really easy.

But it's not that I consider crystals to be reproducing. I should try raising some as pets. I should be able to make money selling reproducing crystals as easy-care pets.

Maybe not make such ambitious claims about something you clearly don't have the remote foundational knowledge to argue, or at least not have the certainty you previously did on a topic you aren't seemingly as well versed as you thought

People already sell pet rocks and yet I think the reproducing crystals isn't just a thing that happens itself. I also have to wonder where you're getting this idea that they "reproduce", because the term might be a bit misleading versus replicating (reproduction implying organic nature to it)

 

[eleos1954]

How should we view it?

we should view it as theory ... that's what it is

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter

 

[MIDutch]

we should view it as theory ... that's what it is

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter

At this point in time, I am of the opinion that it's more of a well supported scientific hypothesis for which there is considerable observed and experimental evidence. While there has been a lot of progress, I don't think abiogenesis quite rises to the level of scientific theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was a quick downgrade. You went from definitely to probably in one post.

So what's the probability? Do you have any numbers?

No, the probably was about how it happened. Not whether it happened or not. No downgrade at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

we should view it as theory ... that's what it is

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter

No, abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. A scientific theory not only explain all of the evidence, it has also been tested and confirmed countless times. There are still significant unanswered questions in abiogenesis.

But on the plus side it is the only concept that is supported at all by the evidence.