Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Estrid]

Ill post when there is something to comment on.
So far you have nothing in evidence structure or model anywhere from abiogenesis to present day minimum cells, at cellular level.
Seemingly this forum has no idea what a hypothesis is.

You yoursefl profess to come from a direction of science, yet both philosophy and science hold the concept of the unobservable.
Observability is a basic concept in state space modelling and it causes real problems. Look it up, if your maths is up to it.
It is also the reason why nobody gets anywhere with superstrings. The dimensional projection problem. Many to one mappings. One to many mappings. Many to none mappings (which is the essence of non observability).

I am appalled that someone who challenges on the difference betwen truth and the model, can then ask the question about "testable difference" proving they have not understood the essence of the problem which is the difference is not testable . That is what observability means , or at philosophical level the difference between noumena and phenomena.

But it isnt even that.
It is the insults in every post.
Because I hold a different view, which is clearly scientific, you insult my science, not your lack of evidence!

There is one big differences between christians and the scientism (and often pseudoscience) of this forum.
Christians admit there is a boundary between what they know from experience and what they believe ( and a blurred area in between).

Whether true or not, Abiogenesis for all of you is just a belief at present. It is time you all admitted it.
There is no shame in that. Dreaming big is sometimes how science moves on. It might even be true.

The shame is in pretending there is evidence or model for something there is not, then insulthing those who do not hold your view.


So until there is some science to comment on. I shall leave you all to your creative imaginations!

Never ever noticed how
aggressively rude and insulting you are?
Is it a model of christian behaviour?

 

[SelfSim]

Ill post when there is something to comment on.

Well we can take it from your response there, that there is something to comment on then?
Or are your demonstrating a lack of integrity in committing to your own public assertions?

I am appalled that someone who challenges on the difference betwen truth and the model, can then ask the question about "testable difference" proving they have not understood the essence of the problem which is the difference is not testable .

I challenged you on the difference between 'the underlying universe, or truth', and science's models of the universe.
Your quoted term of 'the universe' there has a very specific, widley published objective definition coming from science .. 'truth' does not.
Your conflated equating of the two concepts, in the very same phrase, serves as a demonstration that you don't have clue about what you are talking about .. at the most fundamental level.

Because the 'truth' is not objectively testable, it is readily distinguishable from rigorous scientific definitions such as 'the universe'.
The testability, (or untestability), there is the difference .. and both are still models .. of dissimilar types. (Ie: one is testable, the other isn't).

But it isnt even that.
It is the insults in every post.
Because I hold a different view, which is clearly scientific, you insult my science, not your lack of evidence!

As outlined immediately above, you aren't capable of distinguishing between a testable definition (ie: 'the universe') and an untestable one (ie: the 'truth'). I suppose it stands to reason that you've internalised that, and then taken my posts on this as a personal 'insult' .. (the latter of which is purely a synthesis your own fundamental misconceptions .. and nothing to do with what I have said).

 

[Estrid]

Well we can take it from your response there, that there is something to comment on then?
Or are your demonstrating a lack of integrity in committing to your own public assertions?

I challenged you on the difference between 'the underlying universe, or truth', and science's models of the universe.
Your quoted term of 'the universe' there has a very specific, widley published objective definition coming from science .. 'truth' does not.
Your conflated equating of the two concepts, in the very same phrase, serves as a demonstration that you don't have clue about what you are talking about .. at the most fundamental level.

Because the 'truth' is not objectively testable, it is readily distinguishable from rigorous scientific definitions such as 'the universe'.
The testability, (or untestability), there is the difference .. and both are still models .. of dissimilar types. (Ie: one is testable, the other isn't).

As outlined immediately above, you aren't capable of distinguishing between a testable definition (ie: 'the universe') and an untestable one (ie: the 'truth'). I suppose it stands to reason that you've internalised that, and then taken my posts on this as a personal 'insult' .. (the latter of which is purely a synthesis your own fundamental misconceptions .. and nothing to do with what I have said).

We all understand the intended function of constant complaints about " insults".

 

[Mountainmike]

Well we can take it from your response there, that there is something to comment on then?
Or are your demonstrating a lack of integrity in committing to your own public assertions?

I challenged you on the difference between 'the underlying universe, or truth', and science's models of the universe.
Your quoted term of 'the universe' there has a very specific, widley published objective definition coming from science .. 'truth' does not.
Your conflated equating of the two concepts, in the very same phrase, serves as a demonstration that you don't have clue about what you are talking about .. at the most fundamental level.

Because the 'truth' is not objectively testable, it is readily distinguishable from rigorous scientific definitions such as 'the universe'.
The testability, (or untestability), there is the difference .. and both are still models .. of dissimilar types. (Ie: one is testable, the other isn't).

As outlined immediately above, you aren't capable of distinguishing between a testable definition (ie: 'the universe') and an untestable one (ie: the 'truth'). I suppose it stands to reason that you've internalised that, and then taken my posts on this as a personal 'insult' .. (the latter of which is purely a synthesis your own fundamental misconceptions .. and nothing to do with what I have said).

This is an insult and the reason I will not respond.
“You are clearly not a scientific thinker”
It includes the word “you”

The below instead is criticism of what you said - the kind that should be on forums- is as follows.

“The idea that the universe is observable or testable is the fundamental misunderstanding. .
Both science and philosophy says it is not. Only observations can be modeled.
Scientific model is just a model of observation.

The mistake of materialists is to consider it as a foundation on which the universe is built, instead of what science actually is - a suit of clothes That fits where they touch the bits that can normally be seen. That is the important philosophical distinction presented In an easy analogy.

Whether the universe is objective , how it came to be, and what it contains beyond observation and models is a matter of faith for all. Including all posters here. It is their truth.

As you see. It is possible to respond without ad hominems. Or the word you Followed by derogatory term.

But I am a mirror.
I respond in kind. I give as I get. If I can be bothered to respond at all to insults Such as yours above,

However,
since most here seem to think ( some process for )” abiogenesis” ( which is a specific definition) is a valid “hypothesis “ And they state that anyone who doesnt accept that is “ unscientific”shows it is a pointless place to post.

Because what follows there remark is just a discussion of their faith in “ scientism “ and “ Abiogenesis” , and subjective terms like “ natural cause”. Since on the basis of understanding the word “ hypothesus” and “ abiogenesis” There is clearly no Testable hypothesis.

Science and evidence interests me.
It’s what this forum is for.
Responding to the usual volley of badly informed insults thrown at creationists from the direction of scientism does not.


Nor does reading the usual OOL paper interest me saying coulda mighta maybe possibly not.

It’s the built in problem with science now, and I dare say Hans Blaster agrees, it’s a serious problem in present day science.
I saw it working in universities, and in industry getting research grants,
Publishing is now demanded , in order to justify grant funding. So a great deal of “non papers” are published to keep the publishing rate up, and to keep department and university research league tables high.

And that Is certainly true in OOL. Most of it iin papers s junk, with nothing useful to say , published for reason of having to publish. Finding wheat in the chaff is hard.
The publishing oriented league tables and grant criteria are a problem. I would rather see quality rewarded not quantity,
If you want to comment on something new you could comment on that,


So as I said if I see some science I might respond.
but not to insults.

 

[SelfSim]

The below instead is criticism of what you said - the kind that should be on forums- is as follows.

'The below' is not contained by an end quotation mark.
Please format your posts so that they are comprehensible.

“The idea that the universe is observable or testable is the fundamental misunderstanding. .

That's right .. its a fundamental misunderstanding of how science operates. Science does not proceed from untestable assertions such as 'the universe is observable or testable'. The testable meaning of science's definition of 'the universe', is a continuing work in progress which follows from testing and is not a starting assumption which has not yet been tested.

That the universe might be observable or testable, however, is a tentative statement which does not rely on the assumed truth that it is.

There's your misunderstanding .. you are truth-seeker if you actually believe your above quoted statement .. and therefore you are not a scientific thinker.

Both science and philosophy says it is not. Only observations can be modeled.
Scientific model is just a model of observation.

Models appear in language .. there are no known exceptions to that.
Science says no such thing as your opening statement claims there .. the scientific method can be used to test for belief dependent models.

The rest of your post is just your rantings based on what you think people have supposedly said .. (when, in reality, they haven't).

 

[Bradskii]

since most here seem to think ( some process for )” abiogenesis” ( which is a specific definition) is a valid “hypothesis “

'Some process' for abiogenesis can be proposed as a working hypothesis (I don't think you've yet looked up what that is). So there are quite a few. If you don't like any of them then you are free to reject them for any reason you seem fit and propose your own working hypothesis.

Do you have one?

 

[SelfSim]

'Some process' for abiogenesis can be proposed as a working hypothesis (I don't think you've yet looked up what that is). So there are quite a few. If you don't like any of them then you are free to reject them for any reason you seem fit and propose your own working hypothesis.

Do you have one?

Just for the record, I'll repost my post#93 from the 'evolutionist professor claims spontaneous generation' thread as evidence that @Mountainmike has already been repeatedly shown, (recently), one such 'working' hypothesis .. as follows:

What we already know, (with the evident exception of yourself), is that the complexity arising from closed self-sustaining autocatalytic networks is highly likely.

See 8:05 min mark onwards here:

It was reposted 3 more times in post#107, post #117 and in post#137 (including excerpts), in order to penetrate @Mountainmike's repeated fog of denialism in his claim that there is no such evidence. (Other folk are welcome to post the numerous other working hypotheses on the topic, too).

Also for the record, @Mountainmike has not posted any counters to the details contained in any of them to date, nor has he proposed any other objectively testable alternatives.

I look foward to his response to your above request of him, although, I don't hold out for anything other than his usual unreasoned outright off-hand dismissals.

 

[Bradskii]

Also for the record, @Mountainmike has not posted any counters to the details contained in any of them to date, nor has he proposed any other objectively testable alternatives.

To be honest, I'm not interested in a rejection of any current working hypothesis from a non-expert. It'll only be along the lines of 'Well, that's obviously impossible'. I rely on experts to tell me what might have happened in a particular circumstance and other experts to tell me why it might not. Over 50 years of an amateur fascination with biology and specifically evolution isn't anywhere near enough for me to make serious contributions.

But...I expect that if anyone wants to discuss either evolution OR abiogenesis, and they reject some aspect of it, to put forward their best ideas as to how either operates. Even if it's by divine fiat. Naysayers are a waste of my time. Especially self acclaimed 'scientific' naysayers who show every indication of not understanding the basics of either.

By the way, this was what got me started on spending a small fortune on scientific literature on the subject, published when I was 14: https://www.amazon.com.au/Naked-Ape-Zoologists-Study-Animal/dp/0385334303

 

[SelfSim]

But...I expect that if anyone wants to discuss either evolution OR abiogenesis, and they reject some aspect of it, to put forward their best ideas as to how either operates. Even if it's by divine fiat. Naysayers are a waste of my time. Especially self acclaimed 'scientific' naysayers who show every indication of not understanding the basics of either.

What continues to leave me dumbfounded is certain people pointing to the books they have on their shelves .. as though that has anything to do with what pops out of the mind of such a collector of books/titles. What pops from the fingers of someone who has no sense of the framework and the nuances of what is being presented in those books, appears to be a most profound delusion in this instance (not referring to yourself here, of course).

By the way, this was what got me started on spending a small fortune on scientific literature on the subject, published when I was 14: https://www.amazon.com.au/Naked-Ape-Zoologists-Study-Animal/dp/0385334303

Ha! FWIW, for me, it was Bronowski's 'The Ascent of Man' TV series in 1973 and his book which subsequently documented the broadcasts.
Thanks to David Attenborough too for his role in co-developing it too!
(That dude has impacted the thinking of squillions over his almost 100 year life-span in very centered, agnostic way ... what a legend!)

 

[Mountainmike]

In case anyone reads this thread and is taken in by yet more pseudoscientific bunk from the usual sources:

Autocatalytic networks are by nobodies definition life , which by definition includes “ capable of Darwinian evolutin” And therefore also a proto genome. Autocatalytic is self sustaining. By itself that is not life.

So. They are not a hypothesis, or working hypothesis for life - which needs - you guessed it! A process To start with no life and end in life!!!

Still believers in scientism have to hang on to beliefs : abiogenesis is their truth seemingly unconstrained by either lack of evidence or lack of process, or lack of structure,

Autocatalysus may be interesting as background. It’s a sensible approach to research.

But if anyone who wants a hypothesis for ABIOGENESIS either needs evidence of when, where and what happeNed.
Or a proposed structure and process For it, starting with NO LIFE ending in LIFE. It’s what the word means.

Thats the view and process of science.

Ask Dawkins, high priest of atheism, materialism and scientism.
” we have no idea how life started”

If there is ever evidence, a structure or a process , I might start To believe it.
It might even be true. I’ve not ruled it out. But nobody can claim it as other than belief.

For now the only scientific conclusion is “ no idea” “ but here’s some interesting areas to research” is where we are.

An observation : these autocatalytic reactions are the product of intelligent design. Teams of PHds , and even they struggle to keep them going.
So the other question is - how did they happen without such design? excuse me for pointing out the reality.

Do any exist in the places that believers suppose life started ? is clearly an interesting plausibility test . Any evidence? I’m interested.

meanwhile , There is some interesting ACTUAL evidence of apparently created heart tissue, so intimately intermingled with bread at the edges it can’t be faked.

Abiogenesis ( your kind) 0 . Creation 4 , is the evidence score to date.
Let me know when that changes. Then we can have a conversation.

Why not rename this forum “ the abiogenesis faith” forum.
its a more accurate name.

 

[Bradskii]

Ha! FWIW, for me, it was Bronowski's 'The Ascent of Man' TV series in 1973 and his book which subsequently documented the broadcasts.
Thanks to David Attenborough too for his role in co-developing it too!
(That dude has impacted the thinking of squillions over his almost 100 year life-span in very centered, agnostic way ... what a legend!)

Oh yeah! Bronowski cemented any interest I had. And, as you say, Attenborough is beyond praise. What he has brought to the general public is beyond measure. A true giant.

And as you say, it was commissioned by Attenborough as controller of BBC2 at the time. And...Adrian Malone was one of the producers, who went on to co-produce....wait for it...Carl Sagan's Cosmos!

 

[Bradskii]

meanwhile , There is some interesting ACTUAL evidence of apparently created heart tissue, so intimately intermingled with bread at the edges it can’t be faked.

Oh, dear Lord...we are back to heart tissue! Heaven help us...

 

[Mountainmike]

And just so the usual suspects don’t mix their faith with pseudo science again.

Heres the view of their experts. And I quote:

autocatalytic sets are “ not sufficient …. for life-like behavior”

Autocatalytic Networks at the Basis of Life’s Origin and Organization

Life is more than the sum of its constituent molecules. Living systems depend on a particular chemical organization, i.e., the ways in which their constituent molecules interact and cooperate with each other through catalyzed chemical reactions. Several ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thats the view of science
. Autocatalytic sets are interesting, not a hypothesis ( yet)
A hypothesis must be sufficient, or it cannot test the proposition.

Its all maybe . Could be. Which means Possibly not.

But the faith of this forum in Abiogenesis is so strong , I dare say they will overule the scientists too.

I am far better read than most of my critics, but then, I’ve been studying it for 50 years,

 

[Estrid]

'Some process' for abiogenesis can be proposed as a working hypothesis (I don't think you've yet looked up what that is). So there are quite a few. If you don't like any of them then you are free to reject them for any reason you seem fit and propose your own working hypothesis.

Do you have one?

As if

 

[Estrid]

Oh, dear Lord...we are back to heart tissue! Heaven help us...

Faith and pseudoscience uber alles

 

[SelfSim]

And just so the usual suspects don’t mix their faith with pseudo science again.

Heres the view of their experts. And I quote:

autocatalytic sets are “ not sufficient …. for life-like behavior”

Autocatalytic Networks at the Basis of Life’s Origin and Organization

Life is more than the sum of its constituent molecules. Living systems depend on a particular chemical organization, i.e., the ways in which their constituent molecules interact and cooperate with each other through catalyzed chemical reactions. Several ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thats the view of science

No .. its the view of two people, the authors: Hordijk and Steele.

. Autocatalytic sets are interesting, not a hypothesis ( yet)
A hypothesis must be sufficient, or it cannot test the proposition.

No .. and that's not even what is stated in that paper.
In your own words above, they say: 'We argue that autocatalytic sets are a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for life-like behavior.'
There's a difference between what is needed to assert life-like behaviours and what is needed to construct a working hypothesis.
(Other posters can chip in here, but its not too much of a stretch to understand that a working hypothesis is incomplete (or insufficient) for certain purposes but not for others. Its certainly sufficient for research purposes and what the word 'working' in 'working hypothesis' means!).

What they do say is this:

RAF {Reflexively Autocatalytic and Food-generated} sets have been shown to form easily in simple polymer models of chemical reaction networks, under a wide variety of model assumption, and to be, in principle, evolvable. Similar computational models have shown that they are also sustainable when enclosed within small vesicles such as lipid membranes. Moreover, they have been shown to form and sustain themselves in experimental laboratory settings.

So there's the process, (autocatalytically evolving chemical networks) .. and structures, (enclosed lipid membrane vesicles), which you repeatedly (and mistakingly) assert, 'don't exist' in the hypothesis.
You are simply wrong! (And you should publically admit it).

Addressing the plausibility of the autocatalysis working hypothesis:

It is plausible that the earliest catalysts in autocatalytic sets were inorganic elements such as metal ions, and that these were later incorporated as cofactors within proteins to become more efficient and specific, giving rise to larger and more complex autocatalytic sets over time.

Again, your are just dead-flat wrong in the points you are fumbling about in order to desperately cover up your unscientific faith-based nonsense.

I am far better read than most of my critics, but then, I’ve been studying it for 50 years,

.. and its not our (or science's) problem that you have spent 50 years misinterpreting what papers like this one are actually saying in black-and-white textual terms.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This old thread is closed. There are violations of the flaming rule since it was revived.​