Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We’ve been round this? The minimum known cell is from memory a self building designing factory of 10000 +++ proteins and 100++ genes. It is massively complex.What does that even mean??
Evolved modern-day cells are .. but the real conversation is about autocatalytic molecular replication in much simpler protocells .. (ie: your intermediates?)We’ve been round this? The minimum known cell is from memory a self building designing factory of 10000 +++ proteins and 100++ genes. It is massively complex.
There's speculation supported by information theory and autocatalytic sets mixing with polymers in lipid vesicles .. ie: non-template replicating protocells. There is ongoing research work aimed at producing them (in the lab).Mountainmike said:Abiogenesis postulates a development track from small molecules to full cells. Yet there is no much simpler cell postulated..
Not speculation .. experimentally testable organic chemistries, backed by information theory and direct evidence of 3.5 billion year old primitive, 'fuelled acetoclastic methanogenesis and organic sulfides such as methanethiol and (methylsulfanyl) methane, possibly having served as substrates for fermenting methanogenic bacteria'.Mountainmike said:or ever observed A void. How the minimum cell came to be is just speculation.
LOL! An anti intellectual thinks that I have his flaws.Subduction is an interesting anti- intellectual.
There are hundreds of man years of thorough scientific research that concludes real forensic pathology of the same victim of the much older provenance sudarium of Oviedo. Research that puts it in the right part of Israel. The mark is certainly not an artwork. Other date methods suggest first century. The unique torture is enough.
He refuses to look at it, preferring his “ dishonest” conspiracy why?
There have been hundreds of independent researchers.
it doesn’t even threaten his worldview. Roman and Egyptian emperors claimed to be a Gods. Subduction doesn’t refuse to look at their archeology or forensics. Mind you the non contact radiation makes it hard to explain.
So why? If it’s that easy to prove a fake, why doesn’t he dare look at the real evidence?
There are too many atheists that go anti intellectual when they sense their world view is threatened.
Ive no doubt if I pointed at evidence of space time warp by magnetism allowing translocation, not propulsion, he’d accept the possibility. Why? Because it doesn’t threaten his worldview. On the other hand evidence of consciousness outside the brain. Ie that life is more than chemical No doubt is a worrying no no. Atheists are so selective.
Skeptics make Wikipedia more reliable than the sources that you use. You clearly do not understand the editing procedure there. Dishonest editing will get a person banned. It is too much work to qualify to edit in the first place for trolls to change articles. Meanwhile you follow sources without any credentials at all.Using Wikipedia as an authority source, as edited By skeptics. I thought you were better than that. Sceptic world turned on him the day he found something he couldn’t debunk.
don’t believe willesee, believe the camera footage he took, the tests they did.
A camera doesn’t get drunk, nor does a CT scanner. Have you looked up the evidence?
LOL! An anti intellectual thinks that I have his flaws.
Dude! The Shroud of Turin is a hoax. It fails repeatedly, but the worst fail was its carbon dating in 1988. The cloth is from the time of its first appearance:
Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia
It is a fake.
You did not provide any science. You only made personal claims that you could not support with valid sources.Fascinating anti intellectual subduction refuses to read science.
who would have thought it?
Tell me. How did a faker fake blood serum forensics he could not even see? Or get 60 point forensic correspondence ( a science he could not have understood) to a cloth he could never have accessed? How did he manage to exhibit it elsewhere in Europe long before he faked it?
Entire books have been written about the falasy of that farcical date! One paper warning written before it was tested by the only archaeologist dater ever involved: they ignored the protocol. The scientific world moved on . The date was discredited.
But like all anti intellectual sceptics subduction clings to his straw of sceptic editing of wiki: a site produced by people like him.
That atheist faith is too strong to allow reason...
If it was faked how was the mark faked? It beats all serious scientists but not subduction!
What i don’t understand is why subductionsc worldview feels threatened enough to not research before comment?
Bizarre. As I said... Egyptian & Roman emperors claimed to be Gods. Sceptics don’t dispute their Relics.
The shroud almost certainly belonged to the one person whose torture it documents in forensics. sceptics dare not look at the science.
You did not provide any science. You only made personal claims that you could not support with valid sources.
You are wrong. Plenty of self deluded fools have written books about the shroud. Very few of them have been scientific. The only valid study that I know of was the one where it was carbon dated and that was never refuted.The world is full of science books and papers on the shroud.
One day you might try reading some. Then we could discuss them.
This antintellectual thread isn’t about the evidence itself.
it is psychoanalysing why such as you refuse to read the science let alone accept it? You want to conclude from your world view not science.
But that is even stranger. Jesus was a historic figure. Accepting Archeological evidence of that doesn’t force you to believe, any more than it forces you to believe that Nero or tutenkhamen was a God!
Why do you feel so threatened you won’t study it?
im a scientist. I’m happy to listen to hypothesis for fake , PROVIDED it also explains the massive volume of other evidence. Not just the discredited parts of it!
I state rather that it makes no sense to blindly conclude that scientists practice "science" when they falsely assert that space expand's when it lacks physical dimension.The astrophysicist Brian Koberlein was part of a TEDx talk on science education brought up in this thread.
In a conversation with Brian not only is how science taught an issue but science itself is under attack motivated by anti-intellectualism.
It's a sad state of affairs when climate scientists are subjected to death threats or a scientist is threatened by stating the Earth is round.
Just because a person does not understand something does not make it false. Perhaps you should ask how they know this.I state rather that it makes no sense to blindly conclude that scientists practice "science" when they falsely assert that space expand's when it lacks physical dimension.
science is a farse.
Nooo. I understand space is not a scalar quantity. It lacks physical dimension. Nice try, but I was The Best at physics in college. It's conceptually false and is conceptually irrational.a false and illogical premise that is part of a theory determines the theory is just as false as the premise, I mean if the premise is false then the theory isn't really associated with anything other than false ramblings and false concepts. You should ask me where the theory came from. I'll give you a hint, monad, from greek, meaning singularity.You should ask me how the monad is traced back to babylonian occultism which is a word for word explanation for the world and the concept or monastic causation or causation from a singularity they called satan all pentagram style, earth air wind water and fire.Just because a person does not understand something does not make it false. Perhaps you should ask how they know this.
You are wrong. Plenty of self deluded fools have written books about the shroud. Very few of them have been scientific. The only valid study that I know of was the one where it was carbon dated and that was never refuted.
I do not think that you understand what the scientific method is. You tend towards anti-intellectualism. Find a valid source and we can discuss it.
There probably was a Jesus, but the evidence for that is rather weak.
Actually I understand physics very well.
1.) Space is not a scalar quantity and lacks physical dimension.false premise=false theory.
The concept or human origin from a singularity is associated with babylonian occultism and it's genetive etymology, is associated with Greece, from the word monad represented by a pentacle and pentagram which translates in English as singularity.
you know, earth air wind water and fire and the combination of the five substances that comprise all substances on Earth, where the babylonian concept of religion shares word for word Correspondence with the semantic reassociation of the term religion as science. Why I would say "science" has simply stolen the Greek and latin discuss and semantically reassociated the meaning of science with religion itself! No wonder it shares so many things in common with a word for word description satanist's give about how the whole universe came into existence, where the babylonian's called the monad satan. Odd isn't it when you realize science is the same religion, that is itself religion as a concept that is equal between all religion's.
Can someone say transmission and plagiarism? I wrote a book that is in the final stages of publication about the anthropology of religion and religious texts and that science plagiarized religious concepts using the greek and latin discuss. scientists are nothing more than satanist's who have carried on the practice's of druids who use to try to get high and contact higher powers they associated with astrology and the twelve constellations of the zodiac.odd how the symbol that is associated with atheism depicts the pentagram. When you realize how much correspondence science has with religion you realize it is religion, in it's pure context,literally religion.it's kind of interesting how they used words to hide certain meanings that sound more complex such as in the case of the word sperm which in the latin discuss means seed. How silly.but they didn't dare to use the word monad because then everyone would know that "science" is itself literally religion.actually they semantically used three languages to hide meaning,I'll have to change that in my book.
Instead of (f)gods science uses amoebas. Nothing more than replacing words.
Evolved modern-day cells are .. but the real conversation is about autocatalytic molecular replication in much simpler protocells .. (ie: your intermediates?)
There's speculation supported by information theory and autocatalytic sets mixing with polymers in lipid vesicles .. ie: non-template replicating protocells. There is ongoing research work aimed at producing them (in the lab).
Not speculation .. experimentally testable organic chemistries, backed by information theory and direct evidence of 3.5 billion year old primitive, 'fuelled acetoclastic methanogenesis and organic sulfides such as methanethiol and (methylsulfanyl) methane, possibly having served as substrates for fermenting methanogenic bacteria'.
IOW: Abiogenesis Hypotheses undergoing testing!
You might want to read the stickies at the top of the forum which include this:Actually I understand physics very well.
1.) Space is not a scalar quantity and lacks physical dimension.false premise=false theory.
The concept or human origin from a singularity is associated with babylonian occultism and it's genetive etymology, is associated with Greece, from the word monad represented by a pentacle and pentagram which translates in English as singularity.
you know, earth air wind water and fire and the combination of the five substances that comprise all substances on Earth, where the babylonian concept of religion shares word for word Correspondence with the semantic reassociation of the term religion as science. Why I would say "science" has simply stolen the Greek and latin discuss and semantically reassociated the meaning of science with religion itself! No wonder it shares so many things in common with a word for word description satanist's give about how the whole universe came into existence, where the babylonian's called the monad satan. Odd isn't it when you realize science is the same religion, that is itself religion as a concept that is equal between all religion's.
Can someone say transmission and plagiarism? I wrote a book that is in the final stages of publication about the anthropology of religion and religious texts and that science plagiarized religious concepts using the greek and latin discuss. scientists are nothing more than satanist's who have carried on the practice's of druids who use to try to get high and contact higher powers they associated with astrology and the twelve constellations of the zodiac.odd how the symbol that is associated with atheism depicts the pentagram. When you realize how much correspondence science has with religion you realize it is religion, in it's pure context,literally religion.it's kind of interesting how they used words to hide certain meanings that sound more complex such as in the case of the word sperm which in the latin discuss means seed. How silly.but they didn't dare to use the word monad because then everyone would know that "science" is itself literally religion.actually they semantically used three languages to hide meaning,I'll have to change that in my book.
Instead of (f)gods science uses amoebas. Nothing more than replacing words.
Nooo. I understand space is not a scalar quantity. It lacks physical dimension. Nice try, but I was The Best at physics in college. It's conceptually false and is conceptually irrational.a false and illogical premise that is part of a theory determines the theory is just as false as the premise, I mean if the premise is false then the theory isn't really associated with anything other than false ramblings and false concepts. You should ask me where the theory came from. I'll give you a hint, monad, from greek, meaning singularity.You should ask me how the monad is traced back to babylonian occultism which is a word for word explanation for the world and the concept or monastic causation or causation from a singularity they called satan all pentagram style, earth air wind water and fire.
But since you didn't understand that science is just a semantic reassociation for the word religion maybe it might make more sense to do some research.
You asked me a question and then answered it yourself. Psychologists have been studying anti-intellectualism for decades and understand it a lot better than you think they do.
I tend to agree that Dawkins went beyond the role of a scientist in many of his debates and presentations.A rhetorical question.
I’m referring a recent trend.
A great many experts have made pronouncements of what is speculation in areas of great uncertainty without the necessary health warning. They have also been very wrong.
I cited economists and epidemiologists. I could point at some outrageous predictions of environmentalists too.
That has certainly discredited the perceived value of both experts and expert pronouncements. Only by being consistently right do they keep their standing as worth listening to. That’s why it’s important for guesswork to be called guesswork, so it doesn’t damage the value of more certain predictions when they are made.
For one thing the size of academic institutions have massively grown which means “ professor” no longer carries the gravitas it did.
What annoys me is those who abuse the position of “ public understanding of science” to push their own philosophy , or indeed they speculate in areas for which they are not qualified. Both also undermine trust.
Dawkins espouses a philosophy that says:
1/ all life is an unguided progression from chemicals so life is just a biochemical automaton. He says is close to a fact despite gaping holes in facts.
2/ consciousness is just a biochemical process
3/ the universe and all phenomena are in essence completely explained or explicable by science
He is going way beyond what science can say.
He is abusing his position.
The problem with that is he is destroying credibility for science.
experts should identify what is just speculation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?