I can't pass over the sheer irony of this statement.
This thread is supposed to focus on the victims of anti-intellectualism not provide a platform for mouthing off anti-intellectual nonsense.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
No .. its a testable hypothesis which is based on related empirically demonstrable physical principles ... The subject of an hypothesis is not necessarily objectively real until it gets tested (and provides consistently verifying evidence).Ive already told you elsewhere.
I am not necessarily against the principle. If I see proof all well and Good.
The problem I have is there is no simpler intermediate postulated, observed or reproducible. So no process specified for how it got from soup to a cell
All you say is just speculation.
We do .. (that underlined bit is just incorrect) ... (see my references instead of just repeating your claim).Mountainmike said:It also doesnt account for another obvious question: If it is a process of stages which have a significant probability. Why then do we observe none of the process now?
The results presented here show that the formation of an autocatalytic set which embeds molecular template transfer processes can form with a simple inorganic system. We demonstrate that the autocatalytic formation of ...
...
Thus, we hypothesize that the formation of molybdenum nanostructures represents a unique class of self-organized criticality. All previous autocatalytic sets known are derived from known biology but this study shows how autocatalytic sets, based on simple inorganic salts, can spontaneously emerge which are capable of collective self-reproduction outside of biology.
The work is incomplete .. no-one is looking for 'conveyor belts'.Mountainmike said:Why is there no conveyor belt of intermediates from soup to a modern cell.
Those involved in Abiogenesis/Evolution research are aware of the limitations of the method they work with. There have been calls for 'new physics' to cater for the prediction difficulty arising from the models.Mountainmike said:Science is so far only studying possible ideas for parts of the process is as far it goes. But as I warned you by analogy, just because you can walk up a hill to get closer to the moon, does not mean you can walk to the moon, or indeed that those who got to the moon , got to the moon that way.
'Non-derivability' doesn't rule out that there will be 'a something' which can ultimately be tested (or is testable), someplace, sometime, in a very big universe. So Abiogenesis is still a testable hypothesis.Each new biological innovation begets a new functional niche fostering yet more innovation. You cannot predict what will exist, he argues, because the function of everything biology generates will depend on what came before, and what other things exist now, with an ever-expanding set of what is possible next.
So, life’s emergence might rest on the foundations of physics, “but it is not derivable from them”.
Perhaps .. maybe he's just speaking to others who understand the deeper contexts behind that statement .. and you just don't(?)Mountainmike said:So the significance of what is known is way exaggerated. Dawkins statement that it is "close to fact" is antiintellectual. He is letting his faith override the big void in the science.
Modern-day cells are comprised of modern-day molecules whose sub units are comprised of chemicals which have been demonstrated as existing 3.5 billion years ago on Earth .. (and extrapolated as existing back to even earlier times in the universe's history).Mountainmike said:So when most atheists claiming evolution from small molecule chemicals IS the way that cells appeared. They are making a faith statement not a scientific one. The jury is out.
Meh .. maybe (like me) they're just not interested .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Mountainmike said:The world of academia seems to feel threatended. Same reason on this forum, I cant get people to look!!
Go ask an Atheist .. (I can only guess what they may say).Mountainmike said:Why does atheism feel so threatened by science? If these labs and academics are so confident of the conclusion science will reach?
No .. its a testable hypothesis which is based on related empirically demonstrable physical principles ... The subject of an hypothesis is not necessarily objectively real until it gets tested (and provides consistently verifying evidence).
We do .. (that underlined bit is just incorrect) ... (see my references instead of just repeating your claim). The work is incomplete .. no-one is looking for 'conveyor belts'.
Those involved in Abiogenesis/Evolution research are aware of the limitations of the method they work with. There have been calls for 'new physics' to cater for the prediction difficulty arising from the models.
Eg: Stuart Kauffman says:
So, life’s emergence might rest on the foundations of physics, “but it is not derivable from them”.
'Non-derivability' doesn't rule out that there will be 'a something' which can ultimately be tested (or is testable), someplace, sometime, in a very big universe. So Abiogenesis is still a testable hypothesis.
Perhaps .. maybe he's just speaking to others who understand the deeper contexts behind that statement .. and you just don't(?)
Modern-day cells are comprised of modern-day molecules whose sub units are comprised of chemicals which have been demonstrated as existing 3.5 billion years ago on Earth .. (and extrapolated as existing back to even earlier times in the universe's history).
..
Meh .. maybe (like me) they're just not interested .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Go ask an Atheist .. (I can only guess what they may say).
Clarification/elaboration would be appreciated there ..Atheists threatened by science.
How droll.
Then you must have written some peer reviewed papers on why this is false. Would you care to link any?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.
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.
No .. its a testable hypothesis which is based on related empirically demonstrable physical principles ... The subject of an hypothesis is not necessarily objectively real until it gets tested (and provides consistently verifying evidence).
We do .. (that underlined bit is just incorrect) ... (see my references instead of just repeating your claim).
ETA: On Abiogenesis: check this one out: Spontaneous formation of autocatalytic sets with self-replicating inorganic metal oxide clusters:
The work is incomplete .. no-one is looking for 'conveyor belts'.
Those involved in Abiogenesis/Evolution research are aware of the limitations of the method they work with. There have been calls for 'new physics' to cater for the prediction difficulty arising from the models.
Eg: Stuart Kauffman says:
'Non-derivability' doesn't rule out that there will be 'a something' which can ultimately be tested (or is testable), someplace, sometime, in a very big universe. So Abiogenesis is still a testable hypothesis.
Perhaps .. maybe he's just speaking to others who understand the deeper contexts behind that statement .. and you just don't(?)
Modern-day cells are comprised of modern-day molecules whose sub units are comprised of chemicals which have been demonstrated as existing 3.5 billion years ago on Earth .. (and extrapolated as existing back to even earlier times in the universe's history).
..
Meh .. maybe (like me) they're just not interested .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Go ask an Atheist .. (I can only guess what they may say).
Well repeat away (no one is listening) .. Meanwhile Abiogenesis research peels each layer away and breaks down every physical barrier encountered.I can only repeat:
What on earth are you talking about? Protocells have been proposed as feasibly forming in clay minerals, or as simple lipid vesicles. Recently the lipids in the membranes of bacteria and archaeal cells have been shown to be to able coexist in a single common ancestor, which lived in either salt or non salt water.Mountainmike said:It becomes a real hypothesis to me when an intermediate cell is postulated.
Well frankly this comes as surprise, given your unresponsiveness to any/all reports of objective laboratory test result progress placed before your evolved eyes!Mountainmike said:I didn’t mean literal conveyor belt!
Huh? Abiogenesis refers to what was happening >3.8 billion years ago .. on Earth, y'know!?Mountainmike said:I mean the simplest known cell is so big and complex , that if abiogenesis is real, there must be many intermediates along the pathway to it. And if there is sufficient probability/ energy gap etc of those stages occuring, there should be visible many of the intermediate stages of lower forms of cell happening as we speak.
I can only repeat:
Dude you lie about singularities without an origin that began that are fallaciously responsible for the existence of prebiotic conditions and then go on to lie about they constitute biological outcomes. 0 reality.thats called imagination not theory.Then you must have written some peer reviewed papers on why this is false. Would you care to link any?
When you start to use conspiracy theories to defend your beliefs it casts doubts on all of your claims.
What? Why move the topic to the Big Bang. We were not discussing the beginning of the universe.Dude you lie about singularities without an origin that began that are fallaciously responsible for the existence of prebiotic conditions and then go on to lie about they constitute biological outcomes. 0 reality.thats called imagination not theory.
Here is a more detailed version of gravitational wave theory which explains some of the concepts described.Since you boast of being very good at physics and claim to have a superior comprehension to any astrophysicist on the subject of space-time lets look at the propagation of gravitational waves through space-time from a theoretical and experimental perspective as an example to evaluate what you really understand about physics as opposed to boasting.
First the theoretical side.
Clearly Einstein made a mistake somewhere why don’t you point out where he made the error.
Is it in using the weak gravitational field limit in applying a perturbation to the g₀₀, g₁₁, g₂₂ and g₃₃ components of the Lorentz metric?
Or perhaps Einstein should not have assumed the product of the Christoffel symbols are small enough to be neglected when evaluating the non vanishing symbols for the perturbed metric in the Ricci tensor.
Maybe the mistake occurred further along in the calculations where the vacuum field equations are reduced to a Helmoltz type wave equation where gravitational waves not only travel at the speed of light but also space-time takes on a quadrupole symmetry.
Where is the error?
If you can’t find the error in the theory lets go to the experiment.
Explain the discrepancy in the experimental design where physicists developed a laser interferometer to exploit the quadrupole symmetry of space-time for a passing gravitational wave?
If you can’t explain this either then what the heck have the LIGO and VIRGO interferometers been detecting in the past few years if space-time is conceptually false and irrational?
Tell us something we didn't already know.
Mike, it is your job to provide the evidence. Your claims, your burden of proof.In fairness I did. I pointed at the forensic evidence of so called Eucharistic miracles in which human heart cells appeared intermingled with bread,in Eucharistic context , so not a product of evolution.
I could have cited many other phenomena that seem to stand forensic scrutiny. Not one of you looked at the evidence in as far as I can tell.
I could have cited many other phenomena that seem to stand forensic scrutiny. Not one of you looked at the evidence in as far as I can tell.
This is happening across a range of issues like with gender ideology for example. Basically I think we have moved into or have been in a new mode of thinking (post modernism). Here’s is the definition of post modernism and this seems to fit what we are seeing in recent times.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.
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?