Life by another means.

[Mountainmike]

I have summarized to others promoting abiogenesis - the realistic evidential position
of "the first living DNA cell by stages of biochemistry from inorganics" -
Dont get hung up on the definition. Substitue words you prefer.

1/ There is no evidence it occurred ( no record of any lesser intermediates)
2/ Theres not evidence it still occurs (no record of present intermediates still occuring)
3/ Theres no conjectured end to end process of how it happened - eg what are the lesser intermediate stages and how they transitioned.
4/ It has never been reproduced in vitro.
And sad to say without 1/ to 4/ theres not valid hypothesis for it, and no experiemnt that can be conducted. Literally no evidence it did.

Therefore It remains of status belief
if you are confident it happened , you are confident in absence of evidence.
That what belief means.
Its a valid belief. I may even share it. But it is only a belief.

Some say "this bit of chemistry is part of it" - I can only use the analogy.
By walking to the top of a mountain you get closer to the moon. It is neither evidence that you can walk to the moon, nor even if you find a way to get to the moon, it starts by climbing that mountain. Ditto for any subprocess, without any conjectured chain for the whole.

People say we have no evidence for theistic belief either. As if a tit for tat validated the alternative.
In general theists are happy to claim theism as a belief.

But that does not mean there is not evidence.
Take on life...


eg
Several eucharistic miracles have occurred in the era of forensic investigation, not just the old lanciano. There has been for example tixtla, sokolka, legnica, buenos aires and so on
In all cases
1/ A red substance was noted developing within a bread eucharistic wafer.
2/ In accordance with church practice unused wafer is put in water to dissolve and kept locked.
3/ The red substance developed.
4/ On analysis by credible forensic labs
4.1- a the red substance was determined to be human flesh.
4.2- the flesh was identified as heart myocardium showing signs of trauma
4.3- it was intimately intermingled at the edges with unconverted bread
4.4- the red liquid surrounding was confirmed as human blood.
4.5- and in those tested for them eg buenos aires - white cells were noted and this is the critical thing for life.
White cells dissolve soon after life, they do not last more than hours in vitro, but were still noted many weeks after put into water. Noone can explain that!
But because of that , white cells confirm recent presence of life.

The actual forensic lab reports are compiled in such as Castarnons book on Legnica.
Read them. Or teserorieros book on buenos aires.

If you try to argue fraud. There are no dead bodies. Indeed whilst confirming human origin cells, there was no reproducible DNA. There would be for a fraud, that would identify the victim. Also - the intimate intermingle of flesh with bread makes it near impossible to cheat!

So If these are so - it is evidence of life from no life (ie bread) in the eucharist.

If that is true it triggers the test that Darwin HIMSELF said invalidated his theory.
He said if any life occurred other than by small progressive differences, it would invalidate his theory! This life, clearly did not occure that way.

You can argue how strong the evidence is - but be aware the labs that did this have a role in criminal forensics (in the case ofCastarnons book - it was the national forensic lab. They are governed by GMP and validated procedures.

You can say that there are no papers (which is not a defence, because journals refuse to take such papers, and academics who get involved are hounded out of univeristies, some of which refuse to even investigate such things. Which happened t those at Sokolka.

What none can deny is there is evidence for life from nothing.
You can argue how good the evidence is. You can try to discredit it. You cannot argue it does not exist.
More than for abiogenesis. Which has none.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have summarized to others promoting abiogenesis - the realistic evidential position
of "the first living DNA cell by stages of biochemistry from inorganics" -
Dont get hung up on the definition. Substitue words you prefer.

1/ There is no evidence it occurred ( no record of any lesser intermediates)

Incorrect. We find a variety of organic compounds in the following locales:

• Giant Molecular Clouds
  
• Interstellar space
• Comets
• Meteorites
• Laboratory experiments simulating possible primeval conditions.

If you deny that such compounds constitute "lesser intermediates" then you need to provide a scientifically precise definition of "lesser intermediates".

 

[Mountainmike]

Incorrect. We find a variety of organic compounds in the following locales:

• Giant Molecular Clouds
  
• Interstellar space
• Comets
• Meteorites
• Laboratory experiments simulating possible primeval conditions.

If you deny that such compounds constitute "lesser intermediates" then you need to provide a scientifically precise definition of "lesser intermediates".

I did provide a definition.
One or more stages of intermediate for which you have conjectured process for transition to final form.

As I pointed out: my ability to get nearer to the moon by walking up a hill, is not evidence I can walk to the moon , or indeed evidence that a journey to the moon starts with a step on that mountain.
One step needs to have context in the overall journey.
And organic molecules are scarecely a step,

So I speak of lower non DNA or RNA but replicating organism that have a potential path to DNA base, As far as I am aware there are none either discovered or conjectured, let alone produced in vitro.

 

[tas8831]

I have summarized to others promoting abiogenesis

Who 'promotes' it? I don't think I have ever seen a thread on here started for the purpose of 'promoting' abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is most often discussed after a creationist has brought it up by conflating it with evolution.

- the realistic evidential position
of "the first living DNA cell by stages of biochemistry from inorganics" -
Dont get hung up on the definition. Substitue words you prefer.

I don't know what a "DNA cell" is.

1/ There is no evidence it occurred ( no record of any lesser intermediates)

I don't know what a "lesser intermediate" is. Are you referring to things like protocells or something?
There is evidence of non-eukaryotic life prior to eukaryotic life (is that what a "DNA cell" is?).

2/ Theres not evidence it still occurs (no record of present intermediates still occuring)

Why would it?

3/ Theres no conjectured end to end process of how it happened - eg what are the lesser intermediate stages and how they transitioned.

Perhaps because we are not at that level of understanding yet?
HERE is a big ol' list of research papers dealing with various aspects of abiogenesis. At least we can say we are looking into it.
What are YOU doing?

4/ It has never been reproduced in vitro.

According to creationist veterinarian Randy Wysong, life was created in a lab in the 1970s. He wrote as much in his book 'The Creation-Evolution Controversy.' But he said it was really evidence for creation, since humans had to use their knowledge to set up the experiments.
I suspect that you would do the same.

And sad to say without 1/ to 4/ theres not valid hypothesis for it, and no experiemnt that can be conducted. Literally no evidence it did.

If you say so. Is it then your position that aliens did it?

What I see here is NOT any sort of high-level analytical or critical thinking, what I see is a pretty common act of someone desperate to support their own beliefs without saying that this is their intent.

Some say "this bit of chemistry is part of it" - I can only use the analogy.
By walking to the top of a mountain you get closer to the moon. It is neither evidence that you can walk to the moon, nor even if you find a way to get to the moon, it starts by climbing that mountain. Ditto for any subprocess, without any conjectured chain for the whole.

That is a pretty bad analogy. You are merely asserting what you hope is the case. A more apt analogy might be by making the first machine that can fly you can eventually get to the moon.
And that actually happened.

People say we have no evidence for theistic belief either. As if a tit for tat validated the alternative.

Quite a bit of projection. Asking theists for the same degree of evidence that they demand of others seems only fair, because in science, you do not 'win' by merely refuting the current system, you have to have something to replace it with, and it must explain what you are replacing better than the alternative.

eg
Several eucharistic miracles have occurred in the era of forensic investigation, not just the old lanciano.

Whoa, hold on, champ - you are doing EXACTLY what you just accused others of fallaciously doing!

These supposed "miracles" do NOT in any way support biblical creation!

If you are going to attack abiogenesis as a mode of life creation, then you'd best come back with an alternative explanation for the beginning of life, not some silly claims about miracles!

There has been for example tixtla, sokolka, legnica, buenos aires and so on
In all cases
1/ A red substance was noted developing within a bread eucharistic wafer.
2/ In accordance with church practice unused wafer is put in water to dissolve and kept locked.
3/ The red substance developed.
4/ On analysis by credible forensic labs
4.1- a the red substance was determined to be human flesh.
4.2- the flesh was identified as heart myocardium showing signs of trauma
4.3- it was intimately intermingled at the edges with unconverted bread
4.4- the red liquid surrounding was confirmed as human blood.

All of this from a little bread eucharistic wafer???

I would like to see the official reports AND the reports from the labs that confirmed this.

I mean, you have those, right?

4.5- and in those tested for them eg buenos aires - white cells were noted and this is the critical thing for life.
White cells dissolve soon after life, they do not last more than hours in vitro, but were still noted many weeks after put into water. Noone can explain that!

And I'm betting nobody that believes this can explain why "white cells" dissolve soon after life (whatever that means)!!

But because of that , white cells confirm recent presence of life.

You've gone from mountain to moon.

Indeed whilst confirming human origin cells, there was no reproducible DNA.

What a coincidence...

What none can deny is there is evidence for life from nothing.
You can argue how good the evidence is. You can try to discredit it. You cannot argue it does not exist.
More than for abiogenesis. Which has none.

Mountain to Jupiter, and you think this is an argument?

 

[Ophiolite]

I did provide a definition.
One or more stages of intermediate for which you have conjectured process for transition to final form.

As I pointed out: my ability to get nearer to the moon by walking up a hill, is not evidence I can walk to the moon , or indeed evidence that a journey to the moon starts with a step on that mountain.
One step needs to have context in the overall journey.
And organic molecules are scarecely a step,

So I speak of lower non DNA or RNA but replicating organism that have a potential path to DNA base, As far as I am aware there are none either discovered or conjectured, let alone produced in vitro.

1. So you immediately decide to eliminate any abiogenesis hypothesis that takes a metabolism first approach? If I used loaded dice I would win every time too.

2. I you think that what you offered was a sound scientific defintion, then it is not surprising you don't seem to accept the findings of science. Yours was a vague, ambiguous definition. Hint: good definitions are neither vague, nor ambiguous.

3. You just moved the goal posts. in your OP, point1, (the point I am addressing) you made no mention of a "conjectured process for transition to final form." That is dishonest discussion.
However, here is a ""conjectured process for transition to final form." : The Origin of Life and the Nature of the Primitive Gene by Graham Cairns-Smith.

Edited: Expanded my point 3 for clarity of intent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have summarized to others promoting abiogenesis - the realistic evidential position
of "the first living DNA cell by stages of biochemistry from inorganics" -
Dont get hung up on the definition. Substitue words you prefer.

1/ There is no evidence it occurred ( no record of any lesser intermediates)

Oops, an error right off the bat. The observation that there was no life and then there was life is evidence for abiogenesis.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oops, an error right off the bat. The observation that there was no life and then there was life is evidence for abiogenesis.

Another Failure in your critical thinking.

If we are arguing how not whether life came to exist, the fact of existence supports neither parties belief on how, it only proves the validity of the question,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another Failure in your critical thinking.

If we are arguing how not whether life came to exist, the fact of existence supports neither parties belief on how, it only proves the validity of the question,

The failure is not mine. I supported my claims and offered to support them further. You made an errant claim about a lack of evidence. By doing so you must deny the most obvious of evidence. If a person denies the evidence that is extremely easy to see there is no point in supplying more evidence. They are apt to reject that as well.

So once again, read my sig. Look at the observation and see if it disagrees or agrees with abiogenesis. If it does then by definition it is evidence for the concept.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Incorrect. We find a variety of organic compounds in the following locales:

• Giant Molecular Clouds
  
• Interstellar space
• Comets
• Meteorites
• Laboratory experiments simulating possible primeval conditions.

If you deny that such compounds constitute "lesser intermediates" then you need to provide a scientifically precise definition of "lesser intermediates".

Organic compounds don't cut it. They exist in abundance, but life is not forming as we speak........

Laboratory experiments that simply show it's impossibility by natural means..... All results lead to no life at all. Null results do not support a hypothesis that it is possible.....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but life is not forming as we speak........

You've made that claim before, and when I asked you to support it you went silent. Will that be your response this time?

Null results do not support a hypothesis that it is possible.....

Nor do they refute it. You do know what "null" means, right?

 

[Mountainmike]

Oops, an error right off the bat. The observation that there was no life and then there was life is evidence for abiogenesis.

In the hunt for DNA structure, there were plenty of jigsaw pieces of evidence, in terms of X ray diffraction patterns, known bases and indicative ratios of them, known electrophilic and hydrophilic properties of them and so on.
It was only later when Crick and Watson played with balls and sticks, they finally came up with a hypothesis for the structure of DNA, that was later validated by experiment. Parts of the evidence existed long before that. And had been verified by repetition in absence of explanation. Indeed doing this for real the waters are muddy. Some things which seem to be evidence turn out to be misleading or irrelevant. (eg in that case the difference in diffraction patterns between hydrated and non hydrated DNA, and a mistake had been made in the assumed structure of one of the bases, that put them off the scent for a while). But all the evidence was valid and validated before there was a hypothesis for DNA. It just existed as "verified but unexplained evidence" It is still evidence.


Evidence is evidence (which is currently existing, independent confirmations of the same phenomenon, repeating or repeatable patterns in phenomena) WHETHER or not you have a hypothesis on how to link them to the scientific model.
You may never be able to link them to the model, if there is no repeat.

Because evidence is the real world, science is only a model of it.
A phenonemon can be validated whether or not science yet integrates it into the model.
The more evidence is made consistent with the model, by adapting or adding to the axioms of it, the better the model becomes.

And until something is put in the model , the model will not yield it as a explanation
(which in philsophical terms is no explanation at all - it only means consistency with the existing model).
Evidence of Life observed in vitro, where once there was only bread.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you conjecture abiogenesis (in the meaning of life as the minimum replicating cell we observe ) was the product of random biochemical reaction(s)

Then you can only conjecture one of two things. - There are only two possibilities

1. That such a cell (which is more complicated in pathways than any existing chemical factory) - sprung into existence as a single bizarre quantum event from the right consitutents by means of random chance chemistry (I do not know anyone believes that) No quantum chemist would ever believe it!

or

2A. That it became such a cell from a simpler but non the less self replicating cell.
2B. And since fully functioning chromosomal DNA is not a natural constituent of anybodies view of primordial soup.
2C You must conjecture a simpler cell based on a much simple non DNA or RNA genome.
2D And you also need to show - a testable conjectured pathway from from primordial soup to that intermediate cell.
And
2E A prospective and testable pathway to the fully functioning cell.
2F or a set of stages (2C-2E)

The reality is
3.1 You have no conjectured cell structure 2A
3.2 You have no record one ever existed in the record
3.3 Such cells have never been observed, so the process is not ongoing.
3.4 You have no conjectured pathway to that intermediate
3.5 You have no conjectured pathway from it.

All of that is just critical thinking.

In short you have nothing BUT conjecture, and not even conjecture of a process, or conjecture of an immediate.

The entire thing 2A to 2E is void of either verifiable evidence or verifiable existence or even a conjectured pathway

So all you have is conjecture of an end point from a start point with nothing linking them!

Note - Evidence of a constituent chemical occuring in nature is as irrelevant as saying clay or bricks are evidence of self building houses, or wheels are evidence of self driving cars. Ie irrelevant to the conjecture of a process to self replicating cells..

SO YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT BELIEF
Which means to have "confidence in absence of sufficient evidence"
Which is the above.

Excuse me But I am a simple scientist.
And as I have said before, I might even share that belief.
But as a scientist I accept it as what it is. PURE BELIEF.

I get that the atheist belief set includes a belief in this. Even if they never admit it.
Dont get me wrong. It is a valid belief.
It may even be true. I may even agree.
It may even validated one day.
But its present status is just "belief" if you have confidence it happend.
Because you have neither evidence nor process for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When a "book" is written to defend an error of the poster that starts with personal attacks it is not a good sign.

@Mountainmike , I used two different sources to show that you were wrong about the concept of evidence. All you could come up with was a long gambling post that was based upon " Because I said so. ". If one can't admit to the obvious evidence, then one will never be able to admit to the more subtle, yet perhaps stronger evidence. The example I gave fit the definition of evidence. Weak excuses and false claims about a lack of critical thinking does not refute my supported claim.

Perhaps we should go over the concept of scientific evidence and why it has that definition. Scientists are not saints and even they can make the error of denying evidence. With the clear definition that I gave for two sources it is hard for them to do so.

Here is a simple question:

Does the observation that at one time there was no life and then later on there was life agree or disagree with the hypothesis of abiogenesis? If the answer is yes then it is by definition evidence for the hypothesis of abiogenesis. It is really that simple.

Hint, it does not disagree.

 

[jayem]

I get that the atheist belief set includes a belief in this. Even if they never admit it.
Dont get me wrong. It is a valid belief.
It may even be true. I may even agree.
It may even validated one day.
But its present status is just "belief" if you have confidence it happend.
Because you have neither evidence nor process for it.

Of course, it's a belief. I readily admit it. But it's a belief based on inductive reasoning. First--as my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. I reject the existence of anything that is not a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Obviously, I don't believe in any supernatural gods. I also reject any entity that supposedly exists outside the natural realm, but is able to influence events therein. So, by logical extension, I'm an atheist, but that's really secondary to being a naturalist. Next--I believe our brains evolved to seek reasons and causes. History confirms that when a natural cause isn't obvious, we've created supernatural ones. Things like weather, floods, earthquakes, diseases, the motion of the sun, moon, and stars, and many other events were at one time all thought to be products of gods or spirits. But as our scientific understanding has improved, we know that all of these things are perfectly natural phenomena. In the entire history of knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been valid for anything. So, by simple induction, why should I believe that all the things we still don't understand have a supernatural causation? I think life on our planet was inevitable. Earth had the right combination of geochemistry, climate, gravity, and temperature for carbon-based life to appear. All that was needed was time, and the absence of any catastrophically destructive astronomical event. And I'm sure many other planets out there have the same conditions.

I'll also admit that a naturalistic worldview requires faith. It sounds hubristic, but I have faith in human curiosity and intelligence. Which will maintain scientific and technological progress into the future. And I predict that within the next 25 years, we'll have a plausible model for how nucleic acids appeared naturally. We know they're condensation polymers of nucleotides, and we have some theories on their origin. But I have faith we'll figure it out. It's certainly not the whole story of abiogenesis, but it's a big step forward.

 

[Heissonear]

I realise you dont seem to do critical thinking. But when we agree X esists but debate how it came to exist, the existence of X is not evidence in support of any specific mechanism for that existence., only that it does exist. Basic critical thinking for you.

But I see from the other thread, you have difficulty understanding evidence by claiming elsewhere it is evidence only after you have a hypothesis for it. I am sure all the worlds great scientists would laugh at you there!

I presume its because youve not done proper science?

Let me explain real science to you with an example.
In the hunt for DNA structure, there were plenty of jigsaw pieces of evidence, in terms of X ray diffraction patterns, known bases and indicative ratios of them, known electrophilic and hydrophilic properties of them and so on.
It was only later when Crick and Watson played with balls and sticks, they finally came up with a hypothesis for the structure of DNA, that was later validated by experiment. Parts of the evidence existed long before that. And had been verified by repetition in absence of explanation. Indeed doing this for real the waters are muddy. Some things which seem to be evidence turn out to be misleading or irrelevant. (eg in that case the difference in diffraction patterns between hydrated and non hydrated DNA, and a mistake had been made in the assumed structure of one of the bases, that put them off the scent for a while). But all the evidence was valid and validated before there was a hypothesis for DNA. It just existed as "verified but unexplained evidence" It is still evidence.


Evidence is evidence (which is currently existing, independent confirmations of the same phenomenon, repeating or repeatable patterns in phenomena) WHETHER or not you have a hypothesis on how to link them to the scientific model.
You may never be able to link them to the model, if there is no repeat.

Because evidence is the real world, science is only a model of it.
A phenonemon can be validated whether or not science yet integrates it into the model.
The more evidence is made consistent with the model, by adapting or adding to the axioms of it, the better the model becomes.

And until something is put in the model , the model will not yield it as a explanation
(which in philsophical terms is no explanation at all - it only means consistency with the existing model) But then you dont seem to get what science is about.

I notice you dont even tackle the last section of my post which is the most interesting.
Evidence of Life observed in vitro, where once there was only bread.

I like your DNA analogy. And your thread.

 

[Mountainmike]

When a "book" is written to defend an error of the poster that starts with personal attacks it is not a good sign.

@Mountainmike , I used two different sources to show that you were wrong about the concept of evidence. All you could come up with was a long gambling post that was based upon " Because I said so. ". If one can't admit to the obvious evidence, then one will never be able to admit to the more subtle, yet perhaps stronger evidence. The example I gave fit the definition of evidence. Weak excuses and false claims about a lack of critical thinking does not refute my supported claim.

Perhaps we should go over the concept of scientific evidence and why it has that definition. Scientists are not saints and even they can make the error of denying evidence. With the clear definition that I gave for two sources it is hard for them to do so.

Here is a simple question:

Does the observation that at one time there was no life and then later on there was life agree or disagree with the hypothesis of abiogenesis? If the answer is yes then it is by definition evidence for the hypothesis of abiogenesis. It is really that simple.

Hint, it does not disagree.

Another error in critical thinking.
" does not disagree" , is not the same proposition as " agree"

And existence of X is not evidence of any particular pathway to X . Basic stuff in critical thinking,

I've told you what evidence is about as far as professional science considers it. It seems you read the wrong books, I gave example of how it actually works with DNA structure,

There is a serious philosophical issue you have to come to terms with.

The relationship between validated evidence and the scientific model , is a similar relationship to that between fundamental and axiomatic statistics.

The first studies distributions of observations.
The second at pure theoretical level models random variables and stochastic process analysing the relationships at pure axiomatic level.

Validated evidence exists whether or not you can model it.
Science is an axiomatic model. Which fits the observations, but like a suit of clothes it isn't the body ( i.e. universe itself) and doesn't fit everywhere.

Marie curies clouded films were repeated and validated ( i.e. Real world observation ) Long before the concepts of radiation and nuclear decay were put in the axiomatic model - which is just a model

Validated evidence is a set of voltage current lines for different materials some of which have a straight line relationship.

Definition of resistance in axiomatic model is R=V/I - note that's a definition not a law, however many books say it is

Ohms law in the axiomatic model is that for a range of materials resistance is constant. Over wide range of conditions. But not all materials or even all conditins for any material. Semiconductors don't obey ohms law! But the resistance is still V/I

The axiomatic model is not the universe.

If at some point a wholesale change is made to the model as did relativity and quantum theories, it changes not one iota of the validated evidence.

Validated evidence can exist beyond the model - such as the indisputable statistical significance of telepathic communication.

Indeed evidence can exist beyond the possibility of ever explaining it. Because the model focussed on that which repeats or can be repeated, which is only a subset of existence. As is our ability to observe in limited dimensions and sensor space, we only see a projection.

Seriously subjunction you need to study science, and the philosophical limits if it, particularly if you give it God like status as the " source of truth" . Science is not what you think, and can't answer the questions you think it can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another error in critical thinking.
" does not disagree" , is not the same proposition as " agree"

Not always, but in this case that is the way that it is. The failure as usual is yours.

And existence of X is not evidence of any particular pathway to X . Basic stuff in critical thinking,

Wrong again. You don't get to define evidence. Neither do I. I used valid sources. All you have is "because I said so". That is two failures of critical thinking so far in this post.

I've told you what evidence is about as far as professional science considers it. It seems you read the wrong books,

Sorry, you do not know what evidence is. Again you rely on "because I said so" instead of reliable sources. That is three failures on your part.

There is a serious philosophical issue you have to come to terms with.

The relationship between validated evidence and the scientific model , is a similar relationship to that between fundamental and axiomatic statistics.

Evidence is often debated after the fact, but you have not even been able to do that. Until refuted if an observation supports a hypothesis or theory it is by definition evidence for that theory or hypothesis.

That is four.

The first studies distributions of observations.
The second at pure theoretical level models random variables and stochastic process analysing the relationships at pure axiomatic level.

Validated evidence exists whether or not you can model it.
Marie curies clouded films were repeated and validated ( i.e. Real world observation )

Off topic. This is for analyzing specific populations. Should be five but I will let you slide for right now.

Long before the concepts of radiation and nuclear decay were put in the axiomatic model - which is just a model
It is not the universe.

If at some point a wholesale change is made to the model as did relativity and quantum theories, it changes not one iota of the validated evidence.

Validated evidence can exist beyond the model - such as the indisputable statistical significance of telepathic communication.

Indeed evidence can exist beyond the possibility of ever explaining it. Because the model focussed on that which repeats or can be repeated, which is only a subset of existence. As is our ability to observe in limited dimensions and sensor space, we only see a projection.

Seriously subjunction you need to study science, and the philosophical limits if it, particularly if you give it God like status as the " source of truth" . Science is not what you think, and can't answer the questions you think it can.

Natter natter with off topic situations. I am going to make that five. Let's try to run away from the subject next time.

Good night.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am sorry you are WRONG again,

Does not disagree i.e.not.(not.X)
Is not the same proposition as X even if the value sometimes coincides.
When X is not Boolean.

Not black is not the same as white.

Please study critical thinking , evidence and science.

I give up,trying to explain it.
I am a professional postgrad scientist.
Science director at times.

Not always, but in this case that is the way that it is. The failure as usual is yours.



Wrong again. You don't get to define evidence. Neither do I. I used valid sources. All you have is "because I said so". That is two failures of critical thinking so far in this post.



Sorry, you do not know what evidence is. Again you rely on "because I said so" instead of reliable sources. That is three failures on your part.



Evidence is often debated after the fact, but you have not even been able to do that. Until refuted if an observation supports a hypothesis or theory it is by definition evidence for that theory or hypothesis.

That is four.



Off topic. This is for analyzing specific populations. Should be five but I will let you slide for right now.




Natter natter with off topic situations. I am going to make that five. Let's try to run away from the subject next time.

Good night.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is a serious philosophical argument it's important to understand.

The question as to whether the forces you speak of, concepts of matter and energy are anything other than a model of the universe you see. For sure a well developed model, refined all the time, that has allowed us to make enormous strides in harnessing the natural resources.
But it is a model none the less. It doesn't fit everywhere.
And sometimes wholesale changes are made such as relativity and quantum theory.

The universe didn't change

The problem is that the places the distinction really hits home is in such as the bizarre world of quantum physics, where even existence before observation is contested. Which isn't the world you think of. Where the comfortable world of determinism and causality fall apart. All physicists then have a difficult time with philosophical implications, and start to wonder the central question:

is this really the universe or just a math formula that fits it?

To get round that philosophical frying pan, most then jump into a fire of postulating an infinite number of you of all possible pasts and futures!
Do you believe That?


There are places where even Hawking admits there can be no unique single model - " model dependent reality" he calls it.

The reality is.
1/ we have detailed observations of our universe which exist even if we can never fit them into a model. Try telepathy!

2/ we have an axiomatic model of it we call science.
Expkanations of data are actually just confirmation that data aligns with the model. It doesn't explain what it is, just what it normally is observed to do. We add to the model or modify it wholesale with such as quanta.

3/ we can only observe through limited senses and dimensions. Our view is analogous to a circle seen on a television screen 2d view, which is just a projection view of what might be a sphere or a cylinder in 3D - indeed an infinite number of possibilities. Projection models are always spurious in computational physics. Much like the cloud that looks like a butterfly, has little in common with butterfly shape.

And we would be arrogant to think our senses sense all that there is, So the model we have is of a limited observation projection, not the totality of reality,

4/ so in reality the model of science is an illfitting suit of clothes on reality, for sure it's a useful model. We harness a lot of natures power with it. But it's important to recognise the distinction - the model and reality.

5/ the only evidence that gets into the model is things that repeat or can be repeated or presently exist so we can model them. That's just a subset of reality.

6/ the observation set does not change - the model does.
Marie curies films still have a smudge however we model the cause.

7/ as I said - you are welcome to your beliefs of the cause.

8/ I can only point out a massive heap of observations that will never be explained.

Check my " I'm worried " thread.

Take Portugal.
- Fatima. Not the apparitions , the prophecies fulfilled first on Oct 13 1917 exactly when and where the lady said it would months before so " all would see and believe" she said.

So called "miracle of the sun"

Sceptic rebuttals focus on the attempt to rationalise the astonishing solar phenomenon,( Badly...even then they fail) agreed by 100000 witnesses many sceptical professional witnesses , and a press and authorities that hoped to debunk it and both ended up confirming it.
Never been repeated before or since.
It happened when and where prophesied, beyond random chance, not mass hysteria since witnessed 20 miles away. Even by those unaware of the prophecy.
Sceptics miss the important fact of the prophecy fulfilled. No. explanation of prophecy is compatible with science.

- Take Jan 25 1939 the prophecy fulfilled of " unknown light heralding a worse war " WWII - a red curtain reported over all northern hemisphere by all newspapers , at the very time Hitler and Stalin decided to attack Poland. The prophecy made in 1917. Auorora are normally green and limited. This was most of northern hemisphere and red. Much like nuclear explosion aurora.

The list is endless even in Portugal
- the atheist doctors certiftunf inedia of Alexandrina da costa as inexplicable but verified after controlled trial.
- the doves of bombarral. Try repeating that!

Or look at the forensics of Eucharistic miracles. For which there is far more forensic evidence of life from none, than there is for abiogenesis.

Hard to discount. Impossible to explain.
All with theistic overtones.

You are welcome to your beliefs.

Of course, it's a belief. I readily admit it. But it's a belief based on inductive reasoning. First--as my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. I reject the existence of anything that is not a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Obviously, I don't believe in any supernatural gods. I also reject any entity that supposedly exists outside the natural realm, but is able to influence events therein. So, by logical extension, I'm an atheist, but that's really secondary to being a naturalist. Next--I believe our brains evolved to seek reasons and causes. History confirms that when a natural cause isn't obvious, we've created supernatural ones. Things like weather, floods, earthquakes, diseases, the motion of the sun, moon, and stars, and many other events were at one time all thought to be products of gods or spirits. But as our scientific understanding has improved, we know that all of these things are perfectly natural phenomena. In the entire history of knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been valid for anything. So, by simple induction, why should I believe that all the things we still don't understand have a supernatural causation? I think life on our planet was inevitable. Earth had the right combination of geochemistry, climate, gravity, and temperature for carbon-based life to appear. All that was needed was time, and the absence of any catastrophically destructive astronomical event. And I'm sure many other planets out there have the same conditions.

I'll also admit that a naturalistic worldview requires faith. It sounds hubristic, but I have faith in human curiosity and intelligence. Which will maintain scientific and technological progress into the future. And I predict that within the next 25 years, we'll have a plausible model for how nucleic acids appeared naturally. We know they're condensation polymers of nucleotides, and we have some theories on their origin. But I have faith we'll figure it out. It's certainly not the whole story of abiogenesis, but it's a big step forward.

 

[jayem]

There is a serious philosophical argument it's important to understand.

The question as to whether the forces you speak of, concepts of matter and energy are anything other than a model of the universe you see. For sure a well developed model, refined all the time, that has allowed us to make enormous strides in harnessing the natural resources.
But it is a model none the less. It doesn't fit everywhere.
And sometimes wholesale changes are made such as relativity and quantum theory.

The universe didn't change

The problem is that the places the distinction really hits home is in such as the bizarre world of quantum physics, where even existence before observation is contested. Which isn't the world you think of. Where the comfortable world of determinism and causality fall apart. All physicists then have a difficult time with philosophical implications, and start to wonder the central question:

is this really the universe or just a math formula that fits it?

To get round that philosophical frying pan, most then jump into a fire of postulating an infinite number of you of all possible pasts and futures!
Do you believe That?


There are places where even Hawking admits there can be no unique single model - " model dependent reality" he calls it.

The reality is.
1/ we have detailed observations of our universe which exist even if we can never fit them into a model. Try telepathy!

2/ we have an axiomatic model of it we call science.
Expkanations of data are actually just confirmation that data aligns with the model. It doesn't explain what it is, just what it normally is observed to do. We add to the model or modify it wholesale with such as quanta.

3/ we can only observe through limited senses and dimensions. Our view is analogous to a circle seen on a television screen 2d view, which is just a projection view of what might be a sphere or a cylinder in 3D - indeed an infinite number of possibilities. Projection models are always spurious in computational physics. Much like the cloud that looks like a butterfly, has little in common with butterfly shape.

And we would be arrogant to think our senses sense all that there is, So the model we have is of a limited observation projection, not the totality of reality,

4/ so in reality the model of science is an illfitting suit of clothes on reality, for sure it's a useful model. We harness a lot of natures power with it. But it's important to recognise the distinction - the model and reality.

5/ the only evidence that gets into the model is things that repeat or can be repeated or presently exist so we can model them. That's just a subset of reality.

6/ the observation set does not change - the model does.
Marie curies films still have a smudge however we model the cause.

7/ as I said - you are welcome to your beliefs of the cause.

8/ I can only point out a massive heap of observations that will never be explained.

Check my " I'm worried " thread.

Take Portugal.
- Fatima. Not the apparitions , the prophecies fulfilled first on Oct 13 1917 exactly when and where the lady said it would months before so " all would see and believe" she said.

So called "miracle of the sun"

Sceptic rebuttals focus on the attempt to rationalise the astonishing solar phenomenon,( Badly...even then they fail) agreed by 100000 witnesses many sceptical professional witnesses , and a press and authorities that hoped to debunk it and both ended up confirming it.
Never been repeated before or since.
It happened when and where prophesied, beyond random chance, not mass hysteria since witnessed 20 miles away. Even by those unaware of the prophecy.
Sceptics miss the important fact of the prophecy fulfilled. No. explanation of prophecy is compatible with science.

- Take Jan 25 1939 the prophecy fulfilled of " unknown light heralding a worse war " WWII - a red curtain reported over all northern hemisphere by all newspapers , at the very time Hitler and Stalin decided to attack Poland. The prophecy made in 1917. Auorora are normally green and limited. This was most of northern hemisphere and red. Much like nuclear explosion aurora.

The list is endless even in Portugal
- the atheist doctors certiftunf inedia of Alexandrina da costa as inexplicable but verified after controlled trial.
- the doves of bombarral. Try repeating that!

Or look at the forensics of Eucharistic miracles. For which there is far more forensic evidence of life from none, than there is for abiogenesis.

Hard to discount. Impossible to explain.
All with theistic overtones.

You are welcome to your beliefs.

Thanks for responding. Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. What you've posted to support your belief in the supernatural are anecdotes. With your science background, you must know that anecdotes may be intriguing, but they are the least robust form of evidence. My opinion is that anecdotal reports of supernatural happenings are either fabrications (some maybe unintentional,) or mistaken interpretations of natural occurrences. But I admit that I haven't studied this in detail. I do remember reading an article some years ago on the Fatima event. I found it and linked it below. It says the Virgin Mary appeared only to one girl. The reported dancing motions, and colored light effects from the sun were not seen by all 70,000 people at the event. And--as the author puts it--if the sun was really doing "celestial gymnastics," why wasn't this reported everywhere in the world?

The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun

One value of naturalism is that it's useful. It allows us to make predictions. (This is true even at the quantum level. Though we can't know the exact behavior of a particle, we can calculate probabilities. And the probability of one particular motion and position will be overwhelmingly high, and will cancel out all the other possibilities. Feynman's Sum Over Histories method. Right?) Supernaturalism implies a non-deterministic world. If the laws of nature can be suspended at any time, and in any manner, then we really can't make confident predictions. We're stymied as to what we can do. And I'd still like to know by what possible mechanism can something that is outside the realm of matter and energy reach into the natural world and affect events. I know this isn't an existential argument. It's a prudential one. It's prudent, and worthwhile to have a worldview that has real-world utility.

Anyway, it's a good discussion.