Now tell me the scientist is capable of logic without bias.

[Vap841]

Sure.
Repeatability is also highly over-rated by those wishing to undermine modern-day science, too.
The scientific method has moved on since Popper's ideas, (about results repeatability), in order to produce reliable scientific ideas on how best to investigate phenomena where it may not be possible to replicate a particular event, in a specific human-controlled experiment.
Abductive, rather than deductive reasoning, is being used to provide direction on where to look (and in what environments/settings). Artificial intelligence is also being used (eg: in Abiogenesis research).

Ok yes I definitely agree, since many things are obviously non-repeatable, such as theories about the origins of the universe! That is of course non-repeatable. However when it comes to abiogenesis, and how impressive modern day controlled experiments can get, I’m way more optimistic that it would be repeatable. But I still haven't checked out your link yet, thanks I’ll check it out tomorrow!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok sure thanks.
So that experiment gave us amino acids from inorganic materials (combined with controlled conditions). But what does it mean to doubt abiogenesis? Isn’t abiogenesis just a scientific term that says that life on a planet is always preceded by a lifeless sea of inorganic materials on that planet…and “Abiogenesis” is simply the scientific explanation of how exactly that happens?

Let me answer your second question first. If amino acids could not arise on their own then there would be no basis for abiogenesis. To have abiogenesis occur material is needed to make life from and since amino acids are everywhere in life a natural source for them needed to exist. If it did not then life would have no chance to start. There are other chemical besides amino acids, but amino acids are a big must. Since then even more ways that amino acids can arise have been found, so the method in Miller-Urey is not absolutely necessary but we did need some soruce.

And let me give you a link to the site of Jack Szostak. He is a Nobel Prize winner that is one of the best known scientists working on the problem of abiogenesis:

Szostak Lab: Home

There are also some very good YouTube videos. Professor Dave Explains is a channel that has done a few videos on how James Tour, a well respected organic chemistry professor, is terribly wrong. James Tour came out with a video where he lied about Jack Szostak. For non-chemistry people this can be hard to catch since the details are hard to understand. This is his first video refuting James Tour's claims:

He treats James Tour's religious views kindly, but when Tour was wrong or dishonest he did showed less mercy. James Tour was deranged a bit about this and made hours and hours of videos arguing against James Tour so Professor James made two more in which he actually interviewed some of the experts in the field. That was brutal. I do not think that Tour made any videos after he was so thoroughly shown to be wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

However when it comes to abiogenesis, and how impressive modern day controlled experiments can get, I’m way more optimistic that it would be repeatable.

The way to find out whether its repeatable likely involves exploration of just the right physical environment and chemical conditions, other than Earth's.
(There may be other ways).

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm confused about what the fact of alleviating phantom limb syndrome (an amazing phenomenon to me, since it's so weird) has to do with the title of "Now tell me the scientist is capable of of logic without bias".

Am I missing something?

The mind experiences what it wants to. The eye sees what you expect it to.
The ENTIRE point of the scientific method is to document what one person experiences and through documentation, allow others to reenact the experience to poke holes in the conclusions. Accuracy though contrasting biases.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is the 'Rubber Hand' illusion, one of the simplest body-ownership illusions to demonstrate - it's often finished with the assistant hitting the rubber hand with a hammer or stabbing it, which makes the subject jerk back and reflexively pull their arm away.

It's a way of showing that our body ownership map is not hard-wired, but depends on the brain making a 'best guess' based on sensory information.

I've actually been noticing it more often if somebody slams their head into somehting I can almost feel the impact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The mind experiences what it wants to. The eye sees what you expect it to.
The ENTIRE point of the scientific method is to document what one person experiences and through documentation, allow others to reenact the experience to poke holes in the conclusions. Accuracy though contrasting biases.

Nope, like the OP's reply, that answers nothing for the original post of the thread relates to the thread title.

 

[Mountainmike]

…, basic amino acids could be brought forth. That is abiogenesis: living cells from non-living environments..

No one on the side of science has claimed that it is abiogenesis.

As you see above, warden of the storm thinks EXACTLY that!
You cannot have a logical or scientific argument with those like Warden who will not stick to definitions.

As yet abiogenesis is pure conjecture.


The thread is about bias, amply demonstrated by the attempt of those who believe it to promote it beyond status of conjecture.
It does not repeat. It cannot be repeated. There is no evidence of immediate precursors to living cells. There is no end to end process, and certainly not for the critical step from no life to life.

It might even be Right, but all there is is conjecture and ideas on how some steps might have happened. No evidence they actually did. And it is far from complete . The decider in what defines conjecture.

Meanwhile as proof of reverse bias, there are plenty of forensic science reports indicating host became living heart myocardium. Cardiologists and pathologists state it.

But having wrongfully promoted abiogenesis from conjecture to hypothesis or stronger, the atheist bias denies the evidence of host to heart even exists.

That is evidence of abiogenesis that Is actually there tested! Unlike the pure conjecture of abiogenesis from random chance.

science behaves badly around everything that challenges the credo.

 

[Mountainmike]

True, but science does have systems in place to protect against these things. I'm not aware of any other worldview which does.

Forensic science and accredited labs generally have better regulated systems than academia. Those are what declared host to heart as real heart myocardium.

The utter fiasco of the shroud mis dating could not have happened in a GMP lab. Only because academia can play fast and loose with proper process did the mis dating ever see the light of day. That’s not to say all scientists cheat proper process, far from it. But those guys did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you see above, warden of the storm thinks EXACTLY that!
You cannot have a logical or scientific argument with those like Warden who will not stick to definitions.

As yet abiogenesis is pure conjecture.


The thread is about bias, amply demonstrated by the attempt of those who believe it to promote it beyond status of conjecture.
It does not repeat. It cannot be repeated. There is no evidence of immediate precursors to living cells. There is no end to end process, and certainly not for the critical step from no life to life.

It might even be Right, but all there is is conjecture and ideas on how some steps might have happened. No evidence they actually did.

Meanwhile as proof of reverse bias, there are plenty of forensic science reports indicating host became living heart myocardium. Cardiologists and pathologists state it.

But having wrongfully promoted abiogenesis from conjecture to hypothesis or stronger, the atheist bias denies the evidence of host to heart even exists. That is evidence of abiogenesis that Is actually there tested! Unlike the pure conjecture of abiogenesis from random chance.

Fine, no scientist says that. I do believe that I corrected her on that post.


And once again you repeat your false claim. A claim that has been shown to be false. It is not "pure conjecture". That is a falsehood. It would be "pure conjecture" if it was like your beliefs which have no reliable evidence at all. There is massive scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There are merely some unfinished steps. You can keep making claims that you should know are false and people will keep correcting you.

And there is plenty of evidence for steps that predate living cells. You simply do not understand the concept of evidence if you believe that. I think that we need to go over the concept of scientific evidence. Your denial of reality will not change it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Forensic science and accredited labs generally have better regulated systems than academia. Those are what declared host to heart as real heart myocardium.

The utter fiasco of the shroud mis dating could not have happened in a GMP lab. Only because academia can play fast and loose with proper process did the mis dating ever see the light of day. That’s not to say all scientists cheat proper process, far from it. But those guys did.

Really. Can you prove that with reliable sources? You keep forgetting that one of your favorite sources has been shown to have lied at some point. Why trust him?

 

[Mountainmike]

Really. Can you prove that with reliable sources? You keep forgetting that one of your favorite sources has been shown to have lied at some point. Why trust him?

For the very first time Study the shroud mis dating. It makes horrendous reading. AMS failed process validation prior to shroud testing.

I’ll wager you were unaware it ever happened.
One sample was tested as half the real age. ( deja vu) Another one double it, one just 80 years old. One test 1000 years out. These are the labs that did the tests!!! An accredited lab would be forced by GOod practice to abandon the test until after Non conformance had been addressed.


The test should never have happened. But even when it did, they should have admitted lack of homogeneity , instead of fiddled it. The labs could never have honestly stated that AMS gave a definitive answer as many RC errors proved.

You attack Rogers baselessly. But Adler showed that fibres from that area gave different FTIR. Just the basic images from 78 presented by Marino et all, showed it was made of different stuff. Rogers found splices. A previous test on a single strand showed visual differences that tested 1000 years different at two ends.

The protocol was ignored!

There is literally nothing that supports the test except Hall and goves planet sized egos. Even halls successor Ramsay no longer trusts the test. Tite accepts it’s a crucified man. The only ones who accept the date are shroud flat earthers.

it was one of the cases where Goves admitted bias destroyed good science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Really. Can you prove that with reliable sources? You keep forgetting that one of your favorite sources has been shown to have lied at some point. Why trust him?

Please don't let him convert another thread into his rants about his favorite catholic miracles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the very first time Study the shroud mis dating. It makes horrendous reading. AMS failed process validation prior to shroud testing.

I’ll wager you were unaware it ever happened.
One sample was tested as half the real age. ( deja vu) Another one double it, one just 80 years old. One test 1000 years out. These are the labs that did the tests!!! An accredited lab would be forced by GOod practice to abandon the test until after Non conformance had been addressed.

Citation needed. The "real age" was showed to be somewhere between 1260 and 1390 AD. I support that with valid sources.

The test should never have happened. But even when it did, they should have admitted lack of homogeneity , instead of fiddled it. The labs could never have honestly stated that AMS gave a definitive answer as many RC errors proved.

You attack Rogers baselessly. But Adler showed that fibres from that area gave different FTIR. Just the basic images from 78 presented by Marino et all, showed it was made of different stuff. Rogers found splices. A previous test on a single strand showed visual differences that tested 1000 years different at two ends.

The protocol was ignored!

There is literally nothing that supports the test except Hall and goves planet sized egos. Even halls successor Ramsay no longer trusts the test. Tite accepts it’s a crucified man. The only ones who accept the date are shroud flat earthers.

it was one of the cases where Goves admitted bias destroyed good science.

The protocol was only ignored by your sources after the fact. Some of them could not keep their word. You can only site people that had to be openly dishonest. There was to be no private sampling. They all agreed to that. There is no way around that. So that means that your favorite was either lying when he agreed to that or lying when he said that he had private samples. The man lost all integrity.

You cannot accuse those that follow the science of being "flat earthers". That accusation applies to your sources. Did you forget how you failed with the one peer reviewed article that you supplied? And that was after I warned you on how you had to be careful when people claim that something is peer reviewed.

 

[Mountainmike]

… after the fact..

This shows how little you know about the shroud and the years that led up to the totally botched testing of it, the protocols were discussed in numerous conferences beforehand and then ignored by labs that even failed to pass validation tests.( Michael tite authored that, and still didn’t call off the tests as he should have done) And they even ignored their own protocol, let alone what archeologists told them they needed to do.

I suggest you read one of the books for background.
The shroud cannot be reduced to a single citation. You have to understand the context of them.

There are many papers along the way. The dating paper you refer has been discredited. You have seen the date gradient and lack of homogeneity on this thread. Even the leader of Oxford lab no longer accepts it , more fool you if you do!

 

[SelfSim]

Please don't let him convert another thread into his rants about his favorite catholic miracles.

Unfortunately, he already has.
He also has no 'off' button too.

@MM is a truth seeker. Abiogenesis research isn't about declaring truths .. more like its about guiding where to look next. @MM expects abiogenesis hypotheses to reveal his truths .. and is bitter when it doesn't do that.
PS: I'm on his ignore list .. above is just a friendly conversation attempt about my observations ..

 

[Subduction Zone]

This shows how little you know about the shroud and the years that led up to the totally botched testing of it, the protocols were discussed in numerous conferences beforehand and then ignored by labs that even failed to pass validation tests.( Michael tite authored that, and still didn’t call off the tests as he should have done) And they even ignored their own protocol, let alone what archeologists told them they needed to do.

I suggest you read one of the books for background.
The shroud cannot be reduced to a single citation. You have to understand the context of them.

There are many papers along the way. The dating paper you refer has been discredited. You have seen the date gradient and lack of homogeneity on this thread. Even the leader of Oxford lab no longer accepts it , more fool you if you do!

It has been shown to be the other way around. The burden of proof has not been met by you for your belief. And you have run away from discussion about it

But go ahead. Open up one of your old threads about it and tag me...

Of course since you do not appear to even understand the concept of scientific evidence. Are you read to discuss the topic? We could do that here. Understand the concept of evidence would help you understand how your claims about abiogenesis are false.

 

[Mountainmike]

If ever a post demonstrated bias it is the below.
- the protocol was debated for years.
- The labs failed basic process validation. ( clue, Trondheim)
- they ignored agreed protocol.
- they fiddled the data in the prime paper.
- they failed to get the agreed stats institute to validate
- numerous studies show the Sample area is different stuff
- repairs are visible in the Raes thread.

The test is a write off because of an attitude problem,
- then the journals like RC refuse to publish contesting research, because they were the ones who botched it.

On the last a legal principle applies “ nem judex in sua causa” .

- the raw measurements were actively hidden until FOI.

Yet still you believe it, even though head of Oxford lab no longer does, which is presumably why archeometry was allowed to published the paper that trashed homogeneity!

Your view IS bias in action.
Nobody can treat that dating as valid.

It has been shown to be the other way

 

[Subduction Zone]

If ever a post demonstrated bias it is the below.
- the protocol was debated for years.
- The labs failed basic process validation. ( clue, Trondheim)
- they ignored agreed protocol.
- they fiddled the data in the prime paper.
- they failed to get the agreed stats institute to validate
- numerous studies show the Sample area is different stuff
- repairs are visible in the Raes thread.

The test is a write off because of an attitude problem,
- then the journals like RC refuse to publish contesting research, because they were the ones who botched it.

On the last a legal principle applies “ nem judex in sua causa” .

- the raw measurements were actively hidden until FOI.

Yet still you believe it, even though head of Oxford lab no longer does, which is presumably why archeometry was allowed to published the paper that trashed homogeneity!

Your view IS bias in action.
Nobody can treat that dating as valid.

Sorry, not debating your failed belief about the shroud here. Here you have to deal with your failure in regards to the concept of scientific evidence.

 

[Kylie]

Forensic science and accredited labs generally have better regulated systems than academia. Those are what declared host to heart as real heart myocardium.

The utter fiasco of the shroud mis dating could not have happened in a GMP lab. Only because academia can play fast and loose with proper process did the mis dating ever see the light of day. That’s not to say all scientists cheat proper process, far from it. But those guys did.

There are plenty of other things that indicate the Shroud is not real, but I'm not going to get into it here. If you do want to discuss that issue with me, please feel free to start a thread and tag me, and I'll come and give my point of view.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are also some very good YouTube videos. Professor Dave Explains is a channel that has done a few videos on how James Tour, a well respected organic chemistry professor, is terribly wrong. James Tour came out with a video where he lied about Jack Szostak. For non-chemistry people this can be hard to catch since the details are hard to understand. This is his first video refuting James Tour's claims:



He treats James Tour's religious views kindly, but when Tour was wrong or dishonest he did showed less mercy. James Tour was deranged a bit about this and made hours and hours of videos arguing against James Tour so Professor James made two more in which he actually interviewed some of the experts in the field. That was brutal. I do not think that Tour made any videos after he was so thoroughly shown to be wrong.

The "Professor Dave" videos are indeed quite good. I ran into his reply to Tour's reply first (so it was a bit of an odd way to start) some time back. From the various videos I saw I learned a lot that I didn't know before. I was quite impressed by how much work has been accomplished in OOL research.

Perhaps some of the posters here do have a valid point. As Tour illustrates scientists can be stubborn and dogmatic and ignore evidence. (Especially about things that are close to, but not in their fields of expertise.)