On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon

[quatona]

Are you actually saying that observation alone isn't a sufficient basis to draw a valid conclusion?

I think I was pretty clear in what I said: A conclusion is the result of a logical progression, by definition. So logic is required to conclude anything from observation.
Since, obviously, the topic were things that aren´t directly observed, I don´t even see how this is of any relevance.

 

[quatona]

This is ironic. On the one hand you have atheists refusal to be objective

Who? Where? When?

 

[Vaccine]

On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon

I didn't watch the video yet but am a fan of Dr Kenyon's works. I'll watch it next chance I get, thanks for sharing!

 

[Vaccine]

Of course significant amounts of molecular oxygen did not exist until quite sometime after abiogenesis.

Not so:

“The calibrations reveal an atmosphere with an oxidation state closer to present-day conditions.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/nature10655.html

There weren't any that I know of. Statements like this are worthless if you can't support them.

Rather disingenuous considering the 'assumptions' you're making.

Wrong again. Why would you make such a claim? Do you not know what the Miller-Urey Experiment demonstrated and why it was important?

The experiment is irrelevant. They wrongly assumed a reducing atmosphere. They didn't produce all the amino acids for life. The ones they did produce were right amd left handed whereas life only uses left-handed (levorotatory) ones. They also made cyanide and formaldehyde, stuff that kills life.

 

[KCfromNC]

What test did they use to conclude that something that needed to be called dark matter exists?

[0812.4005] Review of Observational Evidence for Dark Matter in the Universe and in upcoming searches for Dark Stars

 

[KCfromNC]

Your commentary doesn't address a single point that he mentioned in his interview.

I wasn't responding to his interview - I was responding to a post about his opinions. Please do try to keep up.

 

[KCfromNC]

On the one hand you have atheists refusal to be objective

Citation needed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

On the Origin of Life, one main difference between creationists and atheistic evolutionists is that creationists will ask "who, what, where, when, why" and atheistic evolutionists will ask, "what, where, when, why" leaving out the possibility of a who.

Not so. 'Who?' is very much a consideration - as long as the 'who' is amenable to methodological naturalism. A good recent example was when the Kepler telescope found star KIC 8462852 showed aperiodic dips in its flux and a number of astronomers suggested the possibility that it could be due to a mega-structure occluding the star, created by an advanced alien civilization.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is an excellent observation! The fanatical refusal to consider all possibilities is the hallmark of the unscientific mindset and makes their whole approach incompatible with the scientific method since it lacks objectivity.

Unfortunately, it's incorrect (see #68).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not so:

“The calibrations reveal an atmosphere with an oxidation state closer to present-day conditions.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/nature10655.html

You missed out an important bit about free oxygen:

"The results do not, however, run contrary to existing theories on life’s journey from anaerobic to aerobic organisms. The results quantify the nature of gas molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur in the earliest atmosphere, but they shed no light on the much later rise of free oxygen in the air. There was still a significant amount of time for oxygen to build up in the atmosphere through biologic mechanisms, according to Trail."(my bolding)​

Also, it's been known for a long time that the Miller-Urey experiment was unrealistic, but it did show that complex organic biomolecules could be produced from a simple atmosphere and natural processes. Later experiments of the kind using more realistic atmospheres have produced even more complex biomolecules.

They also made cyanide and formaldehyde, stuff that kills life.

They may kill modern life, but high-energy molecules like cyanide are a requirement of many abiogenesis models. One of the criticisms of deep oceanic vent locations for certain abiogenesis formulations is their isolation from the atmosphere where such molecules might be found. Check out 'How Life on Earth Began' for an overview of the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you denying that it is impossible to reach a valid conclusion after an observation without it needing to be followed by experimentation and testing? Do you carry a science lab wherever you go just to verify every single conclusion you reach? LOL!

I am denying that it is possible to reach a scientific conclusion without using the scientific method.

Please answer my question.

WHAT SCIENCE ARE THESE SCIENTISTS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN ORDER TO TEST INTELLIGENT DESIGN????

 

[Loudmouth]

That is a strawman. I never made that claim. I simply and clearly said that observation is sufficient in itself to draw valid conclusions.

What you said is wrong. You need a hypothesis, a null hypothesis, and an experimental test in order to reach a scientific conclusion. It's called the scientific method. Look it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is ironic. On the one hand you have atheists refusal to be objective which is a requirement of the scientific method and on the other you have the same people demanding adherence to the scientific method. Inconsistency of policy isn't conducive to persuasion.

What lack of objectivity?

 

[bhsmte]

Who? Where? When?

just more projection from him. Quite entertaining to watch though.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Thread closed at OP's request.