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.
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.Are you actually saying that observation alone isn't a sufficient basis to draw a valid conclusion?
Who? Where? When?This is ironic. On the one hand you have atheists refusal to be objective
On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon
Of course significant amounts of molecular oxygen did not exist until quite sometime after abiogenesis.
There weren't any that I know of. Statements like this are worthless if you can't support them.
Wrong again. Why would you make such a claim? Do you not know what the Miller-Urey Experiment demonstrated and why it was important?
What test did they use to conclude that something that needed to be called dark matter exists?
I wasn't responding to his interview - I was responding to a post about his opinions. Please do try to keep up.Your commentary doesn't address a single point that he mentioned in his interview.
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.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.
You missed out an important bit about free oxygen: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
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.They also made cyanide and formaldehyde, stuff that kills life.
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!
That is a strawman. I never made that claim. I simply and clearly said that observation is sufficient in itself to draw valid conclusions.
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.
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?