The Danger of Creationism

[Mark Quayle]

A treatment for one thing does not necessarily = a treatment for another thing. I often hear these claims like 'why is there no cure for cancer??' - because there is no such thing as "cancer" - there are a LOT of things that we call cancer and what might work on one type of cancer will not always work on other types. That it, that is an ignorance-based question asked by people that should not be asking such questions.

Regarding Ivermectin:


A big metastudy that was looking like good news for the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid once you already have it was retracted. The main reason was that one of the individual studies used in this metastudy - one that apparently skewed the overall analysis to the pro-Ivermectin side, was exposed as fraudulent:

On July 6, 2021, Open Forum Infectious Diseases published the article “Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection” by Hill, et al. Subsequently, we and the authors have learned that one of the studies on which this analysis was based has been withdrawn due to fraudulent data. The authors will be submitting a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.​

The Guardian had a more detailed examination of the reason for the retraction.

"He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions...."

“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.
​

And so on...
But hey - if Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson said Ivermectin is gold, why should a little fraud matter..

Of note - Rogan took the kitchen sink approach, because he can afford it. He took Ivermectin, but also, by his own account, monoclonal antibodies, azithromycin, steroids, etc. How does he know it was the Ivermectin that made him feel better? He doesn't.

By the way - my latest reply to you has been up or almost 2 weeks:

For those wishing DNA worked exactly like computer code

I fail to see your point. Who is claiming that what works for one thing necessarily will work for another?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, that is not how scientific laws work. Scientific laws are descriptive, not proscriptive and many "laws" are not discovered yet. But they still exist. You made a bunch of nonsense claims that you simply cannot support.

You are free to list the "Laws of Life" but none currently exist. Which is odd given our interest in it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Life is far too broad and complex a concept to be defined by "Laws".

It's not, as many have defined it. And your only defense is that
you can't think of any, because none exist.
You are welcome to propose a postulate or theorize or anything
scientific in any way that explains why life exists. You can be the first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are free to list the "Laws of Life" but none currently exist. Which is odd given our interest in it.

You misunderstood the point. Your allusion to the "Laws of Life" was pure nonsense on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not, as many have defined it. And your only defense is that
you can't think of any, because none exist.
You are welcome to propose a postulate or theorize or anything
scientific in any way that explains why life exists. You can be the first.

And yet you were the one that brought up the bogus term and cannot support it.

What sort of logical fallacy would this be? Is it an inverse strawman?

 

[Occams Barber]

It's not, as many have defined it. And your only defense is that you can't think of any, because none exist.
You are welcome to propose a postulate or theorize or anything
scientific in any way that explains why life exists. You can be the first.

Explaining why life exists depends on what you mean by the question. I could interpret what you're asking in at least two different ways:

1. How did life come into existence scientifically speaking? This is a 'How' question. As I explained back in Post#105 the best answer science has so far is the process known scientifically as Abiogenesis. This link may be useful: abiogenesis | Definition & Theory | Britannica​

or

2. What is the reason for/purpose of life? This is a strict 'Why' question? The reason/purpose of life is a philosophical question which is not within the purview of science. In my personal opinion the question is meaningless since it includes the unjustified inbuilt assumption that there must necessarily be a purpose or reason for life. This however is not a scientific answer. There isn't (and never will be) a scientific answer to "What is the purpose/reason of life?"
​

Back in Post#105 I asked a couple of questions which would help to clarify your point(s). An answer might be useful to all of us.

I'd be very interested in hearing more from you about how science has proven Life is not a natural event. I'm sure others reading this thread would also be eager to hear your exposition on this topic.

I was also surprised to hear that life needed a 'scientific excuse to exist'. Did you mean it needed a theory to describe how it came into existence? If so, that would be the Abiogenesis hypothesis mentioned above.

OB

 

[Mark Quayle]

Explaining why life exists depends on what you mean by the question. I could interpret what you're asking in at least two different ways:

1. How did life come into existence scientifically speaking? This is a 'How' question. As I explained back in Post#105 the best answer science has so far is the process known scientifically as Abiogenesis. This link may be useful: abiogenesis | Definition & Theory | Britannica​

or

2. What is the reason for/purpose of life? This is a strict 'Why' question? The reason/purpose of life is a philosophical question which is not within the purview of science. In my personal opinion the question is meaningless since it includes the unjustified inbuilt assumption that there must necessarily be a purpose or reason for life. This however is not a scientific answer. There isn't (and never will be) a scientific answer to "What is the purpose/reason of life?"
​

Back in Post#105 I asked a couple of questions which would help to clarify your point(s). An answer might be useful to all of us.


OB

Lol, just for the sake of a laugh:

1. God: "Oh, no. Nonono, go get your own dirt!"
2. I believe I'll have another beer!

 

[SkyWriting]

Explaining why life exists depends on what you mean by the question. I could interpret what you're asking in at least two different ways:

Or like a person who can read.
Like this:
Why is the sky blue?
Why does freezing water expand?
Why would non-living matter become living matter given ideal conditions?
How does living matter improve the world over a dead planet.

 

[Occams Barber]

Why would non-living matter become living matter given ideal conditions?

The creation of living matter from non-living matter is know as abiogenesis. abiogenesis | Definition & Theory | Britannica

How does living matter improve the world over a dead planet.

Whether life improves the world or not is a value judgement based on your view of what constitutes improvement. In my opinion an earth with life is just different - not necessarily better or worse.

OB

 

[SkyWriting]

The creation of living matter from non-living matter is know as abiogenesis. abiogenesis | Definition & Theory | Britannica



Whether life improves the world or not is a value judgement based on your view of what constitutes improvement. In my opinion an earth with life is just different - not necessarily better or worse.

OB

Well, everything that happens happens for a reason in a reasonable world.
The reason for life to occur would have to be pretty big, huge, dramatic.
Every "Effect" needs to have a sufficient "Cause".

So for science to shrug it's shoulders and not form a reason would be no different
than the religious zealot.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, everything that happens happens for a reason in a reasonable world.
The reason for life to occur would have to be pretty big, huge, dramatic.
Every "Effect" needs to have a sufficient "Cause".

As a famous contemporary physicist once said, "Maybe not". Our understanding of physics has come on quite a lot since Aristotle, and we now know that our limited perspective and scale make many discoveries outside our everyday experience seem counterintuitive and unreasonable to us.

 

[pitabread]

The reason for life to occur would have to be pretty big, huge, dramatic.

Why?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

SkyWriting said: ↑
The reason for life to occur would have to be pretty big, huge, dramatic.

Why?

Reminds me of how many conspiracy theories start - people aren't comfortable with the idea that major events with significant effects on people's lives might have trivial or accidental causes.

"All else being equal, pick cockup over conspiracy"

 

[Occams Barber]

Well, everything that happens happens for a reason in a reasonable world.
The reason for life to occur would have to be pretty big, huge, dramatic.
Every "Effect" needs to have a sufficient "Cause".

So for science to shrug it's shoulders and not form a reason would be no different
than the religious zealot.

As I've explained to you several times, the scientifically probable reason for the existence of life is Abiogenesis - a chain of linear and parallel chemical processes that eventually led to the first unequivocal life form. Science does not need a deeper 'reason' other than that life is the culmination of a series of natural processes. Natural processes don't have motives.

You seem to alternate between asking about how life came about scientifically and the purpose/reason of/for life. In an earlier post I tried to explain that these were separate concepts. As a Christian your mythology includes a Creation Story which attributes the creation of Life, the Universe and Everything to your God. While you may (or may not) accept the story as literal I assume that, as a Christian, you will see God as ultimately responsible. I don't know why God is said to have created life but I assume Christian theology can provide a reason. Perhaps your questions would be better addressed to someone with expertise in Christian theology.

OB

 

[SkyWriting]

As I've explained to you several times, the scientifically probable reason for the existence of life is Abiogenesis - a chain of linear and parallel chemical processes that eventually led to the first unequivocal life form.

Why does the sun shine.
Why is frozen water hard?
Why does water evaporate?
And why does life form from non-living matter?
Just looking for the science to explain why reproduction
is such an important result to spend so much energy and time on it.
Why would life arise from not? What is the scientific reason for the process of life?

 

[Occams Barber]

And why does life form from non-living matter.

Since it happened back in the past, it's 'did' form not 'does' form. I've already explained the process to you along with a link to Brittanica so you could inform yourself.

Just looking for the science to explain why reproduction is such an important result to spend so much energy and time on it.

I don't know what you mean by 'so much energy or time on it' compared to all the other instinctive functions that are a normal part of life. The obvious value of reproduction is that it replaces losses. Without reproduction any animal or plant would go extinct.

OB

 

[SkyWriting]

As I've explained to you several times, the scientifically probable reason for the existence of life is Abiogenesis - a chain of linear and parallel chemical processes that eventually led to the first unequivocal life form. Science does not need a deeper 'reason' other than that life is the culmination of a series of natural processes.

Yes, every effect needs a cause. To pretend life is an exception is folly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Since it happened back in the past, it's 'did' form not 'does' form. I've already explained the process to you along with a link to Brittanica so you could inform yourself.

No, it would need to be does form to be even a theory.
It would need to be testable by skeptics.

What you are proposing is historical science, which does not exist.

 

[pitabread]

What you are proposing is historical science, which does not exist.

What?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why does the sun shine.
Why is frozen water hard?
Why does water evaporate?
And why does life form from non-living matter?

For science, those are 'how' questions. Given the context of suggested causal agency, it's easy to confuse the issue with an equivocation of 'why?'

Just looking for the science to explain why reproduction is such an important result to spend so much energy and time on it.

Cart-before-horse error; of all the things that have been able to reproduce, those that still exist are those that have spent sufficient time and energy on it.

Why would life arise from not? What is the scientific reason for the process of life?

Chemistry in suitable conditions with a surplus of free energy.