Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 26 of 27
 [ 538 posts ] 
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


How naive and inept, even after so many months of being educated.

You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.

Naturally, if Jesus doesn't actually exist, you can't 'prove' that Jesus did something - the most parsimonious explanation possible.


leroy wrote: As I made it clear in the quote, what I was saying is that I am willing to have a conversation where I defend my specific design hypothesis (jesus did it) against dragan´s or HWN´s favorite and specific naturalistic hypothesis.


You don't have a specific design hypothesis, so stop pretending.

You have an assertion, ignorance, and a terminal disregard for reason and reality.


leroy wrote:I am still willing to have this conversation, I am just waiting for a “naturalist” to provide his specific naturalistic hypothesis and his justification for why is that hypothesis better than mine.


It's not a hypothesis because you are not defining a testable model that seeks to explain empirical evidence.

You look like a total clown when you use words you clearly don't understand. The typical Creationist pastime of aspiring to scientific legitimacy while failing to maintain anything like the standards of rigour required to do science.


leroy wrote:so in response to HWN:
I will defend Jesus did it, against any specific naturalistic hypothesis that you choose, Only after you have chosen your hypothesis and explain why you think is better than “Jesus did it”


Specific natural hypotheses require empirical evidence... got any?

Then so much for defending your religious convictions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:54 am
leroyPosts: 1872Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.



Irrelevant, you are not following.

The point is that I told Dragan that we could ether have a conversation where he defends natural abiogenesis in the general sense and I defend design in a general sense or we can have a conversation where he defends a specific naturalistic hypothesis and I would defend “Jesus did it”

I was simply being open minded and letting dragan decide what type f conversation should we have. (at the end Dragan didn’t answer)

The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.

he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?


This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words

Anyone who would have followed the conversation would know that the ball is the atheist side and that I would defend “jesus did it” until the atheist adopts a specific naturalistic hypothesis and explains why is that better than “Jesus did it” I am not ignoring anything it is just that the ball is in the atheist side.

And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:42 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
On the bases that there is evidence that nature did it. You know, like I have said from the start. If only you would learn to read my posts, so much time would not be wasted with me having to repeat myself.



No you haven’t shown anything, relevant, all you are doing is posting the same random links to unrelated stuff.


:lol:

Only someone as dense and dishonest as dandan/leroy would think linking to a list of current models for abiogenesis is unrelated and random to a conversation about the origin of life.

:lol:

leroy wrote:Of all the models that the wiki article that you keep quoting is there any model that shows beyond reasonable doubt that molecules organized naturally in the order and pattern required to produce life? Would you provide an example of such a model?


You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I am not, and here is the link again for anyone to see.



I am fine with that, anyone who is honestly interested can look at the link and see how you are making a strawman.


I guess straw-man is another word we can put on the list of words dandan/leroy does not understand. That or he is just lying, again.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I have provided evidence, several times. Rumraket has provided evidence, several times as well.


Rumraket provided evidence supporting the idea that early life was made out of aminoacids that where relatively abundant in the past. As I said before I grant his evidence.

What I am asking for is evidence that molecules naturally organize in the order and pattern required to produce life.


:facepalm:

Which he provided. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:HWN Changed his original argument, because he was cornered, my original question was “what would convince you that a miracle took place”



he_who_is_nobody wrote:What a liar. It is telling that I am able to link to everything I say you did, yet there is no link to this event of me being cornered and having to change my original argument. Telling, but not unexpected from the lying slavery-apologist.


[It is not a lie, and you know it, it is a fact that I did asked that question and it is a fact that you answered what I claim you answered,
Why don’t you prove that I am lying by quoting my actual original question and your original answer?


The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Nope, therefore I'm not honest?

No you are not honest


:lol:

Again, how sad can one person get.

leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

leroy wrote:As I made it clear in the quote, what I was saying is that I am willing to have a conversation where I defend my specific design hypothesis (jesus did it) against dragan´s or HWN´s favorite and specific naturalistic hypothesis.


You mean like when I provided one here? However, you did not defend anything, you just ran.

leroy wrote:I am still willing to have this conversation, I am just waiting for a “naturalist” to provide his specific naturalistic hypothesis and his justification for why is that hypothesis better than mine.


Done, and to sum it up; because there is actual evidence for it. Now, we wait to see you run away, again.

leroy wrote:so in response to HWN:
I will defend Jesus did it, against any specific naturalistic hypothesis that you choose, Only after you have chosen your hypothesis and explain why you think is better than “Jesus did it”


:facepalm:

So much time would not be wasted if you only took the time to read my posts. What you are asking for was provided back in September (and before that), yet we have you here making mountains out of nothing (there is not even a molehill) in this case. Honestly, how sad can one person get?

leroy wrote:The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.

he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?


This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words


What? Me linking to your post and using your own words when talking about it would give people the wrong impression how exactly? Did you not say you would defend JesusDidIt In that post? Was that not you saying, "No problem, If you what I can defend my specific design hypothesis (the Christian God did it) against your favorite naturalistic theory,"? I guess one has to be as dense as dandan/leroy to see how I am giving a wrong impression there.

leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:10 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
You can't even 'prove' (read, provide evidence for) the existence of Jesus, or the existence of your god. Therefore, 'proving' or not being able to 'prove' what they allegedly did or didn't do is irrelevant.



Irrelevant, you are not following.


Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.



leroy wrote:The point is that I told Dragan that we could ether have a conversation where he defends natural abiogenesis in the general sense and I defend design in a general sense or we can have a conversation where he defends a specific naturalistic hypothesis and I would defend “Jesus did it”


And pray tell, what the fuck would be the point of that?

All you'd do is assert or cite the Bible - that's not equal. It's like having a grand battle between a fleet of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and a dude with a peashooter, it's not a fair or balanced contest in the slightest. Fuck off back to the Bronze Age where you mentally belong - there your ideas would no doubt be very impressive to all the ignorant savages.

Of course you want to have this conversation because you just want the chance to repeatedly express your vapid belief in your handed-down and uncritically accepted belief system, but in reality, we all know how much utility your belief system has in terms of explanatory power because there were no fucking inventions or discoveries made as a result of it in the thousand years it held primacy over the Western world's minds.

As soon as we abandoned it, that's when we really started making sense of the universe and our place in it.

Sorry, but fanatic literalist assumptions don't have a place at the modern table of discourse.

Further, we've literally only just had an example of what you consider 'defending a design hypothesis' and it amounts to you wholly begging the question with fictional scenarios.

What a joke you are, LEROY. Utterly clueless in every way.



leroy wrote:I was simply being open minded and letting dragan decide what type f conversation should we have. (at the end Dragan didn’t answer)


I expect that the list of things Dragan has that would be more appealing to do is considerable.

You're like a horny dog rubbing itself against our legs - don't be surprised if no one wants to aid and abet that.



leroy wrote:The thing is that anyone who reads WHN quote without looking at the link would have a wrong impression on what I actually said.


The thing is that if people have read the conversation, they know you're playing your standard game of evasion, goalpost shifting, and the occasional attempt to sow misdirection between other members.

Thus the only way someone might possibly be fooled here is if they happened to have never read any of your other posts, and then they might be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. No one who's interacted with you here before is remotely inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.


leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody
When are you going to start defending magic? You know, defend JesusDidIt like you claimed you would? Or are you just going to keep ignoring this?


This is why I asked WHN to quote my actual words

Anyone who would have followed the conversation would know that the ball is the atheist side and that I would defend “jesus did it” until the atheist adopts a specific naturalistic hypothesis and explains why is that better than “Jesus did it” I am not ignoring anything it is just that the ball is in the atheist side.


Fuck off, LEROY - your gymnastics is not remotely interesting to anyone, you lack any ability to perform any of the grand claims you make about yourself, and no one is obliged to jump through hoops on your command.

Get over yourself, eh?


leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Except that everyone can see that he cited your exact words, that his rendition of the exchange is accurate, and you're just being a total fucking LEROY.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:17 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2993Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Greetings,

Leroy, I already answered you back on page 22.

Your response was to assert that a non-existent "law of biogenesis" prevents life from coming into being through natural processes.

On page 23, Sparhafoc addressed this nonsense in several consecutive posts.

I saw no reason to discuss this matter further with you - hence why I stopped posting.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:48 pm
leroyPosts: 1872Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[


You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.


You mean the article on the “metabolism first hypothesis”?

https://sandwalk.blogspot.mx/2009/05/me ... -life.html


As far as I can remember I showed you why the model fails, and you seemed to have accepted my critique.

Let me ask you a simple yes or no question.
Do you affirm that the model described in the article is better that “jesus did it”?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:51 pm
leroyPosts: 1872Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:55 pm
leroyPosts: 1872Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Sparhafoc wrote:
Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.


As you made it obvious in your last post, no you are no following, the conversation.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:58 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.



Easy: the thing you claimed to be true doesn't actually exist.

You claimed that he_who_is_nobody changed his argument because you cornered him.

But this didn't happen.

Of course, the actual burden is with you when you make the claim, and because you can't show the alleged situation, then there's no reason to lend it credulity. Further, as we are all well versed in LEROYism, and as we know you routinely lie through your teeth, then unfortunately the benefit of the doubt is no longer granted to you.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:20 am
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
Oh I am following the conversation, just not your transparent attempts at misdirection.


As you made it obvious in your last post, no you are no following, the conversation.



As your deranged punctuation shows; you're just evading addressing the content I've produced.

Of course, if anyone else in this conversation were to be asked whether or not I am following the conversation, they'd undoubtedly agree that you are being evasive, tossing out distractions, and doing all you can to obfuscate.

That's what makes you such a fucking LEROY.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:22 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Look at that, dandan/leroy mindlessly responded three times spending less than five minutes between each post. Again, how pathetic can one person get? In his mindless rush, he forgot all the places that he needs to cite or apologize for lying.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

[...]

leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.


Now, an honest person would take the high road and admit to their mistakes, but dandan/leroy has already demonstrated that he is less than honest.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[


You mean like I did here back in September? Hopefully, you will not run from it this time.


You mean the article on the “metabolism first hypothesis”?

https://sandwalk.blogspot.mx/2009/05/me ... -life.html


No, not exactly. I mean the one I linked to (strange how the link was dropped from your reply), in which Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not falsified in full, only in part. If only you would follow the posts I keep linking you to.

leroy wrote:As far as I can remember I showed you why the model fails, and you seemed to have accepted my critique.


Here is a perfect example of why one should not solely rely on their memory, but should also check and confirm that what they remember is correct. Thanks for demonstrating another point you have made several times is false.

I put forward the metabolism first hypothesis, than you posted that it was falsified, to which I than put up a host of other hypotheses, and you whined about it. However, at that same time, Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not completely falsified, to which, all you offered was incongruity as a rebuttal.

leroy wrote:Let me ask you a simple yes or no question.
Do you affirm that the model described in the article is better that “jesus did it”?


Yes, because there is actual evidence behind the current model. Does this mean you are going to start defending JesusDidIt? I cannot wait. However, my money is on you running, again.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
The lie is that you cornered me and that I changed my answer. Beyond that, you are making the claim, you provide the links to demonstrate you are right. Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.

You are the one who is accusing me for being a liar; therefore you are the one who has to prove it.


Dandan/Leroy, did you not claim that you cornered me and that I changed my answer because of that? Yes, that was you making that claim. Now, you can cite where that happened or apologize for lying.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:41 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1872Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:

leroy wrote:
As far as I can remember I showed you why the model fails, and you seemed to have accepted my critique.


Here is a perfect example of why one should not solely rely on their memory, but should also check and confirm that what they remember is correct. Thanks for demonstrating another point you have made several times is false.

I put forward the metabolism first hypothesis, than you posted that it was falsified, to which I than put up a host of other hypotheses, and you whined about it. However, at that same time, Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not completely falsified, to which, all you offered was incongruity as a rebuttal.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

One wonders why you are still unwilling to quote the actual words, Rum´s answer was irrelevant and does nothing to counter the arguments that falsify metabolism first hypothesis.


The reason why I would argue that Jesus is a better hypothesis is because atleast “Jesus” has not been falsified, I would say that any hypothesis that has not been falsified is by definition better that any falsified hypothesis (feel free to ether agree or disagree)

Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics. We also agree on that there is no known natural mechanism that would organize amino acids in the order and pattern required to create life.(there is no knwon natural mechanism that woudl solve this entropy problem)

Our only point of disagreement is on whether if these points are mayor challenges for natural abiogenesis or not, up to this point I honestly haven seen any good reason as for why we should dismiss these points as irrelevant and unchallenging.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:04 pm
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1206Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:One wonders why you are still unwilling to quote the actual words, Rum´s answer was irrelevant and does nothing to counter the arguments that falsify metabolism first hypothesis.

False. It completely refutes the claim that metabolism-first hypotheses have been falsified, by showing that the work only applied to a specific version.


leroy wrote:The reason why I would argue that Jesus is a better hypothesis is because atleast “Jesus” has not been falsified, I would say that any hypothesis that has not been falsified is by definition better that any falsified hypothesis (feel free to ether agree or disagree)

" Jesus" is not a hypothesis. It doesn't make any predictions, it has zero explanatory power, it merely accounts for observations in an ad-hoc fashion. No matter what we observed you would simply be able to declare "oh, so it's works like that? Well that's what Jesus wanted so he created it like that with god-magic".

In reality you have no idea what any god wants, even if we suppose there is one.

leroy wrote:Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.

You can't address anything as it is obvious you don't have any formal education in anything even remotely related to what is being discussed here. You are just here to "evangelize", and you don't even care if you have to lie or pretend to know something that you obviously don't.

leroy wrote:Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy

No, it doesn't imply that at all.

leroy wrote: and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics.

No, it doesn't.

leroy wrote:we also agree on that there is no known natural mechanism that would organize amino acids in the order and pattern required to create life.

Just because such a process isn't currently known doesn't mean there isn't one.


leroy wrote:(there is no knwon natural mechanism that woudl solve this entropy problem)

There is still no entropy problem. As has been explained to you like a hundred times.

leroy wrote:Our only point of disagreement

We literally disagree on every single statement you've made. Everything you say is demonstrably wrong.

leroy wrote:is on whether if these points are mayor challenges for natural abiogenesis or not, up to this point I honestly haven seen any good reason as for why we should dismiss these points as irrelevant and unchallenging.

At this point we haven't seen any reason why we should accept any of your points as relevant or challenging.

Now all that said, I want to return to the topic of you keeping up this discussion even though you have been shown wrong over and over again. Why do you want to keep arguing about a topic you are not educated to understand, and you clearly demonstrate that you aren't with every sentence you write? Have you no shame? Do you not care that you are making a fool of yourself with every post? Is that what people do in your circle of friends, or in your family, do you just open your mouthes and start babbling for the hell of it even though you honestly don't know anything? Do you pretend to know a lot about being a mechanic, or engineer, or a doctor, or a pilot, too? What is it about this particular subject that makes it so you think it is okay that you pretend to know anything about it?

And a related question, why does your belief in God, and your belief that God created the first life, also demand that the non-divine origin of life be impossible? Could it not technically be possible that God created the first life, or mandkind, and yet it is ALSO possible that life could originate through the basic laws of physics and chemistry? Why does it have to be so if A is possible, B must be impossible? Or if B is possible, A must be impossible? Have you even thought about that before? Does it say anywhere in the bible that a natural origin of life is impossible? Since it clearly doesn't actually say that, then why are you so desperate to conclude it?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:24 am
borrofburiModeratorPosts: 3527Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:
leroy wrote:we also agree on that there is no known natural mechanism that would organize amino acids in the order and pattern required to create life.

Just because such a process isn't currently known doesn't mean there isn't one.

Moreover there doesn't even (necessarily) need to be such a process. If you look at a (chemical) solution it's fair to say "there's probably some sort of process that causes these chemicals to bond like this so reliably on such short time scales" or if you look at a crystal it's fair to say "there's probably some sort of process that results in this grid-like pattern we see form everywhere all the time", but if you look at a (chemical) mixture it is not fair to say that there must be some sort of process that results in that mixture arrangement.

All that is necessary for life to kick off is a single replicator that is capable of changing over time. Once. That's all. We're not talking about a modern E. coli reliably popping up fully formed, we're talking the simplest possible replicator that is capable of replicating so long as it is not restricted to its copies being identical to the original. This is very probably a very simple chain of atoms that really is comparatively unlikely to form compared to a crystal (given that crystals are so likely to form it's downright reliable on a timescale that humans can comprehend). But unlike a crystal, the initial replicator doesn't have to reliably form on a short timescale, it only had to form once during a timescale that is downright incomprehensible for humans to understand except by symbolic abstraction (i.e., numbers).

We have no reason to rule out the possibility that creating an initial replicator is more like a mixture than a solution or a crystal, especially since, unlike crystals that we see reliably form all the time everywhere, the replicator only has to happen once.
Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:38 pm
leroyPosts: 1872Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Rumraket wrote:False. It completely refutes the claim that metabolism-first hypotheses have been falsified, by showing that the work only applied to a specific version.



wrong, but also irrelevant, the point is that at least some abiogenesis models have been falsified. The next thing is just an opinion models that have not been falsified are better than those that have been.

feel free to ether agree or disagree with this opinion, it is not an important part of the thread anyway.




leroy wrote:Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy

Rumraket wrote:No, it doesn't imply that at all.


yes, the organic soup (or whatever you believe the precursor of life was) had higher entropy than life, and I bet that you don't have the balls to unambiguously affirm the oposite.

not to mention that this is a reply to HWN, who agrees with this point.



Rumraket wrote:Just because such a process isn't currently known doesn't mean there isn't one.


sure, but the burden proof is on you.

creationists can also say that radiometric decay occurred at a faster rate in the past due to a mechanism that is currently unknown. but I bet that you would not accept that as an argument against the reliability of radiometric dating
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:57 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Look at that. Look at what was ignored, again!

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

[...]

leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.


Now, an honest person would take the high road and admit to their mistakes, but dandan/leroy has already demonstrated that he is less than honest.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Here is a perfect example of why one should not solely rely on their memory, but should also check and confirm that what they remember is correct. Thanks for demonstrating another point you have made several times is false.

I put forward the metabolism first hypothesis, than you posted that it was falsified, to which I than put up a host of other hypotheses, and you whined about it. However, at that same time, Rumraket explained how metabolism first was not completely falsified, to which, all you offered was incongruity as a rebuttal.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

One wonders why you are still unwilling to quote the actual words, Rum´s answer was irrelevant and does nothing to counter the arguments that falsify metabolism first hypothesis.


I went back and put all the links I provided back into your quote. By doing so, I once again expose just how dishonest you are acting and your unwillingness to actually engage with evidence provided for you. Feel free to keep running from it; tis all you can do after all.

leroy wrote:The reason why I would argue that Jesus is a better hypothesis is because atleast “Jesus” has not been falsified, I would say that any hypothesis that has not been falsified is by definition better that any falsified hypothesis (feel free to ether agree or disagree)


As anyone can plainly read from Rumraket, Metabolism first has not been falsified as a whole. That means, it has not been falsified and actually has supporting evidence for it, whereas JesusDidIt, much like fairies did it, only has not been falsified. Beyond that, is that really the only way you can defend JesusDidIt? The same way one can defend fairies?

:lol:

leroy wrote:Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.


I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.

leroy wrote:Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics.


Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?

leroy wrote:We also agree on that there is no known natural mechanism that would organize amino acids in the order and pattern required to create life.(there is no knwon natural mechanism that woudl solve this entropy problem)


Again, you already admitted that this was not a problem. Beyond that, all you are doing is making an argument from ignorance. We do not know, thus JesusDidIt. Again, I honestly was hoping you could defend Jesus better than that after saying that you would do so.

leroy wrote:Our only point of disagreement is on whether if these points are mayor challenges for natural abiogenesis or not, up to this point I honestly haven seen any good reason as for why we should dismiss these points as irrelevant and unchallenging.


:facepalm:

You already admitted that this was not major problems. Again, did you think I was as forgetful as you? Honestly, what is the point in repeating a falsehood, one that you already admitted to?

leroy wrote:not to mention that this is a reply to HWN, who agrees with this point.


Yep, and you also agree that it is actually not a problem. Why you keep bringing it up as if it is is beyond me.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:46 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1872Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:

I went back and put all the links I provided back into your quote. By doing so, I once again expose just how dishonest you are acting and your unwillingness to actually engage with evidence provided for you. Feel free to keep running from it; tis all you can do after all.]



again, not answering to something that's has already been answered doesn't count as running away.

if you think there is a relevant point that I haven't answered, that you would like me to address, please provide the exact quote by copy/pasting the exact words, (I don't what your stupid links)



he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.


I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.


no, I keep asking you to select a single hypothesis (the one you consider the best) and you keep ignoring my request.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics.


Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?


why don't you quote my actual words? most people wont look at the links at might have the wrong impression that I somehow admitted that such problem doesn't exist or has been solved.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:02 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

Note the hypocrisy. I am merely asking for citations of the below happening, whereas dandan/leroy wants me to actually quote things that I have already cited. One would think that if he wants things quoted to him, he would start by providing the quotes he has been repeatedly asked for. Practice what you preach dandan/leroy.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.

[...]

leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.


Now, an honest person would take the high road and admit to their mistakes, but dandan/leroy has already demonstrated that he is less than honest.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:

I went back and put all the links I provided back into your quote. By doing so, I once again expose just how dishonest you are acting and your unwillingness to actually engage with evidence provided for you. Feel free to keep running from it; tis all you can do after all.]



again, not answering to something that's has already been answered doesn't count as running away.


As I pointed out, and provided a link to, your response was nothing but incredulity. Just because you can write something does not mean you have addressed it. Since your post did not refute anything Rumraket provided, his post still stands as my model (a model that has both evidence and is not falsified).

leroy wrote:if you think there is a relevant point that I haven't answered, that you would like me to address, please provide the exact quote by copy/pasting the exact words, (I don't what your stupid links)


Hypocrite. Start practicing what you preach. Until than, the link is here for all to read, and everyone can see that all you can do is run from it.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.


no, I keep asking you to select a single hypothesis (the one you consider the best) and you keep ignoring my request.


As anyone that will click the link I provided (and you actually kept this time!) will see, I have provided one. However, keep running. It is all you can do.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:Anyway these are all minor details, the good news is that we don’t disagree on mayor points which are that life coming from none life implies low entropy coming from high entropy and that it contradicts statistical thermodynamics.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?


why don't you quote my actual words? most people wont look at the links at might have the wrong impression that I somehow admitted that such problem doesn't exist or has been solved.


Hypocrite. Start practicing what you preach. You admitted that this was not an insurmountable problem, which genetically undermines the logical fallacy you are trying to use. It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt has more power as a rhetorical strategy, than It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt.

Now, are you trying to claim that you did not admit this? Tis there for all to see with just one click. Look at that, I can provide the evidence for the claims I make. Will you do the same?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:55 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1872Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Note the hypocrisy. I am merely asking for citations of the below happening, whereas dandan/leroy wants me to actually quote things that I have already cited. One would think that if he wants things quoted to him, he would start by providing the quotes he has been repeatedly asked for. Practice what you preach dandan/leroy.



The reason why I am asking you to quote the actual words is because it is often hard to spot the actual point that you are making. Honestly I don’t have any hidden motives.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:

leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.



sure, I will cite you.
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?


anyone reading your comment, without verifying and reading my actual words, might have the wrong impression that I somehow admitted that such problem doesn't exist or has been solved.




he_who_is_nobody wrote:As I pointed out, and provided a link to, your response was nothing but incredulity.


Even if true, you can’t accuse from running away, at most you can accuse for not answering to your own personal satisfaction.




leroy wrote:Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.

leroy wrote:no, I keep asking you to select a single hypothesis (the one you consider the best) and you keep ignoring my request.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:As anyone that will click the link I provided (and you actually kept this time!) will see, I have provided one. However, keep running. It is all you can do.



I admit my mistake, I wrongly assumed that you where quoting the same Wikipedia article once again, if you show that you have provided that link before, in a context where you affirmed that the model described in that link is better than “Jesus did it” I would apologize.

Up to this point everything is irrelevant rubbish, feel free to answer but I won’t answer back.



he_who_is_nobody wrote:Hypocrite. Start practicing what you preach. You admitted that this was not an insurmountable problem, which genetically undermines the logical fallacy you are trying to use. It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt has more power as a rhetorical strategy, than It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt.

Now, are you trying to claim that you did not admit this? Tis there for all to see with just one click. Look at that, I can provide the evidence for the claims I make. Will you do the same?



There is a big difference between “there is no problem” and the “problem is not insurmountable”

Sure as you accurately described this time, I agree that the problem is not insurmountable, my position is and has always been that the problem is relevant enough to establish reasonable doubt towards naturalistic models. …. You claimed to disagree with this statement, but you haven’t provided any good reason as for why this problem is minor and unchallenging for naturalistic models.

I would also argue that “Jesus” is a better model than the model described in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221860, for the following reasons.

1 Falsified: this article falsifies, metabolism first hypothesis https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101433.htm

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution.


The article that you quoted doesn’t provide a solution for this problem.

The implication is that any model that has not been falsified is better than yours; including crazy models like “a fairy did it”

2 Parsimony: your model is based on abstract chemistry (imaginary chemistry) the model makes an additional assumption “that this imaginary chemistry might be applicable to the real world, here we have a tie; because my model also presupposes that a designer might exist. We are both making an additional assumption

3 Explanatory Power: your model has weak explanatory power because even if true it would not explain how life came in to be, and it wouldn’t even solve the “entropy problem” your model if true would explain how complex compounds came from simpler units by a process of selection, but it would not explain how these units arrange in the particular order and pattern required to produce life.

Your model would only solve a small part of the "origin of life problem"

My model if true would fully explain the origin of life and would solve the entropy problem, any intelligent designer (even if not divine) can arrange units in any order and pattern that he wills.

4 Explanatory Scope: Your model lacks a significant amount of explanatory scope, if true it would only partially solve the “origin of life problem” while my model fully solves the “origin of life problem” and many other problems. By postulating the existence of a single intelligent designer, a wide variety of things that currently lack an explanation would be explained.


5 Evidence: even by the admission of the authors of your article, there is no evidence that suggests that the model is true; it is simply a speculative model. While in the case of an intelligent designer there are multiple independent lines of evidence that suggests it´s existence. (the apparent fact that the universe had a beginning and a cause is an example of evidence)
......

So why “Jesus” and not some other God or some other designer like an alien? Well after we agree that design is a the best explanation for the origin of life, can start a new discussion and discuss on which “design hypothesis” is better.

But the short answer would be that “Jesus” is a better explanation than any other design hypothesis in terms of parsimony, explanatory power, explanatory scope etc.



So why “Jesus” and not some other God or some other designer like an alien? We after we agree that design is a the best explanation for the origin of life, can start a new discussion and discuss on which “design hypothesis” is better.

But the short answer would be that “Jesus” is a better explanation than any other design hypothesis in terms of parsimony, explanatory power, explanatory scope etc.


You can ether answer or ignore all the rubbish, all I am interested is in you

1 Justifying your claim that the “entropy problem” is not significant enough to posit reasonable doubt

2 Showing that the hypothesis in the paper that you quoted is better (according to some objective standard) than “Jesus”
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:44 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Science Law - Life Comes From Life

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Note the hypocrisy. I am merely asking for citations of the below happening, whereas dandan/leroy wants me to actually quote things that I have already cited. One would think that if he wants things quoted to him, he would start by providing the quotes he has been repeatedly asked for. Practice what you preach dandan/leroy.



The reason why I am asking you to quote the actual words is because it is often hard to spot the actual point that you are making. Honestly I don’t have any hidden motives.


You do know how to read, right? That means you should have no problem opening up a link and reading what is presented to you. However, I will point out that it is nice to see you practicing what you preach. It only took me asking you three or four times and shaming you into it. However, kudos for finally acting like an adult.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:And the same is true with most of the links that HWN provides, he usually misrepresents what I actually said, this is why he doesn’t like to quote my actual words.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Again, you can cite me doing this or apologize for lying. Everyone can see that this example does not support your claim.



sure, I will cite you.
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Which you already admitted is not a problem. Did you really think that I am as forgetful as you?


anyone reading your comment, without verifying and reading my actual words, might have the wrong impression that I somehow admitted that such problem doesn't exist or has been solved.


Look at dandan/leroy making mountains out of molehills again.

leroy wrote:I am not saying that it is an insurmountable challenge, but it is a challenge that naturalistic hypothesis have to deal with. honest scientists admit that such a challenge exists, and they are trying to find solutions for them


You admitted that this was not an insurmountable problem, which genetically undermines the logical fallacy you are trying to use. It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt has more power as a rhetorical strategy, than It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt. Care to try again, because this does not support your claim, but only strengthens mine. Furthermore, you agreed I am right about this further down in your reply.

Oh, and looks like I gave dandan/leroy to much credit before. He only answered one question after being asked it three or for times. He still missed:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:Exactly, I never said that I can prove that Jesus did it,


When did I say prove anything? I have only ever asked you to defend it like you said you would. Again, you can either cite me saying that or apologize for lying.


Shall I hold my breath to see when this one will be answered? You know, you can always be honest and admit that I never said such a thing.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As I pointed out, and provided a link to, your response was nothing but incredulity.


Even if true, you can’t accuse from running away, at most you can accuse for not answering to your own personal satisfaction.


Dandan/Leroy, answering a question inadequately, than repeatedly ignoring when you are asked to address it again is the very definition of running.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:Yes you did provided a bunch of hypothesis and I keep asking you to select your favorite hypothesis so that I can address it.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I keep providing it, and you keep running from it.

leroy wrote:no, I keep asking you to select a single hypothesis (the one you consider the best) and you keep ignoring my request.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:As anyone that will click the link I provided (and you actually kept this time!) will see, I have provided one. However, keep running. It is all you can do.



I admit my mistake, I wrongly assumed that you where quoting the same Wikipedia article once again, if you show that you have provided that link before, in a context where you affirmed that the model described in that link is better than “Jesus did it” I would apologize.


Here, here, and here. Every time you asked. Is this evidence that you do not look at the evidence I provide? Should I also hold my breath on that apology?

leroy wrote:Up to this point everything is irrelevant rubbish, feel free to answer but I won’t answer back.


Otherwise known as running.

:lol:

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Hypocrite. Start practicing what you preach. You admitted that this was not an insurmountable problem, which genetically undermines the logical fallacy you are trying to use. It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt has more power as a rhetorical strategy, than It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt.

Now, are you trying to claim that you did not admit this? Tis there for all to see with just one click. Look at that, I can provide the evidence for the claims I make. Will you do the same?



There is a big difference between “there is no problem” and the “problem is not insurmountable”


Context is key. You are using this in your argument from ignorance. As I pointed out, admitting that something is not impossible genetically undermines that fallacy.

leroy wrote:Sure as you accurately described this time, I agree that the problem is not insurmountable, my position is and has always been that the problem is relevant enough to establish reasonable doubt towards naturalistic models. …. You claimed to disagree with this statement, but you haven’t provided any good reason as for why this problem is minor and unchallenging for naturalistic models.


Yes I have. What do you think abiogenesis is trying to answer?

leroy wrote:I would also argue that “Jesus” is a better model than the model described in this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221860, for the following reasons.

1 Falsified: this article falsifies, metabolism first hypothesis https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101433.htm

Their research demonstrated that the dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution.


The article that you quoted doesn’t provide a solution for this problem.

The implication is that any model that has not been falsified is better than yours; including crazy models like “a fairy did it”


:facepalm:

You tried this already with Rumraket. The article Rumraket provided is done by the same authors discussing a different pathway. In addition, Rumraket also points out that they have published more since this paper. Again, evidence that you do not pay attention to what people tell you. Thus, metabolism first has not been falsified; one pathway was, but not the whole thing.

leroy wrote:2 Parsimony: your model is based on abstract chemistry (imaginary chemistry) the model makes an additional assumption “that this imaginary chemistry might be applicable to the real world, here we have a tie; because my model also presupposes that a designer might exist. We are both making an additional assumption


:lol:

Do you really think abstract chemistry is equivalent to magic? First off, we know chemistry is real, when has anyone shown magic to be real? Based on that alone, parsimony defaults to reality (i.e. chemistry and not magic). Beyond that, as Rumraket pointed out, the paper that falsified one pathway for metabolism first is based on this same abstract chemistry. Strange how you can take one of their papers as gospel, yet raise doubts about the other when they use the same methods. You cannot have it both ways. Either their abstract (not imaginary) chemistry is right or it is not.

leroy wrote:3 Explanatory Power: your model has weak explanatory power because even if true it would not explain how life came in to be, and it wouldn’t even solve the “entropy problem” your model if true would explain how complex compounds came from simpler units by a process of selection, but it would not explain how these units arrange in the particular order and pattern required to produce life.


Pretending you are right for a moment. your model also has no explanatory power. JesusDidIt is not an explanation, since that can be true for anything we see.

leroy wrote:Your model would only solve a small part of the "origin of life problem"


And your model does nothing. It is fairy dust and wishing upon a star. At least mine is based on reality even if you were correct that it has no explanatory power.

leroy wrote: My model if true would fully explain the origin of life and would solve the entropy problem, any intelligent designer (even if not divine) can arrange units in any order and pattern that he wills.


Thank you for giving a brilliant rendition as to why your model is un-falsifiable and thus not a model. Once again, you genetically undermine your own argument. Kudos.

leroy wrote:4 Explanatory Scope: Your model lacks a significant amount of explanatory scope, if true it would only partially solve the “origin of life problem” while my model fully solves the “origin of life problem” and many other problems. By postulating the existence of a single intelligent designer, a wide variety of things that currently lack an explanation would be explained.


To bad you have no evidence for your admitted un-falsifiable speculation. Thus, mine is better in this case as well. Again, you have nothing but fairy dust and star wishes. Mine is actually based on chemistry and reality.

leroy wrote:5 Evidence: even by the admission of the authors of your article, there is no evidence that suggests that the model is true; it is simply a speculative model. While in the case of an intelligent designer there are multiple independent lines of evidence that suggests it´s existence. (the apparent fact that the universe had a beginning and a cause is an example of evidence)


Again, wrong. Chemistry exist, and to paraphrase Rumraket, either these authors are completely wrong, thus there is no falsification for any metabolism first hypothesis or they are right and there are viable patheways. You cannot have it both ways. Beyond that, arguments are not evidence. we have been over this multiple times.

leroy wrote:So why “Jesus” and not some other God or some other designer like an alien? Well after we agree that design is a the best explanation for the origin of life, can start a new discussion and discuss on which “design hypothesis” is better.


Why would anyone agree that design is the best? You have done nothing to suggest that it is even in the running. All you keep propping up logical fallacies against real world evidence.

leroy wrote:But the short answer would be that “Jesus” is a better explanation than any other design hypothesis in terms of parsimony, explanatory power, explanatory scope etc.


You keep declaring this so, yet keep failing to back it up.

leroy wrote:You can ether answer or ignore all the rubbish, all I am interested is in you

1 Justifying your claim that the “entropy problem” is not significant enough to posit reasonable doubt


I already have. Beyond this being nothing more than a argument from ignorance, you genetically undermine your own fallacy as well. It is unlikely, therefore JesusDidIt carries far less rhetorical weight than It is impossible, therefore JesusDidIt. Stop ignoring my answers and you would stop asking questions that have already been answered.

leroy wrote:2 Showing that the hypothesis in the paper that you quoted is better (according to some objective standard) than “Jesus”


Again, Rumraket already did that. Again, stop ignoring answers and you will stop asking questions that have already been answered.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:54 pm
YIM WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 26 of 27
 [ 538 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DutchLiam84, Rumraket and 3 guests