Murchison Meteor Questions

Kuresu: Where in this thread have I invoked the supernatural?The only thing even hinting at it, are my comments to Razd that biochemical engineers desigining evidence really only proves that design is cabable of creating self replicating systems.I have been questioning abiogenesis, and the supposed 'evidence' to support it. So let's change a couple words in your statement so that they actually reflect the point of the thread (I'll do that last). I am asking questions. And you are answering by accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing, rather than offering any proof. I gave you proof of replication being dependant upon ATP when you questioned me. Now give me some proof for abiogenesis...The best part is... it was Razd who offered citation for emperical proof of the fact that intelligence can design. I never brought it up once.I've not designed this thread for the purpose of defending design. But rather to see how well abiogenesis can be defended when asked to present emperical evidence.You comment reflected back at you:

JavaMan:After reading the replies of Percy, Kuresu, and yourself, I confess some embarassment as to complete knowledge of the history of science, and perhaps the proper uusage of the word empirical. I will do some more homework on those (and perhpas even a little spelling). But I do not think any of you also have a complete undertanding of the issue. We are all learning as we go, and starting from different places.I can answer your comment above. Beyond any confusion over the proper meaning of empericism, I have always invoked rationalism as tool needed for any objective epistemology. And I assume that includes science for a very good reason. Empericism cannot claim that the emperical world is the only valid basis for knowledge other than on a rational basis. Therefore, whatever the defintion of science is, at whatever time, it cannot rely upon the one, without the other. And I think to one extent or another, this is what has occured.Now, how all of that all plays out in terms of definitions, perhaps I am confused, but that is the only thing I am willing to admit. It does not mean that I have no idea what I'm talking about. And I wouldn't accuse any of you of the same. You're all intelligent men. And I have caught all of you in failures of your own durring point for point debate.It's a dance boys... and the audience is watching. A few toes stepped on here and there by all doesn't reveal who is the more gracious and well intentioned partner. Stomping on toes however is a good parameter for which the audience can gleen motive.So let's dispense with throwing out the baby with the bath water. I see no indication that anyone here is giving up their respective ghost!To be scientific, we must combine both evidence and theory. Rationalism has no balance except in the evidence directly available to our senses. And our senses have no balance except in the ability to rationally deduce fact from fiction. Both are needed, and there have been times in history where the pendulum has swung too far in both directions.That's how I put it in my own words. And that is what most people believe science should be.Is that what science is currently or not? If it's not, then it's not science, but philosophical bias.The point I have been trying to make, is that there is no evidence for pre-biotic life. Call it pre-biotic structures, or molecules if you want, we're looking for life other than modern life. And one of the best parameters is the conversion of energy (from whatever source) to ATP. There simply is no way around that one...And one of the things you need for ATP (as well as many other biological structures is adenine.The question is, 'where do we find it in nature and how is it produced?'The indisputable evidence empirical evidence is that it is synthesized by organisms with the help of 12 catalyzing enzymes that are themselves vastly more complicated than the ATP itself.The methods for synthesizing adenine outside of biology are irrelevant to biology and quite deadly for it. So you therefore resort to therorized reducing atmospheres that also cannot be observed emperically. It is all rational (logical / metaphysics). it is therefore not scientific.What it is, is scientific theory...Perhaps someday, you will have at least some emperical evidence to validate at least one leg of the rational theory.Adenine was said to have been conclusively found outside of biology in the Murchison meteor by another member of this forum.That is disputable evidence (ie. unempirical), and this is even admitted parenthetically by the scientists engaged in the extraction (or possible synthesis) of adenine.All of the 'scientific lingo' in the world, doesn't hide the rational from the empirical or vice versa; provided an objective judge is analyzing the data. that is what I am attempting to be. And I have done so better than in the past. I appriciate all of the compliments as such, here and in other threads.My apologies if I misspelled empirical anywhere in this post. I already had to go back and correct one instance. I seem to have a permanent dyslexia in my typing for that particular word. Please do find it in your humble hearts to forgive me...Now can we get on with our discussions on Murchison? Certainly there are more questions that remain unanswered.

http://EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor Questions -->EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor Questions

Razd:I already did...I said that just because something is within the laws of physics, does not mean that it happened in the past. I used the illustration of Einstein and Oppenheimer inventing the Bomb. Just because it worked, doesn't mean there is anything like it in nature past.And I also pointed out that your rock is an insufficient analogy. A rock may follow the laws of physics, but it actually exists in nature.The nuclear bomb and the self replicating molecules you eluded to, do not exist in nature, and were created in the laboratory by incredibly clever and intelligent engineers.

Tne nuclear bomb doesn't exist in nature?
Pray tell me rob, how do stars run? By nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is one of the types of nuclear bombs.
Nuclear fission also exists in the real world.
Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia
You know, in Oklo.So that would mean you're wrong on that account by quite a bit. Nuclear bombs do, in fact, exist in nature.

I'm not so sure you understand what Javaman meant by "Rationalist". I base this off of your statement: He did not mean that you attempt to argue by being rational.
A "rationalist", as already explained by javaman, is someone who uses logic and reasoning alone to generate knowledge.
An "empiricist" is one who bases knowledge solely off of experience, which comes from our senses.By the solely rationalist method, you can have a conclusion (that god exists, for example) that is logically valid but does not correspond to what we actually experience. Thus, god's existence would enter into the realm of knowledge based off of logic and reasoning alone iwth no regard to what actually is the case. Empiricism prevents that sort of BS. You might be able to logically construct that the sky is hot pink, but unless you actually have evidence of this (through experience) then the sky being pink is not valid, no matter how proper and correct the logic was.So when you say that science cannot claim that the empirical world is the only valid basis other than on a rational basis, you are mistaken, because you are using a different "rational" than Javaman was referring to. Since you are responding to java's claim that you are a "rationalist", and since he defined what he meant by "rationalist" (see: Descartes), it would make sense for you to use "rationalist" in the same sense as he did. You are using a completely different definition. This would be "equivocation", I believe.Science will specifically take what we can observe over what is logically correct, because what is logically correct may not correspond to reality.

And the Oklo natural reactors were discovered after the bomb was developed (and then the physics converted to "peaceful use" with nuclear reactors): they did not need to know that it was natural to develop the process or set in motion the laws of physics that are involved in nuclear reactors and bombs.The rock continues to fall according to the laws of physics, not disturbed by the philosophical musings of Rob.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

and the fact, as noted by kuresu, that scientists found the Oklo natural reactors -- and that they found them after the bomb was made shows that your position is logically invalid.Note further that the existence of these natural reactors was predicted based on the knowledge derived from the laboratory experiments and the development of radioactive reaction technologies.If you don't understand how thoroughly and completely this one example demolishes your argument, then you aren't following the logic, but are entwined in your emotional appeals and the denial of reality.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : note

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Kuresu: Yes, that is how I see it as well...?

your statement: If you agree with what java meant by rational, then in this statement you are equivocating. You know, where you have one word but are using it differently than elsewhere when you should be using the original statement.Your use of "rational" is different from the philosophy of rationalism. Here's why. Your "rational" means "by logic, by reason". Rationalism, on the other hand, includes one more thing--only by logic and reason are the basis of knowledge. So if you do actually mean that science rests its empirical claim on rationalism, you have stated a contradiction. You are stating, in effect:
Empiricism (knowledge through experience alone) rests its claim on rationalism (knowledge based on reason, logic alone).But that is not what you are saying. You are using "rational" to mean "by logic, by reason". Thus, empiricism rests its claim on logic.Thus, you are equivocating.

It is true that we are all starting from different places. Some of us are practicing scientists or engineers, others of us are interested and informed lay people, while others of us are evangelicals unfamiliar with science.But it is not true that we are all learning as we go. Most of us are already very familiar with the definitions of "empirical" and "science" and "theory" and so forth, and none of us, with but a single exception, thought that nouns and adjectives of the same base word have different definitions, which is simple grade school English having nothing to do with science.If you want to argue that none of us is perfect, go ahead, no one will dissent. But you're arguing that we're all roughly equally ignorant, and this is clearly untrue. Uh, that you have no idea what you're talking about and are confused is precisely what it means. You demonstrated that you don't even know how to use a dictionary properly. Please stop casting veiled aspersions and stick to the topic. If by this you mean that theories are formed from the mind independent of evidence, and then should be combined with evidence to become science, then no. Hypotheses are developed to explain the evidence gathered from natural phenomena, and if observation and experiment combine to support the hypothesis to the point where a significant proportion of scientists in the relevant field are persuaded by it, then it becomes theory. You're confusing rationalism, a term introduced into the discussion by Javaman that is a philosophy holding that reason rather than empiricism is the source of knowledge, with rationality. When Javaman pointed out to you that rationalism is opposed to empiricism, it was not an argument against rationality, which is not the same thing as the philosophy of rationalism. No, Rob, most people do not believe that's the way science should be. You're so hopelessly confused that most people have no idea what you're even saying. Now you're misusing the word "rational" as if it were a synonym for the philosophy of rationalism. It isn't. No one was saying science isn't rational. They were saying that the philosophy of rationalism is not science.The bottom line is that there are a large number of possible sources for adenine, but even if in the end we have to say that we just don't know where adenine came from, that doesn't mean no natural pathways exist, and concluding God from this is just the same old God-of-the-gaps fallacy you've been pushing through this entire thread. Don't exhaust your eyes looking for typos. For God's sake, download Google Toolbar. It adds a toolbar to Internet Explorer that includes a spellchecker. You type your message into the message box, then you click on the spellcheck button, and voil , your spelling errors are highlighted in red! Click on each misspelled word and a list of possible correct spellings is provided in a menu from which you select the correct one, so you don't even have to type in the correct spelling. It's simple and easy.Alternatively, switch to the latest Firefox browser, which includes a builtin spellchecker that works the same as Google Toolbar.--Percy

Kuresu: Not at all...All I am saying is that empiricism must be argued for... rationally. It's combinational by definition. Yet some claim that it speaks for itself. It does not...For example, when I said that the evidence screams of design, you disagreed! So obviously our interpretations are not the same based on the same emperical evidence.The only contradiction would be to say that the empirical speaks for itself. And the reason is that we have to speak for it... rationally.That's what science is. We must declare it, and show why it is the way we see it based on the evidence.Otherwise we could all just make things up...

Uh, yes Rob, you are confusing the philosophy of rationalism with rationality. Everyone is telling you this. You're not following Kuresu's argument, which is merely trying to point out that if you'd think things through you'd see that you arrive at a contradiction and demonstrate for yourself that your understanding is false.--Percy

Razd: Wow...Razd! One wrong defense against your analogy and my whole argument is demolished?Suppose I were to have used that thinking against your innacurate assertion that higher temperatures should have led to more adenine production.Perhaps I should just write you off and assasinate your whole argument?No...You boys need to put away the shovels. I am a long way from the grave... But the fact you want to bury me so badly is encouraging.If I sit back and relax... think more and react less... I might be able to really get under your skin eh?Think I had better take a break and let your blood cool down for a while...

Percy:I wasn't aware that there was anyone participating except materialists (minus Ken).I wouldn't expect you to agree!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.