Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murchison Meteor Questions
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 121 of 216 (423055)
09-19-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ken
09-19-2007 9:03 AM


Re: Good science
Ahem. If my post was to you, you'd have a point.
My post was in response to Rob. Hence, "you" is rob in that post. Thus it is rob who said the bit about nuclear bombs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ken, posted 09-19-2007 9:03 AM Ken has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 122 of 216 (423056)
09-19-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:35 AM


Re: Nuclear fission
I was never talking about fusion
When talking about nuclear bombs in general you have to include fusion bombs. Be more specific next time.
All life replicates. Life is natural and follows the laws of physics. Therefore all replications are life
That's an incredibly sloppy syllogism. The second premise has no bearing on the conclusion you make.
Some nuclear bombs are fission bombs. Nuclear fission is natural and follows the laws of physics. Therefore all fission is a bomb
This, as you say, is also sloppy. The second premise, again, has nothing to do with the conclusion.
Are you trying to make the same logic argument that RAZD has been making, in an attempt to show him wrong?
The logic argument I would make would be this (and I dare say RAZD would argue along similar lines):
P1: Fission follows the laws of physics
P2:The laws of physics are natural
C1:Therefore, fission is natural.
P1:Self-replicating molecules follow the laws of chemistry
P2:The laws of chemistry are natural
C1:Therefore, self-replicating molecules are natural.
P1:A falling rock follows the law of gravity
P2:The law of gravity is natural
C1:A falling rock is natural.
Your syllogism:
P1:Self-replicating molecules aren't natural
C1:Therefore, self-replicating molecules aren't natural.
P1:Nuclear bombs aren't natural
C1:Therefore, nuclear bombs aren't natural
P1:A falling rock is natural
C1:Therefore, a falling rock is natural.
That is, unless we're all missing some grand important part of your syllogisms that you haven't enumerated clearly enough before.
It takes more than a molecule to get natural selection up and running
Is ther anyone besides you who'se arguing that this is how scientists say it happened? I'm not aware of anyone being that dense aside from you. Of course you're winning that debate--because you've set up a false opponent. Much like with your bit about claiming we're trying to find/create pre-biotic organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:35 AM Rob has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 123 of 216 (423057)
09-19-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:35 AM


Re: Nuclear fission
Rob writes:
Here I have a different agenda other than evangelism. To show that it is you who want to bring materialism in, without due cause.
This kind of thing flashes in and out of your posts. Materialism is "brought in without due cause" or methodological naturalism is described as "philosophical bias".
As you're a stickler for empirical evidence, what you need to do in order to justify your accusations is to start a thread listing all the known non-natural explanations we have for natural phenomena.
Scientists look for natural explanations out of plain common sense built on human experience. The only satisfactory explanations that have ever proved true and useful have been natural.
So, instead of putting those off-topic accusations of bias into your own thread here, why not make a new one for them, saving people like me from making off-topic replies here.
You could call it "Methodological Naturalism is born of Philosophical Bias", or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:35 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 2:43 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:05 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 124 of 216 (423058)
09-19-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by bluegenes
09-19-2007 2:39 PM


Re: Nuclear fission
bluegenes writes:
So, instead of putting those off-topic accusations of bias into your own thread here, why not make a new one for them, saving people like me from making off-topic replies here.
Here, here!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 2:39 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 09-19-2007 3:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 216 (423061)
09-19-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
09-19-2007 2:43 PM


Re: Nuclear fission
Hear Here They're There?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 2:43 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 4:39 PM jar has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 126 of 216 (423070)
09-19-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
09-19-2007 3:16 PM


Wear?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 09-19-2007 3:16 PM jar has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 127 of 216 (423135)
09-19-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
09-19-2007 12:08 PM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
Razd:
Furthermore, hypoxanthine, and xanthine were also identified on the meteor, and these are products of degradation of adenine (xanthine is also a product of degradation of guanine). Thus the existence of these on the meteor can be taken as evidence that adenine used to be on the meteor in greater quantity than today. Note that it is extremely highly unlikely that the extraction process both synthesized and degraded adenine ... leading to the conclusion that adenine was on the meteor in the past if it is not there today.
I don't think that is true... I remember reading in one of the papers durring my research on this subject, that adenine did in fact degrade rather rapidly if left in the acid solutions. I'll find it and get back soon. Sorry I do not have it now...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 12:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 10:50 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 128 of 216 (423139)
09-19-2007 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
09-19-2007 10:45 AM


Re: Back to self-replication then ...
Rqazd:
The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock. The (false) dichotomy that you have in your mind does not in fact exist. It is a fantasy that is contradicted by the Oklo reactors.
This is what demolishes your argument. Both logically and rationally.
Now that we have clarified that there is no difference between things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) when they occur in nature and things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) when they occur in experiments, we can validly conclude that self-replicating molecules do in fact exist.
Demolished?
Self replicating molecules exist... yes, but are designed by intelligent agents Razd). So what if they exist if they are irrelevant to nature...
So do bombs... and cars... and airplanes... and computers... and genetic engineering... etc...
All obey the laws of physics and chemistry etc. They all exist!
Are they all natural? Can they all be explained by purely natural and material processes?
Nuclear fission can follow natural processes. Nuclear bombs only exploit that ability as per the direction of their designer, they are not however the result of natural processes.
Can we move on?
Razd:
This, of course, does not mean that abiogenesis happened, or even that these molecules were in any way involved. All this shows is that self-replicating molecules are possible under certain condition.
And it is possible for men to fly in space under certain conditions as well.
All I want you to remember, and remember well... is that that has no necessary bearing on whether or not these things can be explained by nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 10:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 11:22 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 137 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2007 11:26 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 129 of 216 (423141)
09-19-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
09-19-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Good science bad denial
Percy:
So sustained nuclear fission as a process of the natural world was first predicted by theory, then demonstrated by experiment prior to testing of the first atomic bomb, not afterwards.
That is precisely what Ken said in different words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 12:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 11:33 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 130 of 216 (423143)
09-19-2007 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by bluegenes
09-19-2007 2:39 PM


Re: Nuclear fission
Bluegenes:
The only satisfactory explanations that have ever proved true and useful have been natural.
Which in turn proceed from the philosophical view that the universe is ordered in an intelligible manner...
So... where did science and all of it's wonderful results come from?
Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology:
Davies on the question: ”Does the monotheistic tradition of an intelligible universe have any impact on modern science?’
“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.
That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 2:39 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 09-19-2007 10:42 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 131 of 216 (423145)
09-19-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
09-19-2007 9:47 AM


Re: Good science
Percy:
By the way, since you've figured out how to include names in quotes, perhaps you can explain it to Rob.
Since this whole little scuff between all of you and ken started with my comment about nuclear fission bombs and self replicating molecules not existing in nature, perhpas I should clarify.
They do not exist in nature! Just as cars, televisions, and satellites do not exist in nature.
They exist yes! But not in nature...
They are created, invented, designed, manufactured, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 9:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2007 11:30 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 11:52 PM Rob has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 132 of 216 (423150)
09-19-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rob
09-19-2007 10:05 PM


Pual Davies starts with nonsense and then piles it on.
allegedly Davies writes:
“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
The fact that the universe is ordered or intelligible has absolutely nothing to do with Monotheism, nor is it a belief. Rather it is a conclusion based on observation.
When he starts of with two false premises it is not surprising that the rest descends into silly.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:05 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 11:24 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 133 of 216 (423151)
09-19-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:40 PM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
... that adenine did in fact degrade rather rapidly if left in the acid solutions. I'll find it and get back soon. Sorry I do not have it now...
No hurry. Just consider, however, that this means that the same mechanism that constructs the adenine takes it apart ... as fast as it makes it?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:40 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 11:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 134 of 216 (423153)
09-19-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by RAZD
09-19-2007 10:50 PM


Re: Summary of the case for adenine
Well this is not the one I found earlier. But it gives you the idea... It's portion of the abstract. There is a whole pfd available with much detail somewhere. It once again makes me wonder what Glavin and Bada are smoking?
That's some paper molbiogirl gave as evidence!
Conclusion... higher acidity, faster hydrolysis and higher decomposition.
The polymerization of concentrated NH4CN solutions has been studied at various temperatures and ammonia concentrations. The products of the oligomerization of ammonium cyanide include adenine and guanine, as well as trace amounts of 2,6-diaminopurine. Our results indicate that the adenine yield is not strongly dependent on temperature. Guanine is produced in lower yield. The original studies by Or and Kimball (1961) showed that the 6 N HCl hydrolysis of the NH4CN polymerization supernatant greatly increased the adenine yield. However, this hydrolysis also decomposes adenine and other purines. Therefore, we have measured the yields from an NH4CN polymerization as a function of hydrolysis time, and found that shorter hydrolytic periods give higher yields of adenine.We have also investigated the hydrolysis of the supernatant at pH 8, which is a more reasonable model of primitive oceanic conditions, and found that the adenine yield is comparable to that obtained with acid hydrolysis (approximately 0.1%). The yield of adenine does not decline at longer hydrolysis times because of the greater stability of adenine at pH 8.
( An Investigation of Prebiotic Purine Synthesis from the Hydrolysis of HCN Polymers - NASA/ADS )
Have any more questions Razd? You've been a great asset to this critique! Thanks for everything...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 10:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 11:56 PM Rob has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 135 of 216 (423154)
09-19-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:55 PM


yes demolished, the logic has not been refuted by repetition of the (false) argument.
Demolished?
Self replicating molecules exist... yes, but are designed by intelligent agents Razd). So what if they exist if they are irrelevant to nature...
Can we move on?
As soon as you acknowledge that your argument is demolished.
OR explain how you get around this conundrum:
quote:
The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind ("designed by intelligent agent") -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock.
Seeing as you can't be a member of both classes at the same time, there can be no distinction between them: the distinction is a figment of your imagination devoid of reality.
You've already acknowledged that there is no difference between the designed rock fall and the natural rock fall once the rock starts to fall. Now you have the case that there is no difference in the nuclear reactions between the designed reactors and the natural reactors once the reactions start to run.
You claim there IS a difference between the designed self=replicating molecules and naturally occurring self-replicating molecules solely because no naturally occurring self-replicating molecules have been observed. This is the same condition that applied to the nuclear reactors before the Oklo natural reactors were discovered but which no longer exists now that they have been discovered.
The nuclear reactions did not suddenly change to some "natural process condition" from a "designed process condition" upon the discovery of the natural reactors, because they already existed and did not change magically upon discovery of the Oklo reactors.
Therefore there is no distinction between the "natural process condition" and the "designed process condition" once the process is in operation according to the laws involved. Just as there is no distinction between the designed rock fall and the natural rock fall once the process is in operation according to the laws involved.
This holds for the self-replicating molecules and everything else ever covered in an experiment. Your fantasy distinction has been falsified utterly, completely and irrevocably. Time for you to accept this and move on.
BTW, this is known as a "Q.E.Doh" logical proof and not something you can just ignore in the hopes it will evaporate.
Just repeating your tired mantra (which is all you have done from the start) does not make it any more valid. It just makes you obstinate, falsified and deluded.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 PM Rob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024