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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 271 of 297 (633863)
09-16-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 8:36 PM


Alfred writes:
In what way any one's ability to make allegedly false statements can be limited by their inability to make supposedly actual ones is beyond me.
I think that's his point.

"The brakes are good, the tires are fair."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 8:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 8:58 PM Omnivorous has replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 272 of 297 (633865)
09-16-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Omnivorous
09-16-2011 8:41 PM


Yes, I got all his real points which was first that whatever he may say about them must be true while whatever they say about him must be false. And second was that his ability to make true statements is less limited than their ability to make false ones and that is why he is Dr. Adequate and they are something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 8:41 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 9:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 273 of 297 (633866)
09-16-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 1:16 AM


Alfred writes:
Lately I see some awakening of interest in the panspermia ideas exemplified by the Journal of Cosmology and so on yet that is not enough to which this thread is a good demonstration.
Panspermia, while fascinating, certainly isn't a new idea and would merely move the locus of abiogenesis off-planet.
Are you proposing that life has always existed?

"The brakes are good, the tires are fair."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 1:16 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 9:49 PM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 274 of 297 (633867)
09-16-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 8:58 PM


Actually, no: he means that your ability to make untrue statements is limited only by your ability to make any sense at all.
He may be wrong. Show me.
Nota bene: Take a deep breath, lose the anger and genuinely try to make us understand. Even if we disagree, we're not so bad.

"The brakes are good, the tires are fair."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 8:58 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 9:41 PM Omnivorous has replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 275 of 297 (633869)
09-16-2011 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Omnivorous
09-16-2011 9:02 PM


That meaning as intended by him I get too. Though that is just a front and not his real point. Everybody here gets the gist of what I say well enough and he is no different. The point that I hold the consensus cosmological ideas he is in the habit to support to be nonsense is driven home on him loud and clear. He does not like my point at all but has not got anything much to say to defend what I call nonsense. So in his desperation he hints that my point is mere word salad. Word salad, I am sorry, literally, has no point at all. Simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 9:02 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 9:56 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 281 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 2:21 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 276 of 297 (633870)
09-16-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Omnivorous
09-16-2011 8:58 PM


Why must it move that locus anywhere? What you say depends on taking for granted that there must be a certain single point of ultimate origin. That is precisely the assumption that I put in doubt if you read carefully my original post in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 8:58 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 9:58 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 277 of 297 (633871)
09-16-2011 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 9:41 PM


Well, if you call his position nonsense, you can hardly be surprised when he calls your position drivel--and where does that get us?
Perhaps Dr Adequate understands your positions and your reasons for them. I do not: all that is clear to me is that you scorn the BB theory and any notion of abiogenesis--and you're pretty darn angry about it. I understand anger, and I assure you it will do you and the acceptance of your positions nothing but harm.
I think the BB theory and abiogenesis make sense, not because I am professionally competent in either field, but because people who are have offered me explanations in plain language that I find persuasive.
I assume you want to be persuasive as well, or you wouldn't be here. Your angry rush of words is not persuasive.
I don't think I've given you any reason to be angry with me, so why not explain your position on abiogenesis in simple layman's terms that I can understand?
It's worth a try.
You can always be angry again later.

"The brakes are good, the tires are fair."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 9:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 12:10 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 278 of 297 (633872)
09-16-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 9:49 PM


You're right--I hadn't read your original post. I'll go back and do that, but I probably won't be able to reply until tomorrow.

"The brakes are good, the tires are fair."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 9:49 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 279 of 297 (633878)
09-16-2011 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 1:16 AM


Here, There and Over Yonder, Too
That is, it is dogmatically held that life must either have started on Earth through the natural process of abiogenesis or it otherwise had no choice but be created by God ...
Other than the creationists in their god delusion I do not think any of the rest of us have limited abiogenesis to this one occurrence on this one planet. Chemistry being what it is there appear to be few restrictions on the proposed hypotheses. Indeed indirect evidence from chemistry, organics in interstellar clouds, etc., support the speculation (and it is still yet speculation) that abiogenic events have occurred, are occurring and will occur, maybe by the millions, all across this galaxy. A long long time ago in a thread far far away I even speculated that such abiogenic events continue to occur on this planet.
If we treat this subject seriously and do away with the religious nonsense then there is only one venue. Abiogenesis happened.
Whether the event that precipitated life on this specific planet was home grown or was imported (panspermia) is an interesting question. But regardless, the specific abiogenic event that gave us beautiful women, fine wine and Halyomorpha halys does not preclude other such events, in abundance, in other areas of this galaxy.
There are other avenues to explore for f's sake!
Like what?
Lately I see some awakening of interest in the panspermia ideas exemplified by the Journal of Cosmology and so on yet that is not enough to which this thread is a good demonstration.
Then help enlighten us. What is your favorite hypothesis or speculation?
Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual
Edited by AZPaul3, : heaven forbid I should forgot a subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 1:16 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 280 of 297 (633884)
09-17-2011 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Omnivorous
09-16-2011 9:56 PM


Well, here you lump together my stance on abiogenesis and BBT while it is not the same at all. There is a crucial difference and that difference is that in the case of BBT the scenario boils down to either that there is relative something resulting from the alleged absolute nothing or there is no Big Bang possible to have happened at all. Gazillions of big bangs of M-theory is no big bang already but gazillions of small whimpers really.
In the case of abiogenesis however unlikely it might be, there is just an organic something resulting from something that is not organic. Therefore in my book the BB is a sheer pseudo-scientific fancy while abiogenesis is quite plausible at least in theory and on paper but is just very hard to test and demonstrate practically. It's no hard fact of nature by any means.
Panspermia though also not easy to test and confirm is a clear possibility. I don't see on what grounds other than those of sheer dogma, abiogenesis is a preferable direction of research here. That is all I wanted to say and if I am overly abrasive, it's that I am giving back to some what I am getting from many. And when I give it back, I give it back with good interest and a good vengeance.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 9:56 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 281 of 297 (633901)
09-17-2011 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 9:41 PM


Everybody here gets the gist of what I say well enough and he is no different [...] So in his desperation he hints that my point is mere word salad.
Let's see some more of the stuff he says everybody here gets the gist of.
Any motion started kills the point on the spot instantly filling it up with all dimensions at once. Straight line is point in motion and the reality of motion, that is all gravity after all, is such that straight lines are not sustainable for any too long tending to curve thus straight line in motion is a circle and circle in motion is a sphere.
In other words straight line is a circle at rest while a point is a motionless straight line.
Mind is none else than thinking light being naturally caused at that rate all cause is passing into all effect at. Like the light is the bridge linking space and time, the mind ties the now and the here into the tightest knot there is. The totality of space, after all, is all the distance that can be lit in time. Just as mind is thinking light, light is shining mind and the visible causality.
It could be said that space is the heat is space spent in motion measured by time or any other way round.
The relations between the sides of a triangle are strict geometry: space, time and light are to be studied as a triangle and the relations between them are be taken accordingly and can be violated only inside the head of a modern theorist and that simple consideration alone should put paid to all the expanding universe fantasies where space behaves like a magic carpet and the galaxies are accelerating like a bunch of scared pigeons.
Nothing is all that does not exists and what does not exist may take no place to exist and what take no place to exist may need no volume to succeed in being perfectly absent.
Thus to be expanding into nothing as your fairy-tale of a theory claims in the physical and measurable terms may mean to be gaining all the volume nothing may be losing to it in the process.
The volume that is possible to gain from nothing is no volume the nothing is capable of possessing. That volume may equal zero necessarily. A zero increase in volume possible for the universe translated in plain English is the retention of the same size and volume as ever.
That is logic, my friend, and no seven million peer reviews you may need to ignore it can change a letter of it. That's Aristotle for you. You may choose to be smug towards the man but that won't last long unless your peer-reviewers discover a magic trick of accelerating their expanding angular momentum.
Their concepts brave and porous
they all dare rave in chorus
Thus it is clear that finally dimensionless point is but sphere at rest and sphere is point in motion while motion and rest do not exist on their own but only in dialectical opposition to each other. They are mutually implied.
No planets teeming with life without the galaxy superclusters and their constituent quarks is the real deal at any observable instant, I am afraid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 9:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 3:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 284 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 4:43 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 282 of 297 (633904)
09-17-2011 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2011 2:21 AM


Okay, Mr. Inadequate some of it could stand some editing to make a better and clearer read. Still, all your efforts at quote mining and picking and choosing me at my most fanciful moments notwithstanding, my point has always been clear enough for you, my friend.
Also your being always so dry and boring does not make the ideas you defend here any less absurd.
I can easily edit the stuff to make it plainer and more to the point. The question is can you as easily edit the universe into really expanding, if it has nowhere to expand into? Being already here, there and everywhere before and after your alleged expansion could have even started, let alone accelerated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 2:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 3:50 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
 Message 285 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 4:47 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 283 of 297 (633909)
09-17-2011 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 3:00 AM


Okay, Mr. Inadequate some of it could stand some editing to make a better and clearer read. Still, all your efforts at quote mining and picking and choosing me at my most fanciful moments notwithstanding, my point has always been clear enough for you, my friend.
No. No it has not.
Is that clear enough for you? The word "no" has only one syllable and two letters, and if you wish to assert that your posts are sufficiently clear, for me or for anyone else, then that is the word with which I would respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 3:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 284 of 297 (633918)
09-17-2011 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2011 2:21 AM


I wish I put all of those in my sig.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 2:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 285 of 297 (633919)
09-17-2011 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 3:00 AM


The question is why don't you write better, easier to read sentences? Is it that you don't quite know what to say so you cast your conceptual net as wide as you can in the hope of hooking someone?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 3:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 6:33 AM Larni has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024