Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:38 PM
24 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Sarah Bellum, Theodoric (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,091 Year: 9,127/19,786 Month: 1,549/2,119 Week: 309/576 Day: 112/98 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 286 of 297 (633925)
09-17-2011 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Larni
09-17-2011 4:47 AM


Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do. That implies some exploring and improvising so it may not come out the best possible way every time around. Also apart from the task of hooking you on anything I try not to bore myself stiff in the process of casting the net.
But..well, I might go through my posts and edit some of them. It's good this function exists in this forum and I should probably be taking advantage of it more often.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 4:47 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 09-17-2011 9:54 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 289 by Omnivorous, posted 09-17-2011 12:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 287 of 297 (633935)
09-17-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 6:33 AM


Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

Read this sentence back to yourself. Could you rephrase it so it means something?

I'm amazed that in a conversation about clear meanings you could write this sentence.


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 286 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 6:33 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 288 of 297 (633941)
09-17-2011 10:47 AM


Summation Time
Hi everyone!

I know we're still short of 300 posts, but this recent resumption after a period of idleness seems somewhat unfocused, so I'm going to begin the thread closure process. Please post your closing arguments or summations, one per person. Do reply to a specific message, please use the General Reply button, there's one at the top and one at the bottom of each page.

If anyone would like to continue the discussion please post a proposal to Proposed New Topics and I will look at is as soon as I can.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1132 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 289 of 297 (633952)
09-17-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-17-2011 6:33 AM


Request for Evidential Summary
Hi, Alfred. Since my only participation in this thread has been to try to understand your position, a final attempt will be my summation.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that life is an intrinsic property of the universe, requiring neither abiogenesis nor supernatural creation. I see no other way for this to be so except to posit an eternally existing universe.

What I don't understand is what evidence you have to support your view.

Perhaps you could use your chance to post a summation before the thread closes to sum up that evidence.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-17-2011 6:33 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 290 of 297 (633969)
09-17-2011 3:15 PM


Well, Omnivorous, that was a fair summation of my position considering.
Otherwise, the question is how hardy life is? It is understood that the environment is extremely unwelcoming. Cosmos is a killer. While what I observe inside myself is that the basic vital impulse is just as persistent. It feels like an irresistible force too. So that's a struggle. Could there be a winner or is it that no matter how harsh and seemingly impossible the conditions are, it is equally impossible to destroy all of life completely so some life will always go on?
You ask for evidence but as I said there is no conclusive evidence so far to support either of the positions- that of abiogenesis and that of panspermia. In the meantime I am following with great interest the people who are centered around Dr. Hoover and Journal of Cosmology.
Check it out if you want to read the actual papers and stuff.
http://journalofcosmology.com/
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 297 (634033)
09-18-2011 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 4:02 PM


That was implied here as the conscious human observer is an emergent property of both cosmic and quantum scales impossible without either just as either is not possible without the other one.

As you wish, but that by definition can't be "dialectical unity."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 4:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 5:45 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 293 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 5:47 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 292 of 297 (634053)
09-18-2011 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by crashfrog
09-18-2011 11:56 AM


dialetical unity
Well, the dialectical opposition here is between very great and very small. The average which is the result of the clash between great and small is the resulting third term. In this case this is the ordinary scale of existence. What is your objection to that? Great and small are implied in each other while the average is implied in both as the middle term. That's both dialectics and relativity for you and as I contend both dialectics and relativity are cavalierly disregarded in the consensus cosmology I am opposed to. Well, relativity is paid a lot of lip-service to in the process of being denied.
Simple.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2011 11:56 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2011 6:06 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 293 of 297 (634054)
09-18-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by crashfrog
09-18-2011 11:56 AM


dialetical unity
Well, the dialectical opposition here is between very great and very small. The average which is the result of the clash between great and small is the resulting third term. In this case this is the ordinary scale of existence. What is your objection to that? Great and small are implied in each other while the average is implied in both as the middle term. That's both dialectics and relativity for you and as I contend both dialectics and relativity are cavalierly disregarded in the consensus cosmology I am opposed to. Well, relativity is paid a lot of lip-service to in the process of being denied.
Simple.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2011 11:56 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 297 (634056)
09-18-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-18-2011 5:45 PM


Re: dialetical unity
Well, the dialectical opposition here is between very great and very small. The average which is the result of the clash between great and small is the resulting third term. In this case this is the ordinary scale of existence. What is your objection to that?

That it's stupid nonsense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 5:45 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 6:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 295 of 297 (634059)
09-18-2011 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by crashfrog
09-18-2011 6:06 PM


Re: dialetical unity
Well, it might be stupid nonsense as you allege here without explaining why, or it is just that dialectics as I suspect is something you are incapable to grasp. You are not alone in that as the idea that a Planck particle, i.e. something very small could have existed on its own and in an absolute isolation while embedded in pure nothing at the time zero is embraced by millions of professionals as the height of current scientific wisdom.
Here the idea that seems to you not to be any stupid nonsense is that the very small can possibly exist without implying the simultaneous existence of very great and of the middle term of the average in between. It is supposed to be capable of later evolving into the very great not yet ever existing at the time of the original explosion. That is expanding into the nothing it was originally enclosed in.
Which view is stupid nonsense here and which is not is the question.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2011 6:06 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2011 8:24 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 297 (634070)
09-18-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-18-2011 6:46 PM


Re: dialetical unity
You are not alone in that as the idea that a Planck particle, i.e. something very small could have existed on its own and in an absolute isolation while embedded in pure nothing at the time zero is embraced by millions of professionals as the height of current scientific wisdom.

That's certainly not the case, as this bears no relationship to any mainstream scientific thought.

Which view is stupid nonsense here and which is not is the question.

You don't even have a view, Maddenstein. You have a word salad, and somehow you've convinced yourself that you can produce scientific thought by aping scientific language. It's most likely the case that actual scientific positions are so beyond your capabilities that they seem like nonsense to you, and your hope is that if you produce nonsense that sounds something like it, you've somehow accidentally produced knowledge. You're like a kind of accidental Sokal affair, or another one in the vein of the Bogandov brothers. Only, the difference between you and those other instances of scientific pomposity is that they were actually able to fool people. You've fooled only Bolder-Dash, apparently, which is approximately as difficult as convincing a two-year-old that you've stolen his nose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 6:46 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 297 of 297 (634072)
09-18-2011 8:28 PM


Closing This Thread
This thread was in summation mode, but a discussion seems to be taking place, so I'm closing the thread now. Anyone who would still like to post a summation send me a PM.

If anyone would like to continue the discussion, please post a proposal over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019