abiogenesis hypothesis and the despair of professed materialist

Or for Ken to tell you, which as I understand Ken's claims, much amounts to the same thing.lfen

But I've asked Ken several times and he hasn't answered. Does that mean his God-Sense has been removed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

All I can think of is to counsel you to remember Job and have patience. lfen

or consider your experience with prayers being answered?lol.

We all know ken moves in mysterious ways.

that is verging on too much information

I did say I would accept even one person expressing that conference was upbeat. I do agree with the historian Fischer's principle regarding historical fallacies. So far I have two witnesses regarding the overall tone was gloomy. I do not believe the professed materialist have any witnesses saying it was neutral or upbeat.

TO: ALL By the way, it is true that J. William Schopf,President of ISSOL, in his sales pitch to sell his package talked about the great interest in "origin of life" and mentioned the San Diego conference. He did not though give the mood of that conference. Again, Fischer's rule applies. I could use a genetic fallacy and say that Schopf is being insincere in his enthusiasm but I fear that chiroptera would say I was being inconsistent which would be entirely true. So I will not employ a genetic fallacy and stay true to logic.Again, please show me evidence that the scientific community as whole is upbeat or not pessimistic regardin the abiogenesis hypothesis. I gave two witnesses regarding the overall mood at conference and cited Crick.TO: chiropteraYou made two misreprentations. I then implied it might be intentional. You then misrepresented what the Mayo Clinic said. Looking back I should have asked you after the third misrepresentation why this was occuring without implying it was intentional. I regret I took the course I did. My apologies.

I don't know anything about that conference and I don't care what the mood was. And I'm not going to try to find out. What does it have to do with the how life originated? And what does mood mean? Every single person attending? Every other? Scientist are humans who get discouraged, or compete for the nobel prize and are ecstatic with breakthoroughs, but that is the human story and not the story of the advances of scientific knowledge.Since you don't have much knowledge of science you are arguing something that is irrelevant to the larger scope of scientific knowledge. This works for a group of creationist believers who wouldn't understand the science anyway and who think in terms of morale, it's why they are interested in prayer.Science continues, the work goes on, there are setbacks, deadends, breakthroughs. Science is not religion. It is a process that by now is spread around the world in thousands of laboratories and hundreds of universities.Your apologetic rhetoric is useful for enthusing true believers and converting some new comers. Nothing new there either. Apologetic rhetoric can sell religion, used cars, soft drinks, votes but what it doesn't do is the hard continual work of science.You've said nothing meaningful. Rhetoric is useful in influencing human emotions for whatever reason and that is the apologists function, not truth, certainly not science. Winston Churchill's superb rhethoric helped the english in the dark days of the blitz. Your rhetoric helps creationists who don't understand science feel good about their beliefs.One or two studies are interesting and suggestive but particularly in the social sciences don't establish anything more than a possibility that awaits approval. You have failed to provide a preponderance of anything or to really show how your argument demolishes ToE. And btw way science is not tried in courts of law by lawyers, it is tried in peer review journals by experts in the field. Debating points mean nothing if the hard numbers go against them.Your rhetorically skill has consisted of focusing on a few opinions about a particular moment in time. Asking what has that to do with the science of the next 100 years, reveals how silly your argument is.
Your premise has been irrelevant and therefore your entire argument is beside the point and bogus, but good practise for delivering slick sermons to the choir.lfen

Ken, you have yet to tell us what would make a conference upbeat.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

an open bar?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I can say that would certainly have helped at most of the conventions I've attended.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

TO: JarUsing the inductive logic that science employs and the principles of the historian Fischer, I still believe my church services are more upbeat than the 1999 abiogenesis conference in San Diego. You are free to come to Buffalo to find out. Give me some notice before you come though.

That is not an answer.So for the fourth or fifth time, "What would make a conference upbeat?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

TO: JarSome witnesses saying it was upbeat would help. We haven't found any yet though!