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


Message 28 of 216 (422107)
09-15-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rob
09-14-2007 9:59 AM


Re: Good science
Rob writes:
Javaman:
Anyway, the theory that adenine was formed from basic chemicals in early earth history is only one of the theories about the origin of life. The theory isn't proven yet, and even if it's disproven, that doesn't disprove the general theory of natural biogenesis.
I am aware of that. Abiogenensis cannot be disproven. And as Lewontin has said, that is one of the reasons that evolution is hopelessly metaphysical( http://EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy -->EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy )
I think you may be using the wrong definition of metaphysical when you interpret Lewontin. He doesn't mean hypothetical or supernatural, but that it is intertwined with issues of the nature of reality. He feels that mainstream evolutionary views are insufficiently nuanced, for instance, concerning natural selection he argues that organisms are not passive recipients of environmental pressures because they influence the environment they inhabit.
But we really shouldn't get into Lewontin's views. Promoting a single scientist's views as conclusive when opposed by the main body of scientific thought is just the fallacy of argument from authority. If a single scientist has such and such an amount of authority, how much more authority must the consensus of a large body of scientists have?
But what I really wanted to do was focus on your assertion that abiogenesis cannot be disproven. This is true, but only in the sense that no scientific theory can be disproven, or proven either. All that science can do is offer evidence in support of a hypothesis, and if that evidence grows strong enough so that a consensus forms around it, then the hypothesis becomes elevated to theory. But even then the theory is tentative and is subject to change and even rejection in the face of new evidence or improved insight. Your singling out abiogenesis for criticism of something that is true of all scientific theories, because you misunderstand the nature of science.
So the point you're making is not a specific one against abiogenesis, but a general one against the naturalistic nature of science. By definition, science focuses on the natural. Science investigates the origin of life by natural processes because science investigates all natural phenomena under the assumption that their underlying causes are natural. Your point actually comes down to an argument for including supernatural possibilities within science, but that should be a topic for another thread in the [forum=-11] forum.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rob, posted 09-14-2007 9:59 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rob, posted 09-15-2007 9:35 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 43 of 216 (422159)
09-16-2007 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rob
09-15-2007 9:35 PM


Re: Good science
Rob writes:
Percy, I very much appriciate your promoting this topic, and for the mysterious lifting of my suspension, but do you have anything to contribute to the discussion on the Murchison extrations?
Not really. I was just pointing out that your primary objection to abiogenesis is based not upon any specific weakness in abiogenesis specifically but upon a misunderstanding of the nature of science generally, which would be a topic for another thread. In other words, I was trying to help you understand why your objection was off-topic.
Abiogenesis is the very fabric upon which this thread is writ, and as such it helps to understand what abiogenesis really is. The word abiogenesis is being used to mean a couple different things in this thread. The definition this thread should use is simply that abiogenesis is the process by which life arose from non-life. The definition you're trying to use is that abiogenesis is the theory that life arose by non-supernatural means. That definition is definitely off-topic because it belongs in a discussion about the nature of science.
--Percy
PS - Both Google and Firefox provide spellcheckers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rob, posted 09-15-2007 9:35 PM Rob has not replied

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


Message 44 of 216 (422169)
09-16-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rob
09-16-2007 2:33 AM


Re: Good science
Rob writes:
Crash:
It was soley my intent to speak to your misunderstanding about what "falsifiable" actually means. Did you have a comment in response to my remarks on that subject?
No, because I agree with your analysis on the matter. The only difference is that you have it backwards. Your upside-down man...
Need the internal contradictions be pointed out? I have no idea what you're saying, either.
The difficulty of proving something impossible is often summed up with the phrase, "You can't prove a negative." Your misunderstanding of the nature of science is causing you to chart a course using this type of argument, which by its fundamental nature cannot succeed. Whether your position is right or wrong (I believe it is wrong, of course), the approach you're taking to arguing your position contains a fundamental fallacy: you can't prove something's impossible (this general rule can be made much more nuanced, of course, but we'll start simply).
More specifically, you're trying to show that abiogenesis couldn't have happened naturally by showing that no natural pathways for its occurrence exist. This is an impossible task. Take a tip from scientists who understand that the existence of such things as Bigfoot, ESP, UFOs and so forth cannot be disproven, either. All that can be done is to highlight the dearth of evidence and show that it doesn't even come close to reaching the bar for acceptance of these phenomena as real.
By the fundamental nature of the style of argument you're using you cannot prove the insufficiency of natural explanations for abiogenesis. You must therefore take another tack, which is to provide evidence supporting supernatural explanations, which would, of course, be way off-topic. But enumerating things science does not know as if they constituted evidence for the supernatural is merely the old "god-of-the-gaps" argument, and this thread is really just a smokescreen for you to push this argument, which is also off-topic.
If what you really want to talk about is the flawed nature of science and how it should include the supernatural, you should propose a new thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rob, posted 09-16-2007 2:33 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 09-16-2007 11:22 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 47 of 216 (422230)
09-16-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rob
09-16-2007 11:22 AM


Re: Good science
Rob writes:
My only intent here is to remind you that empiricism requires evidence before the theory is valid. And in the case of abiogenesis there is none. It is actually an assumption in spite of the evidence. And that has nothing to do with design...
You're just repeating your error, which is characterizing abiogenesis specifically of something that is true of all science generally. You are correct that abiogenesis, the development of life from non-life, assumes natural processes, but that is true of all science.
Percy:
By the fundamental nature of the style of argument you're using you cannot prove the insufficiency of natural explanations for abiogenesis. You must therefore take another tack, which is to provide evidence supporting supernatural explanations, which would, of course, be way off-topic. But enumerating things science does not know as if they constituted evidence for the supernatural is merely the old "god-of-the-gaps" argument, and this thread is really just a smokescreen for you to push this argument, which is also off-topic.
I didn't invoke design in this thread, Kuresu did, and I think JavaMan as well.
Uh, Rob, I didn't say you invoked a design argument. You even quoted me saying you're using a "god-of-the-gaps" argument. They're two different things.
Getting back to the actual point, what Javaman was saying, and I concur, is that you seem to believe that the absence of adenine in the Murchison meteor is evidence against a natural origin for life. That's the kind of argument one makes when one is trying to prove a negative. So when you say this:
Percy, what are yu talking about? I am not trying to infer design by proving a negative. A negative cannot be proven. I amy be relatively idiotic at times, but I am not a complete dolt!
It leads me to believe that you still don't understand that you're trying to prove a negative.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 09-16-2007 11:22 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rob, posted 09-16-2007 4:39 PM Percy has replied
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 12:04 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 59 of 216 (422343)
09-16-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rob
09-16-2007 4:39 PM


Re: Good science
Rob writes:
Percy:
You are correct that abiogenesis, the development of life from non-life, assumes natural processes, but that is true of all science.
To be more precise, it is true of the 'current definition' of science (methodological naturalism). But if science were to be objective (as it was historically) it would simply look at the evidence without regard for imposing materialistic expectations. It would be simple empiricism once again, with theories that corrospond to reality.
That used to be what science was under a design paradigm, but the materialist philosophers have taken over...
You're making things up. Empiricism is the view that reality is what we experience through the senses. If we were to presume such a thing as supernatural phenomena, then if they're apparent to our senses they are subject to empiricism. The very definition you provided yourself contradicts your own argument, here it is for you:
Rob writes:
Empiricism: 2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b.
I presume you will agree that observations are made through our senses. You next say:
If you design experiments that are assumed to reflect reality because it makes good sense materially, that is not the same thing as observing real evidence.
Since science relies upon observation and experiment, science is empirical by your own definition.
This is why this thread of yours about the Murchison meteor is so misguided. You're actually using it to question methodological naturalism, which isn't the subject of this thread.
The definition of science should be, observation of the facts and the formulating of theory that is coherent and consistent with those facts as proven by experimentation (that is what empiricism is...). That way, you cannot invoke material explanations that are not even rooted in evidence. You guys assume the existence of evidence that does not exist. And then you produce and create experiments to give evidence for you presuppositions.
This is just false, but if you want to discuss the nature of science and whether the scientific method is improperly biased, propose a new thread.
Facts are not arrived at by concensus, but by empiricism. And that is what you have abandoned.
Science has not abandoned empiricism. You can only say this because you still don't understand the nature of science generally, nor the meaning of the analysis of the Murchison meteor specifically.
It has nothing to do with proving a negative. It has to do with your approach not even being scientific in the historical sense. Your obsolete. There's a 'new revolution'...
Please.
Rob, I'm trying to explain to you that your approach is doomed to failure. The origin of adenine is like looking for something hidden behind one of a thousand doors. You open one door and say, "Not here," then you open another door and say, "Not here, either," and so forth. Then after you've opened a thousand doors and still not found it, you discover that while you've been opening doors scientists have found a thousand more doors for you to look behind. And after you've opened all the doors and there are no more doors to open and you still haven't found the origin of adenine in life processes, all you can conclude is, "I don't know." You cannot conclude, not scientifically, anyway, that God did it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rob, posted 09-16-2007 4:39 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Rob, posted 09-16-2007 10:31 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 73 of 216 (422469)
09-17-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Rob
09-16-2007 10:31 PM


Re: Good science
Hi Rob,
As Javaman has already informed you, "empirical" and "empiricism" are just different forms of the same base word. One's an adjective and the other's a noun. There are literally tons of examples of such words in the English language, like "intelligent" and "intelligence".
I'll spend just a little time clarifying the definition of empiricism:
Rob writes:
As we see, the emperical does not necessarily incorporate both observation and experiment.
Empirical investigations must *always* include observation. Conducting an experiment (which one then observes) is optional.
Rob writes:
Actually, that would be 'emperical'. It is different from empericism, however they are related. The emperical is the veiw that reality is perceived by the senses.
Once again, "empirical" and "empiricism" are not representative of different concepts. You're reaching false conclusions by making Talmudic analyses of dictionary definitions, even combining alternative definitions together. And offering Hume as the final authority on empiricism is just the fallacy of argument from authority, plus I think you've misinterpreted him.
But the empirical nature of science isn't the topic of this thread. You believe that if you can demonstrate that the Murchison meteorite contained no adenine that this somehow constitutes evidence against a naturalistic explanation. First, the absence of adenine in any one meteorite is extremely slim evidence against an extraterrestrial origin, as there are tons of other meteorites plus comets and interplanetary dust represent other more likely sources. And second ,this in no way speaks to terrestrial possibilities. The possible sources of and processes resulting in adenine are incredibly numerous.
What you're hoping to do is demonstrate that there is no possible natural source of adenine, and that there must therefore be a non-natural explanation. But you will never be able to prove a negative, as you yourself concede while at the same time failing to realize that this is what you're attempting to do. In the end it is really just the "god-of-the-gaps" approach, offering the supernatural as the answer for anything science does not know.
By the way, how can you continue to misspell empiricism after looking it up in the dictionary. Google and Firefox do provide spellcheckers. When I run Google spellcheck on my posts, quotes from you light up like a Christmas tree.
I've been trying to coax people toward better spelling because the 3.0 version of dBoard that will hopefully be released late this year will include a very robust search facility, but it won't be able to find misspelled words.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Rob, posted 09-16-2007 10:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Rob, posted 09-17-2007 9:15 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 86 of 216 (422686)
09-17-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rob
09-17-2007 9:14 PM


Re: Empirical and empiricism
Rob writes:
We are all learning as we go, and starting from different places.
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.
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.
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.
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 glean motive.
Please stop casting veiled aspersions and stick to the topic.
To be scientific, we must combine both evidence and theory.
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.
Rationalism has no balance except in the evidence directly available to our senses.
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.
That's how I put it in my own words. And that is what most people believe science should be.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rob, posted 09-17-2007 9:14 PM Rob has not replied

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


Message 88 of 216 (422694)
09-18-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Rob
09-17-2007 11:51 PM


Rationality and the Philosophy of Rationalism are Two Different Things
Rob writes:
Kuresu:
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).
Not at all...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Rob, posted 09-17-2007 11:51 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rob, posted 09-18-2007 12:13 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 95 of 216 (422754)
09-18-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Rob
09-18-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Rationality and the Philosophy of Rationalism are Two Different Things
Rob writes:
Percy:
Everyone is telling you this.
I wasn't aware that there was anyone participating except materialists (minus Ken).
Rob, get a grip and try to focus on what we're talking about. You've been told now by almost all the primary participants in this thread that, in effect, the fly in the pants of your logic and understanding is open. Zip it up.
Rationalism with a capital "R" (Javaman's term, and I'll follow his lead now since it improves clarity) is a philosophy, and all Javaman was telling you was that your position sounds like Rationalism, and that science is not based upon Rationalism. He did not say science isn't rational.
As I said before, 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.
"I don't know" is a valid answer that is not synonymous with "God did it." Each day journals come out with papers that add incrementally to our knowledge. Things about which yesterday we said, "I don't know," today we can say, "Now I know." Concluding that God is responsible for everything science doesn't know is to be in continual retreat.
AbE: I think you missed my Message 86. It contains some explanation of the difference between Rationalism and rationality, plus it provides some information about spellcheckers.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : More info.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Rob, posted 09-18-2007 12:13 AM Rob has not replied

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


Message 107 of 216 (423013)
09-19-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rob
09-19-2007 12:04 AM


Re: Good science
Rob writes:
Percy:
You are correct that abiogenesis, the development of life from non-life, assumes natural processes, but that is true of all science.
The empirical world cannot assume such a thing. And that's why people have concluded all sorts of different things from the empirical evidence. Francis Crick believes in panspermia, and he's a Nobel Laureate!
Rather than untangling this jumble of claims to put them all in the proper context, I'll just focus on the important issue for this thread, which is that science focuses on the natural. You cannot single out abiogenesis for criticism about something that is true of all science.
The more general argument that science is misguided in its focus on the natural world should be taken to another thread.
There is nothing wrong with invoking natural causation, but we don't have the necessary evidence to conclude that material causation is the only valid explanation for every phenomenon. Nature cannot be shown to be strictly material. It is a philosophical imposition based on a materialistic philosophy, and not upon empirical evidence.
This is true. But science is defined as the study of the material world that is apparent to our senses. If there are aspects of reality that lie outside the material world, they are beyond the reach of science.
So while it is a valid to argue that there is more to the universe than is dreamt of by science, it isn't valid to argue this point in this thread. We're discussing abiogenesis, not how science should be changed.
I personally don't believe our universe precludes intelligence from designing self replicating life. I am very suprised you don't find any evidence for the ability of intellignence to do such things.
What makes you think that I don't think there's any evidence for the intelligent design (and implementation) of life? We're getting closer every day to creating artificial life in the lab. A recent news item estimated that success is only ten years away.
The objection to the argument that only an intelligence could have designed life, which is what you're using the Murchison meteorite to argue in this thread, is not based upon any misguided notion that intelligence cannot design life. If scientists didn't believe life could be created in the lab they wouldn't be trying to do it. Obviously we believe intelligence can create life.
The objection to the assertion that conditions on the early earth were insufficient for abiogenesis addresses three main possibilities:
  1. The possibility that some supernatural agent created life on earth. This possibility cannot be considered scientifically because science is focused on the natural, not the supernatural.
  2. The possibility that a race of intelligent beings created life on earth. This possibility fails immediately because of an infinite regression, which goes like this:
    1. If life was created by intelligent beings, where did those intelligent beings come from?
      1. If from a supernatural agent, see point 1.
      2. If from a previous race of intelligent beings, then return to (a).
  3. The possibility that life on earth was seeded by material that drifted in from outer space. This is known as panspermia and is certainly a possibility, but it suffers from the same regression as point 2. If the early environment on earth was incapable of providing the necessary materials for the first life such that that material had to come from outer space, then where was that material originally produced? If it had a supernatural origin, see point 1. If it was produced somewhere else in the universe before drifting here, then there must have been sufficient conditions in that other place for the production of the necessary material. And if the conditions in that other place were insufficient, then where did those materials ultimately come from?
The approach you're taking in this thread is to argue that there are no natural sources of adenine on the early earth, and that therefore it must have come from some other source. As has already been pointed out over and over again, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove there were no sources of adenine on the early earth, and many or your arguments are just expressions of incredulity. And if you're advocating a supernatural origin then that's just not a scientific alternative.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 12:04 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:56 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 109 of 216 (423016)
09-19-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ken
09-19-2007 9:03 AM


Re: Good science
Ken writes:
kuresu writes:
Further, Ken's missing one thing. You said:
The nuclear bomb and the self replicating molecules you eluded to, do not exist in nature
Just to clarify, I did not say that. And my correction to myself about the by-products of fission being found, not observed, were pertaining to Oklo. Sorry if that was unclear.
Thanks for the attempted clarification, but this just confuses things further. You say fission by-products at Oklo were found but not observed? How does one find something and then fail to observe it? Were you trying to say that while fission by-products were found at Oklo, the actual fission process itself was not observed and therefore can't be said to have happened? So what if it wasn't observed? Where do you think the fission by-products came from? Dinosaur dung?
If that's what you're arguing then this is just the fallacy of "we can't know anything about unobserved events," and if you can make such arguments stick then there are many criminals in jail due to forensic evidence who would love to hear how to do it.
By the way, since you've figured out how to include names in quotes, perhaps you can explain it to Rob.
--Percy

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:18 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 110 of 216 (423018)
09-19-2007 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:35 AM


Re: Nuclear fission
Rob replying to Kuresu 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. And we all know where you are coming from too!
...
Although all of these other questions, designed to get the attention off of materialism...
Rob, what I've quoted above from you reveals that, just as I've been arguing all along, your real agenda in this thread is arguing against the materialistic nature of science, not against the Murchison meteorite as a source of adenine on the early earth.
Whether you accept the material presented to you or not, your questions about the Murchison meteorite have been answered. If you want to discuss the nature of science you should propose a new thread for the [forum=-11] forum.
--Percy

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 112 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:59 AM Percy has not replied

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


Message 116 of 216 (423026)
09-19-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:56 AM


Re: Good science
Hi Rob,
As I've said before, "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer. No one is claiming conclusive evidence exists for the origin of adenine on the early earth, or that conclusive evidence exists for the presence of adenine in the Murchison meteorite.
So if the ultimate scientific answer for the origin of adenine turns out to be, "I don't know," what can you conclude from that? You seem to believe that a valid answer is, "Science's focus on the natural world is insufficient." That's a topic for a thread in the [forum=-11] forum.
As far as the Murchison meteorite goes, if I understood the posts in this thread, the analyses were inconclusive as to the possible presence of adenine.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:56 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 12:08 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 120 of 216 (423047)
09-19-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rob
09-19-2007 10:06 AM


Re: Good science bad denial
Rob writes:
I certainly didn't take it that way. He was only pointing out the distinction. Neither of us is contending that fission is unnatural. Only that fission bombs are.
With regard to fission, the difference between controlled fission and a fission bomb is one of degree only. A little fission and things warm up and you get some neutrons. More fission and things melt and you get lots of neutrons. Too much fission and things go boom with radioactivity everywhere.
Ken got some of his science history wrong:
Rob quoting Ken writes:
The bomb was hypothesized, theorized, experimented with, built, tested, and it succeded. Afterwards, the science involved in making a working bomb predicted acurately that real world natural fission was possible, which was then observed.
That sustained fission was possible was predicted long before the first nuclear bomb. It's why Einstein wrote the 1939 letter to Roosevelt advocating an atomic bomb effort. Going from memory, the first controlled fission experiment took place at the University of Chicago in 1942 in an experiment conducted by Enrico Fermi under some bleachers.
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:06 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:57 PM Percy has 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024