Murchison Meteor Questions

Really? Can you point out where he says abiogenesis in your quote of Lewontin? All I see is this: Your quote doesn't support your position (that abiogenesis makes evolution hopelessly metaphysical). If you can't even get what he's saying right, why should I trust the rest of your OP? Wait, are they the same because both are under "biology"?
Abiogenesis is dealing entirely with biochemistry. And how life got started. Evolution really doesn't need biochemistry. Evolution deals with life after it gets started.That is why they are two different subjects. One studies how life is started, the other studies how life adapts and evolves (regardless of how life came to be in the first place).To put them together is to build a strawman.Now then, I have a question for you Rob. You really want to disprove all this abiogenesis stuff, right? Where's your alternative? Do you have one? Do you have evidence (non-scriptural) to support your alternative? Can your alternative explain the evidence any better than the current theories of abiogenesis?

This would require that you too, be civil.On another note, I find it funny that a lot of pro ID (pro-creo) people argue that there is the appearance of design. Stating "appearance" suggests that it's not necessarily actually designed. Looks aren't everything.Well, is there design or isn't there?

And such is not the case. Unless you think that life is designed by mutation and natural selection.Let me ask you a question rob. Can chemical reactions occur without ATP? Can biochemical reactions occur without ATP?

Well, now we know you know squat about biology. Especially when paired with your previous statement: They way you originally worded makes it sound like you think natural selection is what mutates DNA and RNA. I don't think that's what you meant to say. Regardless, even if read in another light (that is, you know that natural selection isn't mutation), the fact that you say that you can't mutate what doesn't exist is ignorant. Mutations can create and change. Not just change. Really? Your quote only mentions that DNA replication is regulated by the ratio of ATP to ADP. In other words, your quote is saying that the ratio is responsible for when replication is allowed to start (as in, when the cell is large enough).You'll notice that it doesn't even mention ATP in the process of DNA replication in bacteria (both the plasmid and circular DNA).Also note that a very key enyme in DNA replication is DNA polymerase (it doesn't exactly start the process as I understand it, but it makes copying DNA a lot easier). ATP is not, as far as I can tell, a part of DNA polymerase.Another interesting tidbit: DNA replication - WikipediaWait, DNA replication without ATP!?!?But then, you're the one claiming that ATP is necessary for DNA replication. How about finding conclusive evidence for that? You're quote doesn't support your position, and the issue of ATP is not addressed by the rest of the article (or even by the wiki).

You have some problems in this post Rob. The first is about the history of science. What do you think it's history is?This is what's pretty much agreed upon as being the history of science. Modern science starts around 1600. It's focus from the start is on natural causes.
Try this:
Scientific Revolution - WikipediaThis means, from the start of what we could call science, it has always been about looking for the natural causes of things. The big change was in how to go about discovering how the world worked. Do it like Aristotle and assume everything has ultimate causes and that experiments are worthless, or should you combine induction and deduction?Here's your second problem. I know that you're truly itching to say that abiogenesis is caused by a supernatural agent. Here is why science goes by natural caused methods only.
First, since science is, as you say, empirical, you need to find empirical, verifiable evidence of the existence of the supernatural. There is none I'm aware of to date.
Second, assuming you can determine the existence of the supernatural agent (and that he does exist), you need to be able to tell the difference between actions he causes and actions we would define as having natural explanations. In other words, how do you tell the difference between a god-caused action and a natural-caused action?So your problem with including the supernatural in science is two-fold: you need verifibale empirical evidence that such exists, and then you need to be able to differentiate between super-caused and natural-caused.
Can you do that? If so, you're the first. I dare say you are doing what you accuse us of. Your evidence of the existence of the supernatural rests solely on something that is not verifiable--your personal experience and a two-thousand year old book which states its true because it says its true.

Tne nuclear bomb doesn't exist in nature?
Pray tell me rob, how do stars run? By nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is one of the types of nuclear bombs.
Nuclear fission also exists in the real world.
Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia
You know, in Oklo.So that would mean you're wrong on that account by quite a bit. Nuclear bombs do, in fact, exist in nature.

I'm not so sure you understand what Javaman meant by "Rationalist". I base this off of your statement: He did not mean that you attempt to argue by being rational.
A "rationalist", as already explained by javaman, is someone who uses logic and reasoning alone to generate knowledge.
An "empiricist" is one who bases knowledge solely off of experience, which comes from our senses.By the solely rationalist method, you can have a conclusion (that god exists, for example) that is logically valid but does not correspond to what we actually experience. Thus, god's existence would enter into the realm of knowledge based off of logic and reasoning alone iwth no regard to what actually is the case. Empiricism prevents that sort of BS. You might be able to logically construct that the sky is hot pink, but unless you actually have evidence of this (through experience) then the sky being pink is not valid, no matter how proper and correct the logic was.So when you say that science cannot claim that the empirical world is the only valid basis other than on a rational basis, you are mistaken, because you are using a different "rational" than Javaman was referring to. Since you are responding to java's claim that you are a "rationalist", and since he defined what he meant by "rationalist" (see: Descartes), it would make sense for you to use "rationalist" in the same sense as he did. You are using a completely different definition. This would be "equivocation", I believe.Science will specifically take what we can observe over what is logically correct, because what is logically correct may not correspond to reality.

your statement: If you agree with what java meant by rational, then in this statement you are equivocating. You know, where you have one word but are using it differently than elsewhere when you should be using the original statement.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).But that is not what you are saying. You are using "rational" to mean "by logic, by reason". Thus, empiricism rests its claim on logic.Thus, you are equivocating.

Which is precisely why you are equivocating.Javaman calls you a rationalist in message 68.
You respond to that by saying: .Here you are using the term "rationalist" and its derivatives in the manner meant by Javaman. That is, someone who relies exclusivily on logic and reasoning to build knowledge.Two sentences later you use "rational" in a completely different manner. In the manner meaning "reason, logic" without the connotation of "knowledge is solely based off of reason and logic".You do this without mentioning you are using the term differently. Thus you are equivocating. Equivocation is, you might recall, a logical fallacy.If you weren't equivocating (that is, if you actually did mean to say that empiricism's claims have to be based on rationalism (understood as being the philosophy laid out by Descartes and others) you have stated a contradiction.If you equivocated, you committed a logical fallacy.
If you did mean "rational" in the philosophy of Descartes you have stated a contradiction.I'm betting on equivocation, though, because you continue to argue that you meant "rational" as "logical, by reason".

Precisely. You were arguing that the difference between the rock and self-replicating molecules in his analogy is that the rock is naturally occuring. You try to bolster your case by pointing out other things that we have created but that don't exist in nature. In this list you put nuclear bombs and self-replicating molecules.Clearly, nuclear fission and fusion occur naturally (and Oklo was even predicted). We discovered how nuclear fission and fusion work before we discovered where they actually happen. So if nuclear fission and fusion can be found naturally (and they do follow the laws of physics), then why not the same, eventually, for self-replicating molecules?After all, the only difference according to you is that one is found naturally and the other hasn't (and that is readily debatable). Both follow natural laws. So why won't self-replicating molecules ever be found?

That's not what you originally said. Futhermore, something tells me you don't understand waht equivocation is. Equivocation is where you use the same term in an argument more than once, but with separate meanings.Let me lay my argument out for you in as a simple a way I can.Javaman: Rob is a Rationalist.
Rob: Yes, I am. So is science. Science rests its claims on a rational basis.
kuresu:Either you don't know what a Rationalist is, or you are equivocating, or you do know what a Rationalist is and you did not equivocate and therefore are stating a contradiction.
rob:huh? I know what a Rationalist is.
kuresu:let me explain it again.
rob:All I am saying is that empiricism must be argued for... rationally
kuresu:then you are equivocating.Do you understand the difference between rationalism the philosophy and rational as meaning just "by logic, by reasoning"?If you understand the difference, then can you see the contradiction in stating that empiricism basis its claims on rationalism (the philosophy)?If you understand the difference, then can you see the equivocation? That is, if you decide to get rid of the contradiction? You originally said: That is not saying that science is also just a philosophy. That is either an equivocation (because two sentences earlier you claim you are, in fact, a Rationalist as javaman defined) or a contradiction.
Your choice of logical fallacy.

Sorry archer, I have to disagree.My argument about his equivocation is based on his use of the word "rational" in post 77.
EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor QuestionsAnd technically speaking, science is a philosophy. At least, according to several epistomology charts. It really seems like you're using philosophy to mean "Rationalism". Not entirely sure, though.

Really? Just how many biochemical fossils do we have?Oh, and I called it. You do want to bring in god, don't you? So where is you evidence for the divine? How do you tell the difference? Important questions if you're going to start positing "God did it" as a valid response.Further, Ken's missing one thing. You said: Nuclear fusion is one of the types of nuclear bombs.
Also, nuclear fission is following the rules of physics. Turns out we've split atoms as far back as 1917. Rutherford did it--with naturally occuring alpha particles from radioactive material. Real world fission, observed. We didn't create the alpha particles. We didn't create the radioactive material. We didn't create the nitrogen. At best, Rutherford aimed the particles, but if you left radioactive material emitting alpha particles around nitrogen, you'll get fission.
Oklo is interesting because it involves the fission of uranium.
As to nuclear fusion, check out stars. That's how they produce light and "burn" their fuel. They smash hydrogen atoms together, and once hydrogen is out, they smash the next step up. Unless I'm mistaken, our sun is capable of producing iron through fusion.

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.

When talking about nuclear bombs in general you have to include fusion bombs. Be more specific next time. That's an incredibly sloppy syllogism. The second premise has no bearing on the conclusion you make. 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 naturalP1: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. 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.