Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

we would like it if theists would actually think for themselves instead of blindly swallowing old mythology. 

I'm curious, Brian. When would you know when a theist actually thinks for themselves? When they agree with you?

[Brian37]

Is it this?: https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-sci...s-science/

I looked at this some today. Did you read this yourself? If so, I wonder what you think of it. What do you agree with and what do you not agree with?

Let's take the article Mr. Agenda provided.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

Is that historical science?

I would say so.  What about you? Seems like even the answers in genesis folks would.

Dont fucking claim you are not talking about god while supporting a bullshit apology website that is NOT real science. 

Apology is NOT objective. It is like a used car salesman. It is not intended to be objective, it is intended to sell the rust bucket regardless of the mileage or damage to the engine. 

AIG is a apology website and 100% bullshit when it comes to science. 

https://answersingenesis.org/

^^^^^^ Are harming REAL scientific education and sacrificing it for very selfish means.

If you support AIG you are damaging education not helping it.

---

we would like it if theists would actually think for themselves instead of blindly swallowing old mythology. 

I'm curious, Brian. When would you know when a theist actually thinks for themselves? When they agree with you?

What would I know..... I USED TO BELIEVE MORON! Many of us here on this page used to be where you are still at.

How about you consider you might have something to learn from us instead of clinging to an old comic book.

[Mister Agenda]

I actually did include my answer which was: Beginning with something that is living and modifying it with manmade materials is far different from beginning with just chemicals and getting to life. I hope I answered the question you were asking.

How is that an answer to the question 'what effect would it have on your opinion if they did it?' Would you find the naturalistic explanation for the origin of life plausible then?

[rjh4 is back]

Dont fucking claim you are not talking about god while supporting a bullshit apology website that is NOT real science. 

Follow closely, Brian. I didn't bring up the website. Mh.brewer did. And because he brought it up, I thought it perfectly appropriate to ask his thoughts on it. Is there a problem with that? If so, take it up with mh.brewer and tell him to stop mentioning God by citing such sites.

What would I know..... I USED TO BELIEVE MORON! Many of us here on this page used to be where you are still at.

How about you consider you might have something to learn from us instead of clinging to an old comic book.

It is really funny that I have been accused of dodging things several times in this thread. You, Brian, seem to dodge much of the time.

I asked:

When would you know when a theist actually thinks for themselves? When they agree with you?

---

I actually did include my answer which was: Beginning with something that is living and modifying it with manmade materials is far different from beginning with just chemicals and getting to life. I hope I answered the question you were asking.

How is that an answer to the question 'what effect would it have on your opinion if they did it?' Would you find the naturalistic explanation for the origin of life plausible then?

Honestly, your question had a lot of pronouns in it and wasn't quite sure how to interpret it.

If you are asking: If someone actually produced life in the lab, would you find the naturalistic explanation for the origin of life plausible then?

The answer would be yes.

[Mister Agenda]

Regarding part 2 from above, if I were to follow your reasoning, I could propose the hypothesis:

"Dirt particles colliding with other dirt particles produces life from non-life."

and that is enough to support the claim:

"There is a natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life."

I have to say, this response tempts me to lower my estimation of you. You can't possibly be so dim as to think that's a scientific hypothesis and still spell as well as you do. That means you're disingenuously presenting a strawman version of my position, which I don't think is too hard for someone with a high school education to grasp correctly.

The extant hypotheses on abiogenesis are thoroughly grounded in what is known of organic chemistry, biochemistry and conditions present during the era in which the earliest signs of life are detected. WTF is your 'dirt particles collide' based on besides a combined strawman and appeal to ridicule?

That does not follow. Just because someone proposes a hypothesis regarding a particular mechanism does not mean that it is actually such a mechanism.

When you claim there is no natural mechanism, it's a claim of knowledge or certainty that such a mechanism does not exist. All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism, and then it becomes clear that you have no way to know that there is no such mechanism, or your certainty is unjustified, and you're speaking ex rectum.

If I say there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning; you don't have to prove that you actually drove to Columbia, SC this morning to refute me; all you have to do is show that there IS a way you could have done it, because my claim was that there isn't such a way.

If you're being forthright, I don't see why this concept would be so hard for you.

[brewer]

Is it this?: https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-sci...s-science/

I looked at this some today. Did you read this yourself? If so, I wonder what you think of it. What do you agree with and what do you not agree with?

Let's take the article Mr. Agenda provided.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

Is that historical science?

I would say so.  What about you? Seems like even the answers in genesis folks would.

If you read the genesis article regarding historical science it states that creationists presuppose magic. From the article: "Just as evolutionists weren’t there to see evolution happen over several billion years, neither were creationists there to see the events of the six days of creation. The difference is that creationists have the Creator’s eyewitness account of the events of creation,...". See, magic.

I choose not to presuppose magic. That is the difference. Magic is not needed. In the past, magic was a nice way to explain things away and make people comfortable. Today, it is no longer necessary except as a mental crutch. If you need the crutch to feel comfortable that's fine, I'm OK with that. Just don't push that the crutch is necessary for anyone but yourself.

The nature article is not historical science. It's the reporting and discussion of a scientific experiment. Was the experiment successful, yes. Did the experiment give insight to the possibility of early complex molecules forming, yes. Do I think their lab experiment was analogous to early earth or it's conditions, more than likely not. but a step in the direction of learning.

The genesis folks (and I believe you're one) would say "you don't have the complete answer, therefore god magic is necessary, thank god that we can be comfortable and safe now." 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_...al_science

[rjh4 is back]

Regarding part 2 from above, if I were to follow your reasoning, I could propose the hypothesis:

"Dirt particles colliding with other dirt particles produces life from non-life."

and that is enough to support the claim:

"There is a natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life."

I have to say, this response tempts me to lower my estimation of you. You can't possibly be so dim as to think that's a scientific hypothesis and still spell as well as you do. That means you're disingenuously presenting a strawman version of my position, which I don't think is too hard for someone with a high school education to grasp correctly.

The extant hypotheses on abiogenesis are thoroughly grounded in what is known of organic chemistry,  biochemistry and conditions present during the era in which the earliest signs of life are detected. WTF is your 'dirt particles collide' based on besides a combined strawman and appeal to ridicule?

That does not follow. Just because someone proposes a hypothesis regarding a particular mechanism does not mean that it is actually such a mechanism.

When you claim there is no natural mechanism, it's a claim of knowledge or certainty that such a mechanism does not exist. All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism, and then it becomes clear that you have no way to know that there is no such mechanism, or your certainty is unjustified, and you're speaking ex rectum.

If I say there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning; you don't have to prove that you actually drove to Columbia, SC this morning to refute me; all you have to do is show that there IS a way you could have done it, because my claim was that there isn't such a way.

If you're being forthright, I don't see why this concept would be so hard for you.

I was trying to show you how the logic didn't seem to flow for me and maybe I was focusing on the wrong part of your position. Of course I was just making something up as the hypothesis. But my point was that some, if not all, proposed hypotheses on this subject, may be wrong. (I was just picking a ridiculous one that all would agree was wrong.) How can a claim that there is no natural mechanism be unsupported based on hypotheses that are wrong or even potentially wrong?

Let me explain it this way:

You say: "When you claim there is no natural mechanism...All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism". Given any of those "possible" natural mechanisms, would it not be fair of me to then say: "Prove that the natural mechanism can produce life from non-life, and until you do my claim stands"?

As I said above, if somebody actually produced life from non-life in the lab, I would agree that my claim would then be unsupported.

---

I looked at this some today. Did you read this yourself? If so, I wonder what you think of it. What do you agree with and what do you not agree with?

Let's take the article Mr. Agenda provided.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

Is that historical science?

I would say so.  What about you? Seems like even the answers in genesis folks would.

If you read the genesis article regarding historical science it states that creationists presuppose magic. From the article: "Just as evolutionists weren’t there to see evolution happen over several billion years, neither were creationists there to see the events of the six days of creation. The difference is that creationists have the Creator’s eyewitness account of the events of creation,...". See, magic.

I choose not to presuppose magic. That is the difference. Magic is not needed. In the past, magic was a nice way to explain things away and make people comfortable. Today, it is no longer necessary except as a mental crutch. If you need the crutch to feel comfortable that's fine, I'm OK with that. Just don't push that the crutch is necessary for anyone but yourself.

The nature article is not historical science. It's the reporting and discussion of a scientific experiment. Was the experiment successful, yes. Did the experiment give insight to the possibility of early complex molecules forming, yes. Do I think their lab experiment was analogous to early earth or it's conditions, more than likely not. but a step in the direction of learning.

The genesis folks (and I believe you're one) would say "you don't have the complete answer, therefore god magic is necessary, thank god that we can be comfortable and safe now." 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_...al_science

I am not an answers in genesis person. I am familiar with them but I do not work with or for them in any way.

So other than you disagree with the presuppositions that they take to interpret things, what do you disagree with in their definitions? Note, their definitions are pretty generic and would include any presuppositions, including yours. Or are you arguing that science, by definition, cannot be done if one takes an presuppositions other than naturalistic ones? How would you define science and historical science?

Sure...the nature article itself is not historical science. I thought it would be clear that I was talking about the science being reported on. Do you agree that is historical science?

[Brian37]

I have to say, this response tempts me to lower my estimation of you. You can't possibly be so dim as to think that's a scientific hypothesis and still spell as well as you do. That means you're disingenuously presenting a strawman version of my position, which I don't think is too hard for someone with a high school education to grasp correctly.

The extant hypotheses on abiogenesis are thoroughly grounded in what is known of organic chemistry,  biochemistry and conditions present during the era in which the earliest signs of life are detected. WTF is your 'dirt particles collide' based on besides a combined strawman and appeal to ridicule?


When you claim there is no natural mechanism, it's a claim of knowledge or certainty that such a mechanism does not exist. All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism, and then it becomes clear that you have no way to know that there is no such mechanism, or your certainty is unjustified, and you're speaking ex rectum.

If I say there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning; you don't have to prove that you actually drove to Columbia, SC this morning to refute me; all you have to do is show that there IS a way you could have done it, because my claim was that there isn't such a way.

If you're being forthright, I don't see why this concept would be so hard for you.

I was trying to show you how the logic didn't seem to flow for me and maybe I was focusing on the wrong part of your position. Of course I was just making something up as the hypothesis. But my point was that some, if not all, proposed hypotheses on this subject, may be wrong. (I was just picking a ridiculous one that all would agree was wrong.) How can a claim that there is no natural mechanism be unsupported based on hypotheses that are wrong or even potentially wrong?

Let me explain it this way:

You say: "When you claim there is no natural mechanism...All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism". Given any of those "possible" natural mechanisms, would it not be fair of me to then say: "Prove that the natural mechanism can produce life from non-life, and until you do my claim stands"?

As I said above, if somebody actually produced life from non-life in the lab, I would agree that my claim would then be unsupported.

Close proximity of individual atoms that by themselves are not a living thing, but because they bond like magnets exchanging electrons, that makes it very easy to go from non life to life. There is no magic factory boss needed as a cause anymore than Thor is needed to explain the cause of lightening.

What you are mentally stuck on is pace, evolution didn't start in a blink of an eye. And you are still ignoring that there is very deadly life also made up of DNA such as bacteria and viruses.

But here is the stupid part of your argument in this post, even when we link to the man made lab amino acids, you will stupidly shout, "SEE SEE SEE EVERYTHING DOES HAVE A CREATOR".

Then go on to ignore it when we say, "That is bullshit, but even if we pretend, you are still stick with WHICH ONE"

Again, we are sorry someone in your past convinced you an old book of mythology explains why we are here. We are also sorry that someone successfully sold you that crap with junk science. But again, that is your baggage, not ours.

We promise if you figure out you got it wrong, nobody will smite or smote you or burn you in a fictional hell.

[Mister Agenda]

I was trying to show you how the logic didn't seem to flow for me and maybe I was focusing on the wrong part of your position. Of course I was just making something up as the hypothesis. But my point was that some, if not all, proposed hypotheses on this subject, may be wrong. (I was just picking a ridiculous one that all would agree was wrong.) How can a claim that there is no natural mechanism be unsupported based on hypotheses that are wrong or even potentially wrong?

The same way a claim that you didn't have any way to drive to Columbia, SC this morning is refuted, even if my proposed method of you doing so might not be the right one. I claimed there was no way you could do it. To refute me, all you have to do is show that there was a way you could do it. Maybe I should only have claimed that you weren't in Columbia this morning; then if you wanted to bother to refute me, you would have to show you actually were in town this morning instead of just pointing out ways that you could have gotten here.

That's why I shouldn't go around telling people what can't be, unless I'm sure there's no way it could be. Even if you never arrived in Columbia, SC at all, I'm wrong if you could have driven here.

Let me explain it this way:

You say: "When you claim there is no natural mechanism...All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism". Given any of those "possible" natural mechanisms, would it not be fair of me to then say: "Prove that the natural mechanism can produce life from non-life, and until you do my claim stands"?

As I said above, if somebody actually produced life from non-life in the lab, I would agree that my claim would then be unsupported.

If anyone ever succeeds in producing life from non-life in a lab, your claim was always unsupported, wasn't it? It just wasn't disproven yet. There's a difference. I'm not saying that your claim is disproven, I'm saying it's unsupported. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can prove that life could not have begun by a natural process. Claiming that there is no such process is a position you can't support.

You could certainly have said that we don't know for sure what natural mechanism is responsible for the origin of life, and that we can't reasonably claim to have 100% certainty that the mechanism for the origin of life was, in fact, natural. But you claimed that there is no natural mechanism, and you are not able to meet the burden of proof for that. All I have to do to show that your claim is unreasonable is a possible way that there could have been a natural origin for life (and there are several) and the rational thing for you to do would be to revise your claim to a position of less certainty.

Since that seems to actually be your position (that a natural mechanism for the origin of life is unproven), that should be your claim.

Now to me, it's probabilistic: a natural origin seems much more likely given the information that we have than a miraculous origin, even if there is some sort of God that started the universe. God poofing the first cell into existence billions of years ago seems not to be what any religion actually claims as their deity's MO for starting life, but if that's how you want to roll, it's less unlikely than most other supernatural abiogenesis claims in that it at least doesn't contradict the evidence we have that the earliest detectable signs of life were of microorganisms.

Were I a Christian who accepted evolution, I would think God making man from dust would be a nice metaphor for humans evolving from microorganisms.

[Brian37]

I looked at this some today. Did you read this yourself? If so, I wonder what you think of it. What do you agree with and what do you not agree with?

Let's take the article Mr. Agenda provided.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

Is that historical science?

I would say so.  What about you? Seems like even the answers in genesis folks would.

If you read the genesis article regarding historical science it states that creationists presuppose magic. From the article: "Just as evolutionists weren’t there to see evolution happen over several billion years, neither were creationists there to see the events of the six days of creation. The difference is that creationists have the Creator’s eyewitness account of the events of creation,...". See, magic.

I choose not to presuppose magic. That is the difference. Magic is not needed. In the past, magic was a nice way to explain things away and make people comfortable. Today, it is no longer necessary except as a mental crutch. If you need the crutch to feel comfortable that's fine, I'm OK with that. Just don't push that the crutch is necessary for anyone but yourself.

The nature article is not historical science. It's the reporting and discussion of a scientific experiment. Was the experiment successful, yes. Did the experiment give insight to the possibility of early complex molecules forming, yes. Do I think their lab experiment was analogous to early earth or it's conditions, more than likely not. but a step in the direction of learning.

The genesis folks (and I believe you're one) would say "you don't have the complete answer, therefore god magic is necessary, thank god that we can be comfortable and safe now." 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_...al_science

 I addressed the "How would you know you were not alive back then to witness it live" bullshit, in a prior post.

Homicide detectives never witness the murder and don't have a time machine to go back to witness it live. So how do they figure out who committed the murder? CLUES! Finger prints, DNA, financial records, computer and cell phone records, weapons, ballistics ect ect.....

Fossil records and DNA allow us to connect the dots back in time without having to have been there to witness it much like a Homicide detective can figure out who the murder was without actually seeing the crime.

And we actually DO witness evolution in action today which is why we make new flu vaccines every year because science proves the virus evolves.

ID is bullshit junk science, not real science.

---

I have to say, this response tempts me to lower my estimation of you. You can't possibly be so dim as to think that's a scientific hypothesis and still spell as well as you do. That means you're disingenuously presenting a strawman version of my position, which I don't think is too hard for someone with a high school education to grasp correctly.

The extant hypotheses on abiogenesis are thoroughly grounded in what is known of organic chemistry,  biochemistry and conditions present during the era in which the earliest signs of life are detected. WTF is your 'dirt particles collide' based on besides a combined strawman and appeal to ridicule?


When you claim there is no natural mechanism, it's a claim of knowledge or certainty that such a mechanism does not exist. All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism, and then it becomes clear that you have no way to know that there is no such mechanism, or your certainty is unjustified, and you're speaking ex rectum.

If I say there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning; you don't have to prove that you actually drove to Columbia, SC this morning to refute me; all you have to do is show that there IS a way you could have done it, because my claim was that there isn't such a way.

If you're being forthright, I don't see why this concept would be so hard for you.

I was trying to show you how the logic didn't seem to flow for me and maybe I was focusing on the wrong part of your position. Of course I was just making something up as the hypothesis. But my point was that some, if not all, proposed hypotheses on this subject, may be wrong. (I was just picking a ridiculous one that all would agree was wrong.) How can a claim that there is no natural mechanism be unsupported based on hypotheses that are wrong or even potentially wrong?

Let me explain it this way:

You say: "When you claim there is no natural mechanism...All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism". Given any of those "possible" natural mechanisms, would it not be fair of me to then say: "Prove that the natural mechanism can produce life from non-life, and until you do my claim stands"?

As I said above, if somebody actually produced life from non-life in the lab, I would agree that my claim would then be unsupported.

---

If you read the genesis article regarding historical science it states that creationists presuppose magic. From the article: "Just as evolutionists weren’t there to see evolution happen over several billion years, neither were creationists there to see the events of the six days of creation. The difference is that creationists have the Creator’s eyewitness account of the events of creation,...". See, magic.

I choose not to presuppose magic. That is the difference. Magic is not needed. In the past, magic was a nice way to explain things away and make people comfortable. Today, it is no longer necessary except as a mental crutch. If you need the crutch to feel comfortable that's fine, I'm OK with that. Just don't push that the crutch is necessary for anyone but yourself.

The nature article is not historical science. It's the reporting and discussion of a scientific experiment. Was the experiment successful, yes. Did the experiment give insight to the possibility of early complex molecules forming, yes. Do I think their lab experiment was analogous to early earth or it's conditions, more than likely not. but a step in the direction of learning.

The genesis folks (and I believe you're one) would say "you don't have the complete answer, therefore god magic is necessary, thank god that we can be comfortable and safe now." 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_...al_science

I am not an answers in genesis person. I am familiar with them but I do not work with or for them in any way.

So other than you disagree with the presuppositions that they take to interpret things, what do you disagree with in their definitions? Note, their definitions are pretty generic and would include any presuppositions, including yours. Or are you arguing that science, by definition, cannot be done if one takes an presuppositions other than naturalistic ones? How would you define science and historical science?

Sure...the nature article itself is not historical science. I thought it would be clear that I was talking about the science being reported on. Do you agree that is historical science?

GREAT and so what. 

Your avatar lists you as Christian, you are still being intellectually dishonest if you are trying to claim that you are not trying to put your God of the bible in as the start of evolution.

Again, sure you will accept parts of science but when they conflict with your God of the bible belief, you will cherry pick and dodge.

The God of the bible is still a gap answer, and is not needed to be the start of evolution.