RE: Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false
November 4, 2014 at 10:51 am
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2014 at 10:59 am by Chas.)
(November 3, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Rob216 Wrote:(November 3, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Chas Wrote: The point is that you know fuck all about evolution, yet claim it is wrong.
So don't get all pissy that you are not shown respect.
Haha what? So stating an opinion or making a claim is worthy of not being given respect on a personal level? So if you, me, and minimalist were sitting at your kitchen table having a debate and AFTER I admitted that my original claimed was flawed and that I needed to do more research you would defend minimalist for calling me a fuckhead? That's an acceptable way of addressing someone?
I wasn't defending Minimalist. I was explaining why you got a less than respectful reaction.
(November 4, 2014 at 7:59 am)Rob216 Wrote: "Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system. The MWO (Ed.: "many worlds in one"[118]) version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation could suggest a way out of this conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of distinct macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible but inevitable."
Eugene Koonin, computational biologist
So is he saying that we'd have to believe in infinite universes in order to substantiate abiogenesis? Or did I misinterpret that?
You misinterpreted it. He is saying the MWO is one possible way to support it, not the only way.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.