29 May 19
@sonhouse saidI actually agree with you, your reasoning is you think that this is all about someone’s beliefs and not the science. You can not see beyond that!
@KellyJay
Like I said, we are going round and round and achieving nothing. There is nothing you can say that will change all of our opinions they were after a religious agenda and they pointedly did not bring up recent data, instead sticking with the statistical story Earth did not have enough time which I have shown you gets short circuited by interstellar clouds already ...[text shortened]... hy don't you just tell me outright, they did not have any kind of religious agenda.
Answer me THAT.
29 May 19
@wildgrass saidWhat are you referring to?
And yet you've seen it and know nothing about it.
29 May 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidI asked how he proposed to test 'design' as a hypothesis. Since his lecture only discussed "what can we test and know" of course this would have been in the lecture. You responded with a comment about birds nests and rock piles. Obviously that doesn't approach a testable hypothesis regarding life's origins. Either you didn't watch the video or you're mischaracterizing what the video was.
What are you referring to?
29 May 19
@wildgrass saidI'm not going to discuss a lecture with someone who doesn't want to watch it.
I asked how he proposed to test 'design' as a hypothesis. Since his lecture only discussed "what can we test and know" of course this would have been in the lecture. You responded with a comment about birds nests and rock piles. Obviously that doesn't approach a testable hypothesis regarding life's origins. Either you didn't watch the video or you're mischaracterizing what the video was.
29 May 19
@wildgrass saidzzzz
It was a simple question, and your response indicated that you hadn't watched the video yourself.
29 May 19
@sonhouse saidOf course I watched all of them, I wouldn't put something here without reviewing them first. The thing about your "religious agenda" attitude it could be 2 hours and 55 minutes of science and if 5 minutes pops up where *religion* is brought up, the whole thing is now religious.
So did YOU watch the video's? All 3 hours of them? If you didn't that would answer the question I put, did you see the religious agenda inherent in both video's which you have not answered yet.
You were crying GODIDIT before you even watched them, there is no objectiveness in your assessment. Even when you watched the one, you complain not about the science you saw, but things not discussed as part of the lecture. Think about that, he was staying on point, his point, but because he didn't mention your point he was in error.
30 May 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThat is the CRUST of agenda. He is a scientist, he knows all about the research and he CERTAINLY knew about interstellar organic clouds but pointedly did not mention them because that goes to the heart of his argument Earth did not have enough time to create life chemically. The fact he made his speech in a church said it all. And he didn't HAVE to spend half his lecture touting GODIDIT, 5 minutes were plainly enough to establish his agenda.
Of course I watched all of them, I wouldn't put something here without reviewing them first. The thing about your "religious agenda" attitude it could be 2 hours and 55 minutes of science and if 5 minutes pops up where *religion* is brought up, the whole thing is now religious.
You were crying GODIDIT before you even watched them, there is no objectiveness in your assess ...[text shortened]... that, he was staying on point, his point, but because he didn't mention your point he was in error.
He could have just said, and in conclusion, GODIDIT, since mankind can't figure it out. One sentence is all it takes.
30 May 19
@sonhouse saidDo you hear yourself? I don't care that he may know about interstellar organic clouds, his topic wasn't interstellar organic clouds!
That is the CRUST of agenda. He is a scientist, he knows all about the research and he CERTAINLY knew about interstellar organic clouds but pointedly did not mention them because that goes to the heart of his argument Earth did not have enough time to create life chemically. The fact he made his speech in a church said it all. And he didn't HAVE to spend half his lecture tou ...[text shortened]... t said, and in conclusion, GODIDIT, since mankind can't figure it out. One sentence is all it takes.
Do you have tests you can point to that clearly can be replicated to support your argument that because of the clouds a cell can be formed? If not than you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, ranting on about something without science backing you up, a theory is not proof, repeatable test results tells us what we know, NOT what could happen, that only tells us what you are hoping for it doesn't add to knowledge.
You prove my point too, hours of pure science and you get a hint of a notion that natural causes may not be enough, the whole thing now because religion. You have blinders on that will not allow you a hint of anything beyond your closed mind.
30 May 19
@kellyjay saidThe point is they posited NO Earthly process could have resulted in the billions of years of chemical experiments done by nature, not enough time could go by.
Do you hear yourself? I don't care that he may know about interstellar organic clouds, his topic wasn't interstellar organic clouds!
Do you have tests you can point to that clearly can be replicated to support your argument that because of the clouds a cell can be formed? If not than you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, ranting on about something without ...[text shortened]... e religion. You have blinders on that will not allow you a hint of anything beyond your closed mind.
They readily admit there ARE complex organics formed from natural processes but make the case not enough time for Earth to do that by itself. The argument isn't about whether organics can form, the argument is about whether there was enough time for such natural processes to have occurred on Earth for complex organics to have formed from natural energy and mineral processes.
The whole point of interstellar clouds is they short circuit all of that and DID in fact coat Earth with a thin layer of complex organics.
Don't take my word for it, I hope you trust BBC science:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984
This is exactly what I am talking about and those dudes knew that 100% for sure but did not bring it up because it would destroy their pet theory not enough time went by on Earth for complex molecules yet here is a source of such complexity already in our solar system and such molecules have also been found above the atmosphere of Titan.
They may not have known the latter but they sure as HELL knew about complex organics in interstellar clouds and those clouds for SURE hit our solar system.
I posit they did that deliberately so their agenda would seem to have more force and you can for sure say they had an agenda otherwise they would have written papers to be peer reviewed, which didn't happen, I am sure.
In other words, it was 3 hours of OPINION designed to further their religious agenda.
30 May 19
@sonhouse said"The hope is that amino acids will eventually be detected outside our Solar System. "That's what everyone would like to see," said Prof Griffin."
The point is they posited NO Earthly process could have resulted in the billions of years of chemical experiments done by nature, not enough time could go by.
They readily admit there ARE complex organics formed from natural processes but make the case not enough time for Earth to do that by itself. The argument isn't about whether organics can form, the argument is about ...[text shortened]... , I am sure.
In other words, it was 3 hours of OPINION designed to further their religious agenda.
Yes, repeatable tests, no so much! This is exactly what I was talking about, a just so story in the hopes of finding something reasonable for you buy into. This is not anything testable that can give us repeatable results that go against what was discussed in the video.
People are now grasping the complexity of what used to be thought of as a no brainer, not big deal life just started no need to think about. Today they are looking for any excuse to avoid the fact it cannot occur naturally, because the natural effects null the required results needed for life much to quickly.
30 May 19
@kellyjay saidAll of which goes to prove YOUR agenda, GODDIDIT. This should not be in a science forum. In a spiritual forum it makes sense.
"The hope is that amino acids will eventually be detected outside our Solar System. "That's what everyone would like to see," said Prof Griffin."
Yes, repeatable tests, no so much! This is exactly what I was talking about, a just so story in the hopes of finding something reasonable for you buy into. This is not anything testable that can give us repeatable results ...[text shortened]... ur naturally, because the natural effects null the required results needed for life much to quickly.