Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bohm

  EOM: My point is that if scientifically ALL possibilities must be looked at.
  

  Viviane:  Not even close. Not how science works. Before you jump into biology, take a class on basic scientific education first. Your grasp of science is woefully lacking.

  Bohm: In science today I would think that looking at all possibilities is exactly the sort of advice I think one should give to people. 
  Viviane: No one ever said "don't investigate"
  

  
  

  Hm. So let me get this straight. EOM, in your view, is "not even close" and has a "woefully lacking" view of science because he suggested we should "look" at all possibilities, whereas he should have said "investigate". 

  Pray tell how one should investigate all possibilities without looking at them?

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  prologos

  bohm. what I meant by energy was the achievement to accelerate Protons, the heavy stuff so close to the speed of light, in opposing streams, and then colliding 2 of them.  Since life did not start in a type 2 supernova, less energy would be involved to forge that first life molecule.
• 

  bohm

  prologos: true, however look at the rest of my comment.
• 

  Viviane

  Hm. So let me get this straight. EOM, in your view, is "not even close" and has a "woefully lacking" view of science because he suggested we should "look" at all possibilities, whereas he should have said "investigate".

  That's either an incredibly dishonest representation of what I wrote or an incredibly dumb one. Either way, not even close.

  Pray tell how one should investigate all possibilities without looking at them?

  I'm not advocating looking at all possibilities, no idea why you would ask me.I would, rather, advocate using the scientific method, namely, define a question, observe, gather data, devise a falsifiable hypothesis, reproducible steps, test it, publish results for others to test. Note that nowhere in the scientific method is there a line that says "investigate all possibilities".
  

  
  
• 

  EndofMysteries

  This is the problem - the "simple" explanation actually contains more complexity and moving parts ... to make fire we now need spaces travel to be invented instead of someone just having a good idea one day.
  It all seems to be a desperate attempt to deny any scientific explanation and simply cling to the idea that involves there being a god. Specifically, the god that the proponent of the explanation happens to believe in. Yeah, not one of those other fake gods. Splittahs!!
  I don't think the "theist method" is as credible as the "scientific method" 

  I am not saying that either either scientific OR theist. Unless one proves to be absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt indisputable, then BOTH should be considered. Just because it's possible we were created whether a spirit supernatural God or another biological advanced life form doesn't mean you stop everything and that's the answer.  On the other end of the spectrum, it shouldn't be that all scientific research and study must assume we appeared out of nowhere, that may result in not doing research and study that could answer questions if we are the product of another life. Both are open, both should be on the table. 
• 

  Viviane

  Unless one proves to be absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt indisputable, then BOTH should be considered.

  Sorry, not how it works.

  On the other end of the spectrum, it shouldn't be that all scientific research and study must assume we appeared out of nowhere, that may result in not doing research and study that could answer questions if we are the product of another life. Both are open, both should be on the table.

  Not how it works. Follow the evidence. Zero evidence for spirits and gods, tons for naturalistic processes.

  Every mystery ever solved turned out to NOT have magic as the answer.
  
• 

  bohm

  Viviane: Okay, according to you, a person who wish to look at all possibilities to explain a phenomena has a woefully lacking view of science. 

  I wonder how the phrase "generous interpretation" fit into how you believe we should evaluate other ideas lol.
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane: Okay, according to you, a person who wish to look at all possibilities to explain a phenomena has a woefully lacking view of science.

  That's also either a dishonest or dumb representation of what I wrote and not even close to anything I've said.

  I wonder how the phrase "generous interpretation" fit into how you believe we should evaluate other ideas lol.

  Well, in this specific case, I am giving you a generous interpretation and assuming that you simply don't understand what I write when you incorrectly regurgitate it instead of actively lying.
  
• 

  bohm

  EOM: My point is that if scientifically ALL possibilities must be looked at.
  

  Viviane:  Not even close. Not how science works. Before you jump into biology, take a class on basic scientific education first. Your grasp of science is woefully lacking.

  Bohm: Okay, according to you, a person who wish to look at all possibilities to explain a phenomena has a woefully lacking view of science.

  Viviane: That's also either a dishonest or dumb representation of what I wrote and not even close to anything I've said.

  
  

  Lol, how woefully lacking of me! You ought to consider humpty dumpty as your avatar. 
• 

  Viviane

  Lol, how woefully lacking of me! You ought to consider humpty dumpty as your avatar.

  Yes, it is woefully lacking of you. Or dishonest. Let's break it down like a fraction for you.

  EOM: To be scientific, one my look at ALL possibilities.

  V: Not how science works.

  Bohm: One MAY look at all possibilities, therefore Viv is wrong.

  Viv: Not what I said.

  Bohm: So you're saying some other ridiculous thing you didn't say Viv?

  V: No.

  Bohm: Insults! Wharrggrrble derp pudding!!!