bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Viv: next time you want to point out something dishonest i wrote i suggest you do so with an actual quote then lol.

  why are you so hostile?
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Who is this bohm character whom you argue with? It cannot be me since i did not say those things you attribute to him lol.
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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. 
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  prologos: true, however look at the rest of my comment.
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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?

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  prologos: It depends a bit on what you mean by energy. The energy involved in the actual collision events at CERN is actually quite miniscule (I have heard it is comparable to two mosquito's colliding heads on), however since it is concentrated on two particles it create a region with relatively high energy density. 

  Now, the misunderstanding is that energy == complexity. You are really comparing two very different physical systems and two very different goals. At CERN, scientists was trying to check out the predictions of a very specific set of laws, namely the standard model in particle physics. In other words they knew what to do and what to expect, provided the law was correct. The experiment was still very complicated at the end of the day, but that was mainly because it involved a great deal of engineering. 

  With life it is the case (1) we don't know what to look for (2) we don't know which building blocks we have available (3) we don't know what the building blocks we have available might do (in details).

  All of these conditions are very different than what happened at CERN. So while it might be the case any specific experiment is relatively inexpensive to carry out compare to the LHC, we don't know which experiments are relevant. 

  It is like given a person in the 1850s a hanger full of all sorts of modern electronics and mechanical stuff and ask him if he can somehow assemble some of these bits to something that can fly really quick; he don't know what pieces to put together, what the various pieces might do or that he should build a jet engine.

  Telling him the energy involved in putting the stuff together is relatively small compared to a bonfire is properly not very helpful to him.

  I suggest you read the wikipedia page on abiogenesis.  
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  prologos: Why should it be easier to figure out what could/did happen on the early earth 4 billion years ago than to find the Higgs boson?

  
  
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  prologos: There are quite significant differences between the work at CERN and abiogenesis, primarily that at CERN they have a fixed theory to work with (the standard model of particle physics) which operate with a small(ish) number of entities according to fixed laws. With abiogenesis, you got all of biochemistry, most which has not yet been discovered (no standard model), you don't know what simple life could be (compare to look for the higgs boson) and you don't have a fixed environment since we don't know the geological and chemical makeup of early earth very well (compare to the controlled environment in a collider). 

  You could make the same argument for any old crime: hey, if they can find the amplitude of the Higgs field, why can't they figure out who killed ms. Jones?
• 
  69

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

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

  just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

  for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  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.

  In order to look at all possibilities, you must consider an infinite number of combinations, for instance, that a rhino made of pigs is responsible for creation, or that drywall spackle is, or that life sprang from nothing with no cause, or that life came from a collision of an ice cream truck and a comet while having lunch in the core of a neutron star.

  In practice, the possibilities are often grouped, as are the examples EOM gave. For instance you have a group of theistic explanations, a group of explanations involving life originating on earth, a group of explanations with life originating elsewhere in the universe, etc. Now, it is possible to conjure up an (for all purposes) infinite way of counting these explanations in a number of trivial ways, for instance you can think of life originating an infinite number of places on earth or the infinite possible values of the gravitational constant, however this is clearly not the practical problem of science as these different ways are in practice very often neatly grouped. 

  In the history of science the to-many-explanations-to-consider problem has very rarely surfaced. For instance before Einstein there was not 100 different physical ideas of coordinate invariance in inertial systems but one, Galilean invariance. With Einstein (well, Lorentz, depending on how you look at things) there was two, Galilean invariance and Lorentz invariance and it was quickly apparent which was the better. Or take the shape of the earth. I can think of a grand total of three ideas in the history of science, cylindrical, flat and round.

  In science today I would think that looking at all possibilities is exactly the sort of advice I think one should give to people. To negate the statement one end up with the suggestion that one should not look at some possibilities; however if we are really to take this suggestion seriously, we cannot decide to look or not to look at a possibility by investigating it's properties, because that would exactly require us to look at it in the first place. The advice would then seem to boil down to randomly selecting some ideas over other to look at; i think that exactly characterizes the opposite of being scientific.