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

  Prologos: no that is ofcourse the belief, however if for instance rna or an internal metabolism was later adaptions as some suggest the early life could have been very different from modern life. 
• 
  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: Very ample, much panties, such wow, why so anger? Everything = misrepresentation, plz no, your knowledge such science, very good, forum great benefit, such honestly, intellectual, super geniusly, rewarding talk, wow. 

  
  

  

  
  
• 
  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: if abiogenesis is true, the early life was nothing like what we have today. Did you read the wikipedia page?
• 
  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.