> > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over the > > > place quibbling.
> > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today > > no more real than God is. > > Would you agree?"
> > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars religious > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > be proved."
> Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another happening > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must the > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of holes.
No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. "proof" is also a math concept.
The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have "proof" of.
> > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over > > > the > > > place quibbling.
> > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today > > no more real than God is. > > Would you agree?"
> > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > religious > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > be proved."
> Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > happening > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must > the > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > holes.
"No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. "proof" is also a math concept.
The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have "proof" of."
LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over > > > > the > > > > place quibbling.
> > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today > > > no more real than God is. > > > Would you agree?"
> > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > > religious > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > > be proved."
> > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > > happening > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must > > the > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > > holes.
> "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. > "proof" is also a math concept.
> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > "proof" of."
> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
> > > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it > happen, has not been > > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the > fundies will be all over > > > > > the > > > > > place quibbling.
> > > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of > faith. It is then as of today > > > > no more real than God is. > > > > Would you agree?"
> > > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the > surface of Mars > > > > religious > > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious > faith with common > > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > > "You describe a future event. I am describing an > event scientist > > > believed happen countless times in the past. > Theist believe God was > > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random > chance was. Neither can > > > be proved."
> > > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > > Here, can you accept that the probability of one > event or another > > > happening > > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is > rather nebulous, must > > > the > > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old > "you atheists are just as > > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning > and it is shot full of > > > holes.
> > "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical > concept of Probability. > > "proof" is also a math concept.
> > The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. > And that we all have > > "proof" of."
> > LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it > if you dare!
> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. > there you go.
> > > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over > > > > > the > > > > > place quibbling.
> > > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today > > > > no more real than God is. > > > > Would you agree?"
> > > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > > > religious > > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > > > be proved."
> > > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > > > happening > > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must > > > the > > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as > > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > > > holes.
> > "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. > > "proof" is also a math concept.
> > The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > > "proof" of."
> > LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
Nor has anyone duplicated a brontosaurus in a lab. Therefore the probability of a brontosaurus occurring is zero. (Unless of course the felt effect of gravity was smaller then)
> > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over > > > > the > > > > place quibbling.
> > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of > > > today > > > no more real than God is. > > > Would you agree?"
> > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > > religious > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > > be proved."
> > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > > happening > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must > > the > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just > > as > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > > holes.
> "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. > "proof" is also a math concept.
> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > "proof" of."
> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
"sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go."
On December 16, 1903, somebody somewhere said that "man will never fly." Don't bet against science.
> > > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over > > > > > the > > > > > place quibbling.
> > > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of > > > > today > > > > no more real than God is. > > > > Would you agree?"
> > > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > > > religious > > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > > > be proved."
> > > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > > > happening > > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must > > > the > > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just > > > as > > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > > > holes.
> > "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. > > "proof" is also a math concept.
> > The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > > "proof" of."
> > LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> "sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go."
> On December 16, 1903, somebody somewhere said that "man will never fly." > Don't bet against science.
> > > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all > > > > > over > > > > > the > > > > > place quibbling.
> > > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of > > > > today > > > > no more real than God is. > > > > Would you agree?"
> > > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > > > religious > > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > > > be proved."
> > > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > > > happening > > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, > > > must > > > the > > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are > > > just > > > as > > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > > > holes.
> > "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. > > "proof" is also a math concept.
> > The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > > "proof" of."
> > LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> "sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go."
> On December 16, 1903, somebody somewhere said that "man will never fly." > Don't bet against science.
> > > > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over > > > > > > the > > > > > > place quibbling.
> > > > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today > > > > > no more real than God is. > > > > > Would you agree?"
> > > > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > > > > religious > > > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > > > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > > > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > > > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > > > > be proved."
> > > > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > > > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > > > > happening > > > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must > > > > the > > > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as > > > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > > > > holes.
> > > "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. > > > "proof" is also a math concept.
> > > The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > > > "proof" of."
> > > LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> > sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
> Nor has anyone duplicated a brontosaurus in a lab. Therefore > the probability of a brontosaurus occurring is zero. > (Unless of course the felt effect of gravity was smaller > then)
> - William Hughes
Yeah those Brontosaurus Fossils were made with Play-Douh.
> > > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over > > > > > the > > > > > place quibbling.
> > > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today > > > > no more real than God is. > > > > Would you agree?"
> > > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > > > religious > > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > > > be proved."
> > > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > > > happening > > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must > > > the > > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as > > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > > > holes.
> > "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. > > "proof" is also a math concept.
> > The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > > "proof" of."
> > LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
Scientists have recreated the polio virus and the small pox virus. They can reliably reproduce these organisms in the laboratory from basic components. If viruses are living, then abiogenesis has occurred in the laboratory. You will now claim that a virus is not "alive." In any case, your claim can't be that abiogenesis is impossible since God presumably made abiogenesis come about. So, make a virus come into existence by breathing on some dirt.
> > > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been > > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
> > > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all > > > > > over > > > > > the > > > > > place quibbling.
> > > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of > > > > today > > > > no more real than God is. > > > > Would you agree?"
> > > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars > > > > religious > > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common > > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
> > > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist > > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was > > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can > > > be proved."
> > > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
> > > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another > > > happening > > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, > > > must > > > the > > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are > > > just as > > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of > > > holes.
> > "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability. > > "proof" is also a math concept.
> > The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > > "proof" of."
> > LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
"Scientists have recreated the polio virus and the small pox virus. They can reliably reproduce these organisms in the laboratory from basic components. If viruses are living, then abiogenesis has occurred in the laboratory. You will now claim that a virus is not "alive." In any case, your claim can't be that abiogenesis is impossible since God presumably made abiogenesis come about. So, make a virus come into existence by breathing on some dirt."
Happens all the time in the Flintstone Laboratories.
Dan Listermann wrote: > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: >>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have >>>> "proof" of." >>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! >>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. >> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be >> impossible.
> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be > observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever."
> Don't you mean "yet?"
More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
> Dan Listermann wrote: >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: >>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have >>>>> "proof" of." >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! >>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be >>> impossible.
>> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever."
>> Don't you mean "yet?"
> More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen. What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
Dan Listermann wrote: > "Tim Miller" <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > news:hdi8hf$k7k$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> Dan Listermann wrote: >>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: >>>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have >>>>>> "proof" of." >>>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! >>>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. >>>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be >>>> impossible. >>> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be >>> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever."
>>> Don't you mean "yet?" >> More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. >> It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or >> chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
> He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen. > What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
> > Dan Listermann wrote: > >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > >>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > >>>>> "proof" of." > >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! > >>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. > >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be > >>> impossible.
> >> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be > >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever."
> >> Don't you mean "yet?"
> > More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. > > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or > > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
> He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen. > What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith* that it will. you do have some strong *beliefs*
> > Dan Listermann wrote: > >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > >>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all > >>>>> have > >>>>> "proof" of." > >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! > >>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. > >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be > >>> impossible.
> >> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be > >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever."
> >> Don't you mean "yet?"
> > More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. > > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or > > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
> He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen. > What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
"Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith* that it will. you do have some strong *beliefs*"
First you must learn that you have assumed deities.
Then you need to learn the meaning of "yet."
Thirdly, you need to learn the difference between religious "faith" and common confidence.
> > > Dan Listermann wrote: > > >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > > >>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > > >>>>> "proof" of." > > >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! > > >>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. > > >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be > > >>> impossible.
> > >> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be > > >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever.
Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present presence of biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god or not.
> > >> Don't you mean "yet?"
> > > More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. > > > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or > > > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
> > He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen. > > What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
> Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not > been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith* > that it will.
\You implied that not having observed it makes its probability of ocorrurence equal to zero.
> you do have some strong *beliefs*
Nowhere nearly as strong, or as unfounded, as your own.
> > > > Dan Listermann wrote: > > > >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > > > >>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have > > > >>>>> "proof" of." > > > >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! > > > >>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. > > > >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be > > > >>> impossible.
> > > >> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be > > > >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever.
> Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present presence of > biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god > or not.
> > > >> Don't you mean "yet?"
> > > > More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. > > > > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or > > > > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
> > > He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen. > > > What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
> > Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not > > been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith* > > that it will.
> \You implied that not having observed it makes its probability of > ocorrurence equal to zero.
That is correct. This is a Math and science issue. please go and study Mathematical Probability 101.
> > > > Dan Listermann wrote: > > > >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > > > >>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we > > > >>>>> all have > > > >>>>> "proof" of." > > > >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! > > > >>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. > > > >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be > > > >>> impossible.
> > > >> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be > > > >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever.
> Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present presence of > biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god > or not.
> > > >> Don't you mean "yet?"
> > > > More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. > > > > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or > > > > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
> > > He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't > > > happen. > > > What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
> > Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not > > been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith* > > that it will.
> \You implied that not having observed it makes its probability of > ocorrurence equal to zero.
"That is correct. This is a Math and science issue. please go and study Mathematical Probability 101."
Until December 17, 1903, manned powered flight had never been observed too.
> > Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not > > been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith* > > that it will.
Virgil replied
> \You implied that not having observed it makes its probability of > ocorrurence equal to zero. >That is correct. This is a Math and science issue. >please go and study >Mathematical Probability 101.
Joseki, yours is an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantum). Given what we know of evolution, and given that all elements of organic life are contained in inorganic matter, and given the phenomenology of self assembly and self organization (which are, in fact, observed phenomena)the probability of abiogenesis occurring at least once in the history of biology is very close to unity (1.0).
>> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 12, 7:20 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: >>>> "Tim Miller" <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:hdi8hf$k7k$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> Dan Listermann wrote: >>>>>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:f3eeda51-777f-423f-960b-32ac2027af3f@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we >>>>>>>>> all have >>>>>>>>> "proof" of." >>>>>>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare! >>>>>>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go. >>>>>>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be >>>>>>> impossible. >>>>>> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be >>>>>> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever. >> Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present presence of >> biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god >> or not.
>>>>>> Don't you mean "yet?" >>>>> More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen. >>>>> It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or >>>>> chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would. >>>> He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't >>>> happen. >>>> What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect? >>> Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not >>> been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith* >>> that it will. >> \You implied that not having observed it makes its probability of >> ocorrurence equal to zero.
> "That is correct. This is a Math and science issue. please go and study > Mathematical Probability 101."
> Until December 17, 1903, manned powered flight had never been observed too.
His grasp of probability seems to be about as nonexistent as his grasp of the scientific method...
|
