Re: Life: Turn it upside down!

On 17/04/2024 04:35, JTEM wrote:

  Arkalen wrote:
 

No. You're talking about abiogenesis. You're saying that it likely
occurred under the conditions you referenced. You introduced an
abiogenesis "hypothesis" that was centered on a proposed environment,
these conditions. Abiogenesis.

 

I talk about many things,

 Sadly, then, that right now you chose to talk about nothing.
 If you are now walking back your abiogenesis position, good.
Glad to see you do that.
 

I grant that a better technique would be to study that which exist,
instead of that which does not exist.

 

So that's a "no" then. Oh well.

 "No"... what? "No I won't run off on your tangent.
 Seriously, I do NOT want this to degraded into yet another
narcissism-fueled meltdown, not after you were doing so
good!
 My position is consistent. Go back to my initial post:  Unchanged
view.
 Sorry that consistency is so offensive.

The issue isn't your position, it's your inability to parse sentences for meaning and give answers that relate to that meaning. If your position is solid it should be able to survive an actual conversation where you temporarily allow the words of others to live in your head to see where they go. I won't say "if it can't survive that then you shouldn't hold it" because I agree that what we think of as "rational discussion" is less reliable than we think and people can absolutely be swayed from a correct position to a wrong one based on arguments that look convincing but shouldn't have been. But there are other ways of avoiding that fate; for example allowing ourselves to hold positions based on strong feeling and not just rational analysis. The issue is that once we're talking with someone then rules of logic and conversation come into play.
Well, all this conversation on abiogenesis has made me hungry, I'll go have a tuna sandwich. I think tuna sandwiches are delicious.
JTEM wrote:
"WRONG! Circular! Abiogenesis isn't delicious because abiogenesis didn't happen!"

 

"Assuming I am right, this is the right answer! And the right
answer is superior to all the others!"

 

Not "superior"; superior *in scope* (and

 Typical narcissist.
 

I appreciate that out of the looooong explanation/defense of my position I made that you snipped you still kept juuuuuuust enough to show my disagreement was valid. You could have snipped right after the second "superior" but didn't, bravo. (I assume you agree with all the rest as you have no objection to it)

 

This is a very odd thing to say. Because we have no explanation
for the origins of life, least of all one that has been
confirmed scientifically.
>
This is about what strikes you as good or not.

 

There is a big difference between an explanation we aren't sure is true, something that's a partial explanation and something that's not an explanation at all.

 Not that it'll help but, my point was about HOW we go about
exploring the origins of life. You advocate studying that
which does not exist and I advocate studying that which does
exist.

See, that specific sub-exchange for example was about whether panspermia is an explanation for the origin of life or not.

 

The alkaline hydrothermal vent hypothesis

 Oh who cares? Really. Even if one of these stabs in the dark
ever got it right -- scientists are able to spawn life from
non life under laboratory conditions -- it would simply be an
example of CREATIONISM.

Ah I see my questions about Gerald Hurst and the Todd Willingham case also went the way of the snip; I take it this "reproducing abiogenesis in the lab would prove creationism" claim isn't a claim you feel comfortable defending? If so you could just avoid making it.

 

is a partial explanation

 It's not an explanation at all.
 To pretend that it's half an explanation or 33% of an explanation
or even 5% of an explanation is a declaration of your beliefs,
not a statement of fact.

I think it's a pretty straightforward consequence of the features of the hypothesis and the meaning of the word "explanation" but I take it you disagree. How do you decide whether something is an explanation for another thing and to what extent?

 

All scientific experimentation can ever accomplish is to
establish that something MAY happen given specific,
measurable conditions. It doesn't mean that it ever
happened nor that those conditions ever existed.

>
Are you confused about the subject of conversation again?

 No, I actually began the discussion!  And I've remained
consistent while you have repeatedly denied your very own
words!
 We should change our focus, study those things that actually
exist, that we can study.
 

I could have a computer print out that very sentence a thousand times and it would be "consistent" too and it wouldn't be holding a conversation either, let alone convincing anyone the sentence is true or a good idea. It would be reaching to even describe that sentence *as* an idea in such a scenario, a random string of letters would yield the same behavior.