For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You mean as similar to your own empty claim about rewriting quantum weirdness and such?
    You may not like my general stance in support of mainstream, but as of today, no extraordinary findings contradicting mainstream, by any outside of mainstream has ever come about on this forum, and in general, is in near all cases, that situation also exists outside.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Plus of course this empty meaningless philosophical take you appear laden with with regards to the laws of physics and the Universe and free will.
    Do you ever listen to anyone?

    You need to heed your own words.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Skepticism is nejther ignorant or prejudiced and in this case Russ was right.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    As the chemistry is above my knowledge, I accept everything that is written in the article as "verifiably true". But the entire article is a description of how Nature works in the real world and can eventually be demonstrated. Nowhere do any of the experiments invoke an unidentifiable but absolutely necessary intervention by a sentient metaphysical actor.

    I was expecting a conclusion which proved Creationism, but alas, everything seems to function by natural means, given the proper environment.

    So, personally, I'll take the article as proof that the building materials for life can emerge spontaneously under the proper conditions and no Divine intervention is required to "kickstart" this entire process.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Sure I get it!
    You agree in the common sense logic that Evolution and Abiogenesis are near fact.
    In fact in my opinion, we have no other alternative scientific hypothesis to rival them.
    But then you seem to want some definitive answer re the laws of the Universe and free will, which I have answered anyway, and you just seem to not want to accept that answer.
    That's OK too. :shrug:

    And please do not take as insults your own words when someone throws them back at you.
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    No it isn't. You're muddying the waters by mixing the reaction with the consequemces of the reaction. The reaction to the source is justified skepticism of its veracity.
    The consequence of that reaction is the decision not to expose ones self to material of questionable veracity. It's a judgement that every individual makes every day of their lives.
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    talk about what?
    the OMFG creationist site about chirality?
    actually i wanted trippys opinion about what was presented.
    trust me, i fully understand that a lot that is presented on creationist sites MUST be regarded with scepticism.
    yes, don't we all?
    argument about what?
    the only real reason i started participating in the thread was because of what i found in "science".
    and i still do not consider the matter closed.
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    And I've given it to you twice, in varying degrees. You have yet to respond to it and seem intent on peddling the same lie in lieu of reading or addressing what was actually said.
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the reason for my comment is because i got them both in my inbox.
    if you reversed it then cool.
    i share your concerns in this regard, i honestly do.
    on the other hand, any honest debate or argument must consider all of the evidence.
    even evidence of questionable sources, as long as it's labeled as such.
    i feel what was presented was legit because it included the references.
  13. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    About whatever it is you are talking about. Is there any point you would like to make or question you would like to pose? If not, then I have a question for you: - if your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make it do anything different than what it was already going to do by itself anyway?
  14. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    I have no idea why would you expect of me to give a link about anything else but hard scientific facts.

    Of course, just as I've been saying all along. I never even spoke about any gods or divine intervention, only about meteorites and alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Sorry for butting in, but the subject and its implications of how the human mind functions fascinates me. Actually my remarks were directed in general and not meant as a direct response to your posits, even as I quoted from your posts.

    Actually we do have shape shifting aliens among us. Just another example of the near infinite creative powers of this universe and the remarkable ability of the earth to support a wide variety of life.
  16. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Oh yeah, mamma mia! But we've seen nothing yet.

    By the way, I couldn't see that movie in my region, so instead I watched this:

  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i have no intention of discussing creationism in this thread.
    you need to start a thread in philosophy.
  18. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Write4U, I Posted a Link to another article, in my Post #572, on Page 79 of this Thread :

    The article related to the "discovery" of Boron in Martian clay, the article can be read at this Link :

    I Posted some excerpts from the article, which seemed to coincide, more or less, with what the article that you Posted pointed out.
    That there is every possibility that "life" may just be a completely "Natural" inherent property of the Universe.
    The article is referenced to the Paper : "Boron Enrichment in Martian Clay", which can be read, in its entirety at the following Link :

    Write4U, I too, accept that there is absolutely no need to invoke any "Deity" of any kind to "kickstart" this entire process.
    I also accept that there is no need to invoke any single, and I repeat single, "Event" to "kickstart" the entire process.

    I remain open to the possibility that the reality of the Universe, may also inextricably be the reality of Life.
    In other words, you cannot have one without the other, so to speak.
    Again, I remain open to the possibility - and I repeat - the possibility!!

    BTW, I am not a "theist" in any way, shape or form, nor am I "anti -" anything!
    I do however have an acute cognitive allergy to intentional ignorance in any form.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Great! Life from non life, or Abiogenesis.
    Again I agree with dmoe..
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yep, that's the one I linked to above. A distant relative to slugs. Remarkable.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And which then further supports my thoughts that manned exploration [as well as robotic] should be undertaken and continued on Mars, and even further afield.
    Thoughts have been expressed [NASA or was it Seth Shostak] that we will have evidence of life off Earth within 20 years.
    Further, that continued effort should be an International one, and not just NASA and the US.
    We need to make this a human challenge and of course we also need to shut up those that love to push those two variables, economics and Politics, as opposition to such endeavours.

    If this could happen in my lifetime, I would be happy as a "Pig in shit"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I wonder if we'll find similar in the Oceans of Europa?
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    It's fine to say life descended from the matter and energy that condensed out of the Big Bang, but the reverse can't be true.

Share This Page