Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "You've been happily redefining your question on the fly to make it more diffic" 10
You've been happily redefining your question on the fly to make it more difficult to answer.
I've done nothing of the sort.
I've pointed out that, for all of the sweeping, dogmatic assertions that you have offered, human knowledge is far from complete. You can no more offer a repeatable experiment going from inorganic chemistry to self-replicating life than you can state the precise age of the universe, or what occurred before T-nought.
Therefore, we can be humble, rather than go around warlording as though we were so much wiser than is actually the case.
Let's watch you move the goalposts (Score:2)
Instead you doubled down on your original vague question [slashdot.org] and tried to insist that if you repeated it, that it would somehow cease to be vague. Eventually after I linked to a repea [slashdot.org]
It's the same question. (Score:2)
It's all right in front of your face.
You've shown some (admittedly) elaborate dots, but we still lack a reproducible experiment along the lines of:
1. Start with inorganic chemistry
2. [Steps go here]
3. Arrive at Biochemistry, i.e. self-reproducing life.
Fuss and prance and fume and accuse all you like, but none of those pyrotechnics constitute Step #2 above.
Nor do I have confidence (as stated in the thread) that your hubris will ever produce Step #2.
I'm certainly not the Almighty; such a
Re: (Score:1)
We can't reproduce photosynthesis either, I guess that means it doesn't exist also. It is true, you are clearly being as obtuse with him as you are with me.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't reproduce photosynthesis either, I guess that means it doesn't exist also
Which was not my question. What I'm after here is the admission that we can't reproduce photosynthesis, any more than any religious person can offer a mathematical proof of their Ultimate Concern.
It is true, you are clearly being as obtuse with him as you are with me.
I'm far too humble to compare my paltry efforts at obtuseness with your Olympic Gold Medal efforts in that regard, sir.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, see, we can prove the process of photosynthesis, and we can show the process of certain elements organizing themselves to reproduce. Despite that you are conditioned to deny what is there and assume divine providence, so maybe it can't be helped
Re: (Score:2)
we can prove the process of photosynthesis
Which is still not the point I'm after. To reiterate:
we can't reproduce photosynthesis
...by which I mean, showing the development in a reproducible experiment that goes from the periodic table of elements, through the (presumably myriad) intermediate stages of development by which one would arrive at a plant conducting photosynthesis.
There are two things one cannot extract, and three things seem existentially impossible:
1. A reproducible experiment from damn_registrars: "You're moving the goalposts."
2. A coherent epistemology from you:
Re: (Score:1)
Everything has been explained. You deliberately don't want to see. Kinda defines obtuse. You are assuming divine intervention for things we just can't do yet. You are replaying the "man will never fly" routine
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate that you want to be let off the hook.
You do yourself no favors when you pretend to know my feelings.
1. Start with inorganic chemistry
There is a very important clarification that needs to be made here. I'm going to give you a free pass on the mistake you just made on this one as I know you have studied very little (if any) college level chemistry, but nonetheless I need to clarify something here so that we can at least use the same vocabulary.
Organic chemistry is casually described as being "chemistry of life", but it functionally is concerned with chemical processes that
Re: (Score:2)
You're also - at least at the moment - oversimplifying life.
Whereas you are not?
There is abundant evidence of our planet being populated for millions upon millions of years by life that was vastly different from what we are now. Furthermore the primordial soup did not happen with an intent to produce homo sapiens, but a collection of events happened that brought us about.
Now we're getting somewhere. We can be honest that "a collection of events" happened, and that four-word phrase is about all we know with precision. I'm done. That's all I needed to hear.
Your expectation of a single "step 2", ah-hah type moment is naive at best.
Absolutely. Nolo contendere. There has, at no point. been any "religious bias is giving [me] blinders to the fact that life has not always been as complicated as it is today". As somebody famous once said, "You do yourself no favors when you pretend to know my feelings."
The point I want submit, and I
Re: (Score:2)
There has, at no point. been any "religious bias is giving [me] blinders to the fact that life has not always been as complicated as it is today".
You are very clearly trying to insert God in to this. You believe in a creator, and that's your choice. You cannot provide proof of your creator, aside from pointing out things you don't understand.
I just returned from a week-long vacation in Alaska. You may know that Alaska is one of the most seismically active areas on Earth. While it's been decades since their last devastating earthquake, there are detectable earthquakes there on a daily basis. I bring this up because when the Old Testament was