Noah's Ark found?

[steve s]

Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious.

Holy cow. So if a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong is presented before you, you'll still refuse to change your mind? Amazing.

Steve S

 

[Vortigern99]

Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious.

With this statement you've revealed your unreasoning bias against the the standards of evidence and your misapprehension of the scientific method.

Independent corroboration, peer review and error analysis are required before any scientific paper's conclusions can be widely accepted. In some cases, these critical processes will falsify the paper's assertions to the extent that the scientists who wrote the paper are compelled by logic and reason to admit they were mistaken, and retract their claims.

The upshot of your quoted statemen, above, is that the scientists who wrote this demonstrably erroneous paper should defy all evidence to the contrary, stubbornly resist the demands of logic, and obstinately stick by their falsified claims -- all in an effort to save their "trust and credibility".

You, sir, are a dingbat.

 

[Radrook]

That is wrong.

People, in this case, scientists do not arbitrarily change their mind. The change the conclusions based on new evidence. If brand new evidence were to be found that humanity indeed originated from Mt. Arafat, then it would be investigated, and if factual, then that is what would be accepted.

I can't follow that modus operandi because I set myself up for future disappointment.


Similarly, religious people claim certainty when they interpret scripture differently. Prior interpretation were dogmatically upheld as pristine truth and anyone doubting it was suspect.

Since that is the name of the game-thanks, but I prefer to withhold my 100% trust for now in certain areas notorious for quick revision and sudden change. It's part of being a skeptic. Or the wiser part of intellectual valor-if you will.

About Ararat, I cannot accept your findings until I thoroughly investigate all the offered counter- arguments. If any of those arguments appears feasible-then I'll withhold judgment until irrefutable proof is produced.


Arafat was a Middle Eastern politician who fought for Palestinian homeland.

 

[Radrook]

Holy cow. So if a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong is presented before you, you'll still refuse to change your mind? Amazing.

Steve S

Didn't say that.

 

[Radrook]

With this statement you've revealed your unreasoning bias against the the standards of evidence and your misapprehension of the scientific method.

Independent corroboration, peer review and error analysis are required before any scientific paper's conclusions can be widely accepted. In some cases, these critical processes will falsify the paper's assertions to the extent that the scientists who wrote the paper are compelled by logic and reason to admit they were mistaken, and retract their claims.

The upshot of your quoted statemen, above, is that the scientists who wrote this demonstrably erroneous paper should defy all evidence to the contrary, stubbornly resist the demands of logic, and obstinately stick by their falsified claims -- all in an effort to save their "trust and credibility".

You, sir, are a dingbat.

Too many corroborations have proven to be hasty collusion. That's all I'm saying. You seem to be asking for blind faith in the certainty of fallible scientists. Sorry but that is unscientific.



BTW
If I'm a dingbat, based on your misunderstanding of my clear statements, then don't waste your time with me. Leave me to my dingbatness anbd live happily ever after with your unwavering trust in contemporary scientific claims.

 

[steve s]

Didn't say that.

"Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious. "

So you would change your mind, but you'd feel that your credibility had been weakened. Okay.

Steve S

 

[Radrook]

"Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious. "

So you would change your mind, but you'd feel that your credibility had been weakened. Okay.

Steve S

I can't stop you from misquoting or misunderstanding what I write or refusing to accept clarifications. Neither do I believe in wasting my time arguing against straw man tactics.

 

[Marduk]

. You seem to be asking for blind faith in the certainty of fallible scientists.

ahhh transference
that explains your inability to accept simple facts then
its a common symptom of Borderline personality disorder
you poor poor man, your loved ones must feel awful for you


Isn't it funny how those who claim to have faith more often than not actually have a mental disorder. religious mania of course being a common symptom for schizophrenia.

Ok everyone give up, he doesn't need facts and education, he needs medication


what radrook, you don't think theres anything wrong with you, another common symptom of mental disorders is a fear of accepting death for what it is and a belief that youre going to live forever, try to tell us that isn't a fair summation of your beliefs. Of course the real clincher about insanity is that those who suffer from it always believe that their behaviour is correct and its everyone else whos got things wrong. Thats you again isn't it

I can't stop you from misquoting or misunderstanding what I write or refusing to accept clarifications. Neither do I believe in wasting my time arguing against straw man tactics.

Yup thats just about the cherry on the proof cake right there, you made a statement, were questioned on it, changed the statement and pretended you hadn't said it, and all the time everyone here can see that you have succesfully deluded yourself into thinking thats reality.
Get some help, before they put you in the nuthouse. Its your only chance, thats of course if you arent actually logging in here from the nuthouse already

 

[Shalamar]

I can't follow that modus operandi because I set myself up for future disappointment.

Generally in the scientific field, it takes a while, and much study before something like that changes.

Similarly, religious people claim certainty when they interpret scripture differently. Prior interpretation were dogmatically upheld as pristine truth and anyone doubting it was suspect.

Happens all the time with religion. Look at the huge number of christian sects, each one claiming to be the only truth. However, interpreting scripture is generally based on opinion.

Since that is the name of the game-thanks, but I prefer to withhold my 100% trust for now in certain areas notorious for quick revision and sudden change. It's part of being a skeptic. Or the wiser part of intellectual valor-if you will.

About Ararat, I cannot accept your findings until I thoroughly investigate all the offered counter- arguments. If any of those arguments appears feasible-then I'll withhold judgment until irrefutable proof is produced.

Current evidence, based on tracking the maternal lineages of humanity through DNA, traces back to Africa, and southern Africa at that. It certainly isn't subject to 'quick revision', and the studies are generally available, but it helps to have a background in the field.

Arafat was a Middle Eastern politician who fought for Palestinian homeland.

So... Humanity isn't descended from him? Well.. I'm relieved..

^{yeah yeah... mistyped.}

 

[Radrook]

Generally in the scientific field, it takes a while, and much study before something like that changes.

In the meantime I prefer to withhold judgement.

Happens all the time with religion. Look at the huge number of christian sects, each one claiming to be the only truth. However, interpreting scripture is generally based on opinion.

They are similar in claiming certainty and requiring absolute trust.

Current evidence, based on tracking the maternal lineages of humanity through DNA, traces back to Africa, and southern Africa at that. It certainly isn't subject to 'quick revision', and the studies are generally available, but it helps to have a background in the field.

Sure it helps to know the current trends. They are guides to further investigation.

So... Humanity isn't descended from him? Well.. I'm relieved..

^{yeah yeah... mistyped.}

Sorry. Jumped the gun.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, I cannot. I made the notes from a number of texts and videos, some of which were library loans, the titles of which I stupidly declined to record.

However, I'm reasonably certain that all of the basics of that portion -- semi-permeable membranes, polymerization, osmotic pressure and lipid stealing -- derive from experiment and observation in the laboratory.

Probably a bit of fact-checking around teh intertoobz will yield the answers you're looking for. My work is done; it's your turn to corroborate and verify it!

The reason I asked is that in the past, I've searched for current knowledge of abiogenesis, and what has been actually observed is much less than what you presented. Of course, things change every year.

ETA: Speaking of things changing every year, after I left the forum page, I read this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

Not exactly spontaneous generation, but cool stuff. Even if somewhat frightening in its own way.

 

[154]

Nope, it is the absolute and most-distilled simple truth of the faith of the Faithless, even though they go to the greatest lengths to buttress it.

Could you give a rundown of which of these steps in the "Life" portion have been observed/recreated under laboratory conditions?

No, I cannot.

And for all of that great length of impressive obfuscation in verbosity above, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

 

[Vortigern99]

Too many corroborations have proven to be hasty collusion. That's all I'm saying.

The sentence "Too many corroborations have proven to be hasty collusion" is nonsensical. Either your word-choice or your grammar or both are ill-chosen and confusing. Please clarify what you mean before I can reply.

You seem to be asking for blind faith in the certainty of fallible scientists. Sorry but that is unscientific.

Blind faith? I'm advocating the validity of the scientific method, not of individual scientists. Our current understanding of abiogenesis, as I've outlined upthread, is based on solid science -- which means the conclusions and methodology have been peer-reviewed, error-analyzed and verified by a worldwide, independent community of experts in each of the related fields.

Can you remind me what your point was?

BTW
If I'm a dingbat, based on your misunderstanding of my clear statements, then don't waste your time with me. Leave me to my dingbatness anbd live happily ever after with your unwavering trust in contemporary scientific claims.

My putative "misunderstanding" consists in the following exchange:

Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious.

With this statement you've revealed your unreasoning bias against the the standards of evidence and your misapprehension of the scientific method.

Your quoted statement, above, is false; among scientists, trust and credibility are earned through intellectual honesty -- a position which sometimes includes admitting one's mistakes. Please explain in what way my opposition to your absurd claim constitutes a "misunderstanding".

And once again, my "unwavering trust" lies with the scientific method, not with contemporary claims or individual scientists. This is a key subtlety that you seem, in your ongoing and unfortunate "dingbatness", to miss entirely.

 

[Marduk]

And for all of that great length of impressive obfuscation in verbosity above, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

posts 1127 and 1128 were entirely for your benefit and your benefit alone 154, perhaps you should actually read them before you go asking questions that have already been answered in full and go showing everyone how very incapable you are of basic comprehension. Something is alive when it ceases to be inanimate. For instance your intellect has demonstrated no live function or ability to move, so is effectively dead whereas compared to the vast majority of members of this forum whos intellects are alive and animate.

 

[Complexity]

"Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious. "

So you would change your mind, but you'd feel that your credibility had been weakened. Okay.

Steve S

What credibility?

 

[Vortigern99]

And for all of that great length of impressive obfuscation in verbosity above, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

First, you're using the word "obfuscation" wrong. I'm clarifying matters, or at least attempting to do so, not to obfuscate them. Even if in your opinion I'm muddying the waters or writing unintelligibly, "obfuscation" implies intentionality, so it's the wrong word either way.

Second, the fatty acid vesicles I described were single-celled organisms; they ate, grew, contained information inherited by offspring, replicated, and evolved by mutation and natural selection. Life was a process that developed out of the observable forces of nature. Those single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms, and so on. (You can look this stuff up, you know. )

 

[154]

First, you're using the word "obfuscation" wrong. I'm clarifying matters, or at least attempting to do so, not to obfuscate them. Even if in your opinion I'm muddying the waters or writing unintelligibly, "obfuscation" implies intentionality, so it's the wrong word either way.

I know the word and its proper usage and I used it exactly as intended. Your clarification is typical of the "great lengths" I also included intentionally, again, in that reference. This misunderstanding is only because of our diametrically opposed positions.

Second, the fatty acid vesicles I described were single-celled organisms; they ate, grew, contained information inherited by offspring, replicated, and evolved by mutation and natural selection. Life was a process that developed out of the observable forces of nature. Those single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms, and so on. (You can look this stuff up, you know. )

Again, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

 

[154]

posts 1127 and 1128 were entirely for your benefit and your benefit alone 154, perhaps you should actually read them before you go asking questions that have already been answered in full and go showing everyone how very incapable you are of basic comprehension. Something is alive when it ceases to be inanimate. For instance your intellect has demonstrated no live function or ability to move, so is effectively dead whereas compared to the vast majority of members of this forum whos intellects are alive and animate.

Yeah... tell me after you can handle spelling and grammar.

Or, EinsteinMarduk, you tell me, in posts 1127 and 1128, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?
Impress me and demonstrate with your intellect instead of constant insults.

 

[Complexity]

Yeah... tell me after you can handle spelling and grammar.

Pot, kettle, black.

How sad that you are still trying to sell your insanity here.

What a way to waste a life.

 

[154]

Pot, kettle, black.
How sad that you are still trying to sell your insanity here.
What a way to waste a life.

Someone as constantly venomous can not be a happy person. I really have no desire to contribute to or compound your self-loathing. Between your childhood and your father, that's enough.