UFO's

[TomMcC]

That statement alone suggests this area science is not your lane. No one is "lying" nor has any scientist claimed they know, much less proved, how life on earth started. Again, they hypothesize how it may have taken place, minus any assumption God(s), higher powers, or extraterrestrials were involved, and over time have better models of what may have taken place. No one knows, nor does anyone claim to know, nor did anyone in my many science courses taken, text books read, lectures attended, etc, etc ever claim to know how life began on earth.

There's an approximate knowledge when life started, and a very good model for how it evolved over time, but how it started is unknown, and strictly theoretical at this time. Way more Qs then answers exist on that one.

Not sure why they needs to be repeated over and over here. And again, the shear numbers we are working with suggests it's mathematically improbable that life does not exist other than earth, and that's not disputed by anyone in the field really. To repeat, whether it's common or incredibly rare can't be ascertained currently as we have only one example to work with.

It's a shame this interesting thread is going in an utterly unnecessary direction that will see it locked soon.

One of the more prestigious publications discussing possible pathways by which life formed, not a one, making any claims at all it's conclusively understood and being clear as many Qs remain as answers:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-life-begin1/

Read the article, quite a yarn. Scientists believe seems to be the operative principle.sounds like faith in a hoped for process. Doesn't really tells us how this process could actually produce a mind boggling complex one cell organism.

[TomMcC]

Something else.

A secret, ok. Does it tell why you and aliens exist...what our purpose is?

[WillBrink]

Read the article, quite a yarn. Scientists believe seems to be the operative principle.sounds like faith in a hoped for process. Doesn't really tells us how this process could actually produce a mind boggling complex one cell organism.

That's the point. No is claiming they have the answers and calls of scientists "lying" about that is complete BS. No one claims to know, no one is lying, lots of Qs left to answer. There's a number of variations on the basic model as how it happened, and that's all we have at the moment. All science starts with question, then seeks to find evidence to answer the Q. So far, those are best hypothesis that exists and new aspects being learned all the time.

[LoboTBL]

Aliens and anal probes go together like peas and carrotts. IMHO, that's not a coincidence.

In all likelihood, they are trying to study our brains and on the basis of human behavior; they assume the anus is the most direct point of access.

[Doc Safari]

In all likelihood, they are trying to study our brains and on the basis of human behavior; they assume the anus is the most direct point of access.

And they are correct.

[Outlander Systems]

This thread needs more discussion with regards to the Flatwoods Monster.

[Adrenaline_6]

That's the point. No is claiming they have the answers and calls of scientists "lying" about that is complete BS. No one claims to know, no one is lying, lots of Qs left to answer. There's a number of variations on the basic model as how it happened, and that's all we have at the moment. All science starts with question, then seeks to find evidence to answer the Q. So far, those are best hypothesis that exists and new aspects being learned all the time.

The End.

Again, did you actually watch the video or are you critiquing it without doing so? His claims about lying is about actual articles published in major scientific journals about "origin of life" theories. Your right about hypothesis and a question, but after that it is proving the hypothesis. He explains with science on how unproven and faulty those hypotheses are with real science and chemistry. Your right it is not his field, his field is Chemistry which he knows a lot about which he shows in detail with chemistry how impossible this scenario is.

He says there are no major developments in the theory 60+ years. The fact that no one has ever made a molecule in a controlled environment much less an uncontrolled one. Sure, guys come up with new theories, but he explains that it is the same turd in a different wrapper with nothing new being explained and the same unexplained things that shut this theory down purposely ignored and left out in their research papers.

The article you linked critiques his knowledge of evolution. This video is about actual creation. The start. How a living molecule was formed from random chemicals swirling around in an uncontrolled environment. In other words "CHEMISTRY" which IS his field of expertise. Do me a favor and watch the damn thing. Process the sheer numbers and scenarios and improbability of the number of things needed to happen in sequence to even get a synthetic molecule to be formed much less a living one or go right back to square one and start all over with no notes and the equivalence of being zapped with a mind erase ray gun.

Yeah, but that can happen...ok.

[TomMcC]

That's the point. No is claiming they have the answers and calls of scientists "lying" about that is complete BS. No one claims to know, no one is lying, lots of Qs left to answer. There's a number of variations on the basic model as how it happened, and that's all we have at the moment. All science starts with question, then seeks to find evidence to answer the Q. So far, those are best hypothesis that exists and new aspects being learned all the time.

The End.

Excluding the problems with empiricism for a moment and the consequent problems with finding evidence for something that happened billions of years ago. "Belief" and "faith" are the stuff of religion. And since only the particular processes of abiogenesis not abiogenesis itself can be falsified...it doesn't sound like science but a belief system.

Not sure where the lying part comes in? I dont think I accused anyone of lying.

[WillBrink]

Again, did you actually watch the video or are you critiquing it without doing so? His claims about lying is about actual articles published in major scientific journals about "origin of life" theories. Your right about hypothesis and a question, but after that it is proving the hypothesis. He explains with science on how unproven and faulty those hypotheses are with real science and chemistry. Your right it is not his field, his field is Chemistry which he knows a lot about which he shows in detail with chemistry how impossible this scenario is.

He says there are no major developments in the theory 60+ years. The fact that no one has ever made a molecule in a controlled environment much less an uncontrolled one. Sure, guys come up with new theories, but he explains that it is the same turd in a different wrapper with nothing new being explained and the same unexplained things that shut this theory down purposely ignored and left out in their research papers.

The article you linked critiques his knowledge of evolution. This video is about actual creation. The start. How a living molecule was formed from random chemicals swirling around in an uncontrolled environment. In other words "CHEMISTRY" which IS his field of expertise. Do me a favor and watch the damn thing. Process the sheer numbers and scenarios and improbability of the number of things needed to happen in sequence to even get a synthetic molecule to be formed much less a living one or go right back to square one and start all over with no notes and the equivalence of being zapped with a mind erase ray gun.

Yeah, but that can happen...ok.

Again, you're out of your lane and so is he. He's an organic chemist, not a bio chemist, evolutionary biologist, etc. and article I supplied explains that as well as various points he's wrong. Nothing he said was in his lane, nadda. He's obviously a very smart man, and excellent at baffling with BS. His entire talk comes down to "it's so crazy complicated it could not have happened randomly cuz I can't figure it out" and that's it. 58 minutes of my life I can't get back. He added not a single point that alters anything at all. He throws out all manner of terminology to sound woke, most of which is completely irrelevant to the topic. Sounds like an organic chemist rambling on about his understandings of the topic, and that's exactly what you're getting in that vid. Babbling nonsense. No notes? WTF?

Only statement he makes that's accurate is "no one know how that happened" Guess what, no one is claiming they know.

Cognitive dissonance is a real mother f-er.

[Hmac]

A secret, ok. Does it tell why you and aliens exist...what our purpose is?

Yes it does, to my satisfaction.

I am absolutely positive that arguing ("debating" if you prefer) with a True Believer in any area of philosophy on the internet would be a completely pointless waste of my time.

I celebrate your faith and wish you well as it guides your life. I understand your very common desire to argue your point of view in trying to convince others that it's valid, but I'm really not interested in that discussion.



.