I was actually considering covering that on another thread. Can't today though. I'm sure you'll be anxiously awaiting...
Materialists
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
I was actually considering covering that on another thread. Can't today though. I'm sure you'll be anxiously awaiting...
Shoe,
Your not making an sense here at all.
SHOE:Again, the desperation of materialism is shown by the willingness of science to look toward panspermia.
Could you please explain to me why "panspermia" somehow
proves that materialism is desperate??
Panspermia clearly falls in the realm of materialism.
Its just yet ANOTHER materialist theory.
So what we have here, is materialists, searching down
a plausible materialist path, and you call this desperate?
Isnt that what scientists are supposed to do???
I dont get it. Please explain why this is ODD in any way
shape or form.
It seems perfectly valid for scientists/materialists and more
importantly, its what they SHOULD be doing. Exploring all
valid theories.
And yet, you label it desperate?
peace
axeman
Your not making an sense here at all.
SHOE:Again, the desperation of materialism is shown by the willingness of science to look toward panspermia.
Could you please explain to me why "panspermia" somehow
proves that materialism is desperate??
Panspermia clearly falls in the realm of materialism.
Its just yet ANOTHER materialist theory.
So what we have here, is materialists, searching down
a plausible materialist path, and you call this desperate?
Isnt that what scientists are supposed to do???
I dont get it. Please explain why this is ODD in any way
shape or form.
It seems perfectly valid for scientists/materialists and more
importantly, its what they SHOULD be doing. Exploring all
valid theories.
And yet, you label it desperate?
peace
axeman
Shoe
>Let's debate it then. I'm up for the challenge.
>I don't think you'll be ROFLAO by the end
>of the debate.
Well, after your "rearward projection" position earlier in the thread I'm not so sure. I lost a lot of faith in your ability to separate reality from fantasy in that one.
>But please pick which aspect of the
>debate you'd like to start with as it's
>a rather broad subject...
Ok, I'll pick an aspect...
You said:
>The origin of life research is dead ended...
Support it.
JB
>Let's debate it then. I'm up for the challenge.
>I don't think you'll be ROFLAO by the end
>of the debate.
Well, after your "rearward projection" position earlier in the thread I'm not so sure. I lost a lot of faith in your ability to separate reality from fantasy in that one.
>But please pick which aspect of the
>debate you'd like to start with as it's
>a rather broad subject...
Ok, I'll pick an aspect...
You said:
>The origin of life research is dead ended...
Support it.
JB
Panspermia is nothing but sci fi. Science has no explanation as to how microbes could travel intergallictically. It shows desperation pure and simple...
Be glad to: can't today though...
And notice that I modified my above thread.
Gotta run...
AAaaahhh.... I see now you have already back pedaled to
a safer position where the debate will simply be on the
"matter of degree".
Sorry Shoe.... but I dont think anyone is interested in
debating whether or not the search for the origin of
life is ended, somewhat ended, virtually ended, or completely ended,
since this is a matter of opinion.
But since YOU are the person now asserting that its
"virtually ended", you will have to provide OBJECTIVE,
VERIFIABLE statistics on the trend of research in this area.
But first... you must precisely define what you mean
by "virtually ended".
Does this mean that research has dwindled 90% for example?
Or 95%? How about 99%? Is THAT "virtually ended"???
In any case.... not worth debating, since I know you will not
produce any numbers to support your ambiguous fuzzy assertion
that you just back pedaled to.
This will end up being a big meaningless semantics battle
over what "virtually ended" means.
No thanks.
Take a REAL position, and we can debate it.
peace
axeman
a safer position where the debate will simply be on the
"matter of degree".
Sorry Shoe.... but I dont think anyone is interested in
debating whether or not the search for the origin of
life is ended, somewhat ended, virtually ended, or completely ended,
since this is a matter of opinion.
But since YOU are the person now asserting that its
"virtually ended", you will have to provide OBJECTIVE,
VERIFIABLE statistics on the trend of research in this area.
But first... you must precisely define what you mean
by "virtually ended".
Does this mean that research has dwindled 90% for example?
Or 95%? How about 99%? Is THAT "virtually ended"???
In any case.... not worth debating, since I know you will not
produce any numbers to support your ambiguous fuzzy assertion
that you just back pedaled to.
This will end up being a big meaningless semantics battle
over what "virtually ended" means.
No thanks.
Take a REAL position, and we can debate it.
peace
axeman
Panspermia seems like a very weak unsupported hypothesis at this point.
Kind like how all hypothesis's start out.
So according to YOUR rules, every single scientific fact and theory
at one time was purely desperation pure and simple when
they were first born as a hypothesis.
I guess ALL of science is desperate then.
Since it ALL started out as an unsupported hypothesis.
Interesting semantics game you play.
You have basically made "hypothesis" and "desperation" synonyms.
Bravo and whoopiieeee.
Further, it would be SILLY to assert that scientists are
attempting to use panspermia as an explaination for
the origin of life.
Since panspermia CANT EXPLAIN the origin of life.
It begs the question.... how did it come about on the foreign planet???!?!
Something stinks here Shoe.
peace
axeman
Kind like how all hypothesis's start out.
So according to YOUR rules, every single scientific fact and theory
at one time was purely desperation pure and simple when
they were first born as a hypothesis.
I guess ALL of science is desperate then.
Since it ALL started out as an unsupported hypothesis.
Interesting semantics game you play.
You have basically made "hypothesis" and "desperation" synonyms.
Bravo and whoopiieeee.
Further, it would be SILLY to assert that scientists are
attempting to use panspermia as an explaination for
the origin of life.
Since panspermia CANT EXPLAIN the origin of life.
It begs the question.... how did it come about on the foreign planet???!?!
Something stinks here Shoe.
peace
axeman
Axe:
>But since YOU are the person now asserting that
>its "virtually ended", you will have to provide
>OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE statistics on the trend of
>research in this area. But first... you must precisely
>define what you mean by "virtually ended".
>Does this mean that research has dwindled 90% for
>example? Or 95%? How about 99%? Is THAT "virtually
>ended"???
>In any case.... not worth debating, since I know
>you will not produce any numbers to support your
>ambiguous fuzzy assertion that you just back
>pedaled to.
I on the other hand, anxiously await the inverse forward projected, triple blind studied numbers that Shoe is about to provide to support the "virtually ended" assertion.
JB
>But since YOU are the person now asserting that
>its "virtually ended", you will have to provide
>OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE statistics on the trend of
>research in this area. But first... you must precisely
>define what you mean by "virtually ended".
>Does this mean that research has dwindled 90% for
>example? Or 95%? How about 99%? Is THAT "virtually
>ended"???
>In any case.... not worth debating, since I know
>you will not produce any numbers to support your
>ambiguous fuzzy assertion that you just back
>pedaled to.
I on the other hand, anxiously await the inverse forward projected, triple blind studied numbers that Shoe is about to provide to support the "virtually ended" assertion.
JB
