Here’s the crux of this disagreement between us, this will expose your insincerity:
Please list any people you are aware of, who you regard as a reputable authority on prebiotic chemistry yet also regards abiogenesis as untenable.
I think this will be an empty list. Because the way you look at things is that only someone who regards abiogenesis as viable can comment on the viability of abiogenesis.
This whole smoke and mirrors about “but he’s not a prebiotic chemist” is nothing more than an effort to imply that the only people who can speak about abiogenesis are those who believe in abiogenesis.
Just a tarted up argument from authority, not science but dogma, but I’ll try to remain open minded, perhaps, just perhaps, you’ll be honest and the list of names won’t be empty.
Bullshit. Oh wait, how many scientific papers from that discipline have I presented here?
Stop lying.
It isn’t a “fact”, it’s more made up shit on your part.
Except that those “human terms” describe well defined chemical reactions, that have been documented in those scientific papers that you keep Dismissing In Cavalier Fashion™ , because you dare not read their contents.
Bullshit. The chemistry of carbon compounds clearly exists. Drop the apologetic faeces.
Oh, you think carbon chemistry isn’t a valid subject in its own right? The world’s organic chemists will snort with derision at this suggestion.
More apologetic duplicity. Do you expect uniformed comments by a builder to constitute a critique of pure mathematics?
Except when those “errors” are plainly nonexistent, pointing this out is perfectly valid, as I’ve done above.
Stop lying. Pointing out relevant scientific facts isn’t “contrived argumentation”, unlike your ex recto apologetic fabrications.
Total and utter bollocks. What part of “experimental verification of relevant postulates” are you going to keep pretending I’ve never mentioned as being contained in those papers you keep Dismissing In Cavalier Fashion™ ???
Of course, you’re never going to dare read any of those papers, because they’ll show up your Contrived Argumentation™ if you do.
Stop lying. Once again, you’ve never dared to read any of the papers I’ve brought here, or the experimental results documented therein. The only one relying on “fallacies” here is you.
Hypocritical projection.
You mean the way YOU relied on Tour and Cronin’s credentials? And lapped up their specious pseudo-objections because it suited your duplicitous apologetic modus operandi? While Dismissing In Cavalier Fashion™ the hard experimental data contained in those papers I’ve brought here?
Hypocrite.
You mean, the manner in which the experimental results in those papers I’ve brought here support the relevant postulates? Which you keep Dismissing In Cavalier Fashion™ because they destroy your duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications?
Lie. What part of “experimental verification of postulates” do you keep pretending I never mentioned, and keep Dismissing In Cavalier Fashion™ ???
Once again, do you think someone untrained in a relevant discipline is qualified to critique the output of that discipline? Or someone who hasn’t bothered to check the output of those who are? Only this is a perverse view of discourse.
Except that prebiotic chemists don’t “presume” that the relevant result is achievable, this is another of your infantile and bare faced lies. Once again, what part of “experimental verification of postulates” do you keep pretending I never mentioned, and keep Dismissing in Cavalier Fashion™ ???
Oh look, it’s the fake attempt to misrepresent the science as “dogma” by a manifest dogmatist. Stop lying.
There’s a difference between honest appraisal of the relevant documented experiments (which you keep mendaciously avoiding addressing) and fabricating duplicitous ex recto apologetics.
Total and utter bullshit.
Galileo was persecuted because he refused to submit to doctrine. I question people who peddle manifest and demonstrable lies. Such as the lies you’re peddling here.
More lies.
I’ve spent fourteen years reading the relevant literature, literature you won’t dare even acknowledge the existence of, and continue Dismissing In Cavalier Fashion™ because you’re scared of having your bubble burst.
Bullshit.
You’re not engaging in “open, reasoned discourse”, you’re stormtrooping for known and manifest lies.
And he’s never heard of you. So fucking what?
Meanwhile, let’s see what more manifest and blatant lies you’re peddling, shall we?
Lying straight out of the gate. Quelle surprise.
Again, bullshit. Instead, I’ve requested repeatedly that you actually READ the papers I’ve presented here, and learn that those papers DOCUMENT DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST AND VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT POSTULATES, an exercise you’ve repeatedly run away from.
Another lie. Oh wait, several of the people here who aren’t experts in the field, have performed the task you’re running away from, and read the contents of the papers I’ve presented here, and upon doing so, determined for themselves that I’m presenting facts, and doing so reliably.
The only smoke and mirrors on display here is your sleazy apologetics.
Bullshit.
What I contend, is that anyone who wishes to critique a discipline, should exert at least a basic minimum effort to familiarise themselves with the postulates of that discipline, and the evidence presented therein to support said postulates. But I’m used to seeing you lie about this.
Bullshit and lies. Once again, what part of “learn what experimental test of postulates is presented in the papers in question” do you keep pretending I never stated? Stop lying.
Bullshit. once again, what part of “direct experimental test and verification of relevant postulates” do you keep pretending I never mentioned? Stop lying.
Seeing you lecture me on honesty, after all the blatant lies you’ve posted about me and the scientific research I’ve brought here, really is hypocrisy and chutzpah on a grand scale.
On the basis of your repeated lies and cant, not to mention your blatant and manifest hypocrisy, I now regard you as a disgusting piece of work. You manifestly wouldn’t recognise open and honest discourse if it backed an M1 Abrams main battle tank into your ribcage. You’re a manifest, exposed liar.
So you’re saying life doesn’t exist? I have to say I am dubious, I also know natural phenomena are possible, so before I can believe your risible claim ruling out any as yet undiscovered natural explanation, you will need to offer sufficient objective evidence that supernatural causation is even possible, and then your work will of course all be before you.
FYI your argument is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is by far the most used logical fallacy by religious apologists I have encountered. Then again religion is and always has been an appeal to mystery, and the claim a deity dd anything has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
James Tour pseudoscientific claims about creationism are well known and well debunked by the way. I do hope you try to cite his credentials though, I dare you.
Oh your god, you did it…well I did warn you…
Hmm, I am going to need an irony meter, you just broke mine.
Kapow, and the hits just keep on coming…odd how credentials only seem to matter to you when they belong to someone you want to use an appeal to authority fallacy.
#FYI not knowing or being unable to explain, how life first emerged doe not evidence any deity or anything supernatural. That unevidenced assumption is not scientific at all, it’s not even a sound rational argument.
They are contradictory claims, stand by them alternately if you want, the hypocrisy is as manifest as the risible bias.
Ah the old appeal to authority, propped up with a straw man by oversimplifying the position of others. I don’t regard credentials alone as sufficient, as that would be an appeal to authority fallacy, like the one you used when you touted creationist espousing inexplicable magic, but with credentials in science. You also described someone as “a fake professor” which is breathtaking hypocrisy since you also claimed credentials are unimportant?
So what, I have met plenty of bat shit crazy atheists, espousing insane nonsense. Not that I am suggesting this to be the case here just for clarity. Merely pointing out that I attach no credence to any assertions or ideas based on whether someone believes in a deity.
Even assuming this is true, and I am not, not being to explain how something happened, is not an open door for unevidenced superstition. So this overused tired old canard based an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is not going to get any traction. I shall let @Calilasseia deal with the scientific claims, as he is busy tearing you a new one already.
No, but I’m incline to accept that they are elite experts in the field they received the award for, rather than making an appeal to authority fallacy here as you are doing by citing the subjective religious beliefs one “scientist”, based on the fallacy of using unevidenced assumption a deity did stuff using magic, because we don’t currently have an explanation for something. On that basis we’d still think earthquakes, tsunamis and lightning were supernatural events from an angry deity.
I am getting tired of pointing out that not having an explanation, is not an open door for unevidenced superstition, it is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
What do you imagine peer reviewed means?
Brilliant, I have never seen a creationist appeal to authority so neatly slam dunked.
Why would anyone assume we are supposed to believe this? The criteria we set for personal belief is not mandated by anyone or anything.
Life exists.
Natural phenomena exist.
The only assumptions I see are when we add things to those two facts that we can’t evidence, until we understand how life emerged I am content to disbelieve unevidenced assumptions that violate Occam’s razor, and wait for science to go about its business.
I suggest you clean your spectacles sir, saying X is a label for something is not saying that thing isn’t a valid subject.
Let me cut to the chase then since you seem to be struggling here. Your position that Cronin and Tour are not “prebiotic chemists” is a thinly veiled variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
The prebiotic chemist regards abiogenesis as feasible so your insistence that those who are not prebiotic chemists are unqualified to comment amounts to nothing more than only those who believe abiogenesis is feasible are qualified to speak about abiogenesis which clearly means it is beyond criticism.
This is dogma, nothing more and certainly not science which thrives on open discourse where arguments stand or fall on their merits or want thereof, not on the beliefs of those making them.
You also pretended not to notice my direct clear question above @Calilasseia if you understand the question then do me the courtesy of answering it, if you do not understand it just say so.
My apologies you did respond but refused to answer it, I wonder why. ! Of course we both know why, it’s because you want to pretend there’s no professional dissent as to the viability of abiogenesis, the only people “qualified” (which is simply your opinion as well) are those who already advocate for its feasibility.
Which part of Chomsky’s remark did you not understand?
Do you agree with Chomsky here or not?
My friend science includes the discipline of logic, how you have fooled so many here for so long is a mystery to me.
Absolutely anyone can comment on whatever they like. You, for instance, have done a lot of that, with your qualifications completely hidden by your choice, since, as you’ve said they don’t matter. All that being said, there is, imo, a range of reliability to a person’s comments based on their level of knowledge of a specific subject. Someone who has obtained an education in, and studied a specific area of, for instance, chemistry, is likely more reliable than one who has go on an entirely different area of it. But you seem to disagree. How handy for you.
This should be true but often is not. If the definition of “qualified” means those who accept thesis X then by definition nobody who disputes thesis X can ever be qualified to do so. It’s called the No True Scottsman fallacy and rather than defending such fallacious posts you should be more critical of them.
Nor do you care if curious young minds stumble upon this discussion and encounter inexcusable foul language. At least those young minds will see for themselves the true colors some atheists have.
The word fuck is not, imo, foul. It needs no excuse. I think it’s a great word. Foul language, so far as I’m concerned, includes words used to bully or belittle, bigotry words, words used to indoctrinate, those used to induce undue fear or hate, etc. These are the words that hurt young minds.
And yes, I hope young people do stumble on this site. It might help them avoid years of the confusion, fear, and ignorance associated with so much religion.
I’m from Liverpool, Toxteth in fact and can very likely out curse you and everyone else in this forum. I to curse at times and could give you lessons (seriously).
But not in front of the children eh? If someone came to your home and used the f-word in front of your young children you’d be applauding that I guess?
We’re presumably adults and can converse in such a way that anyone, even a young person, can look at what we say without having to see cursing, let them be children. Young minds not yet indoctrinated by either theist or atheist should be able to visit sites like this and see for themselves what is said, cursing as you do does not strengthen your case.
Ah, more apologetic duplicity in the in tray in need of disinfecting …
No, I did’t “pretend not to notice” your dishonest question, I simply don’t consider it worthwhile to rise to mendacious bait. Which is all you’re presenting with that purported “question”.
On the other hand, i’ve asked you repeatedly to acknowledge a demonstrable fact, namely that the papers I’ve presented from the prebiotic chemistry literature, document hard experimental evidence for the postulates presented by the authors. A question you’ve evaded in mendacious fashion because addressing it would be lethal to your prejudices.
Speaking of prejudices, have you ever READ any of Szostak’s or Sutherland’s papers? Or did you simply accept uncritically assertions about those papers from sources of questionable reliability, because they were consonant with your prejudices? I’m willing to bet the latter is the case.
Lies once more.
The apposite part of Chomsky’s statement that you thought I wouldn’t notice, is this one:
Unlike you, Chomsky also possesses the intellectual honesty to admit when someone has found an error in his work. But that’s another part you were hoping I wouldn’t notice when peddling your apologetics.
Indeed, my entire thrust on the matter of prebiotic chemistry, has been that the authors of the papers emanating from that discipline have documented in said papers, hard experimental evidence demonstrating that the chemical reactions in question WORK, a point you keep mendaciously avoiding.
So spare me your synthetic pretence at being “offended” by my dismissal of your garbage.
Bullshit. Another of your lies.
Funny how people who have actually conducted experiments in this field, as opposed to pedlars of armchair apologetics, have no trouble accepting the validity of testable natural processes.
Stop lying. I’ve already dealt with this lie repeatedly. Namely, I and others here have no problem with honest questions from people who have bothered to learn something of substance about the subject, but reject mendacious apologetic fabrications driven by an agenda such as the ones you’re peddling.
See above for how I understand what Chomsky was actually telling people, as opposed to your apologetic twisting thereof.
Your specious and defamatory accusation of dishonesty on my part is rich coming from you.
Oh, and as for logic, one of the seminal textbooks in that discipline is Methods of Logic by Willard Van Ormand Quine, which happened to be the textbook for my courses in the subject. Nothing in that textbook supports your pathetic and infantile jibes.
Your repeated peddling of this duplicitous excrement is becoming tiresome.
Once again, no one here, myself included, objects to honest questioning of postulates, by people who have exerted the effort to familiarise themselves with the requisite body of work. What I and others object to, is dishonest fabrication of specious “objections” based upon ignorance of the field, and questionable third-hand assertions about said field, which is all you offer.
Once again, stop lying.
Shove your specious tone policing where the sun doesn’t shine.
One of the basic principles of discourse, is that the critic of an assertion may choose whatever language successfully exposes the absurdity or iniquity of that assertion, provided of course that said critique is an honest critique, not a blatantly duplicitous apologetic fabrication.
That speaks volumes about your combination of mouthy waffle and sleazy discoursive conduct.
Meanwhile, let’s return to the matter of your never having read Szostak’s or Sutherland’s papers.
Oh wait, I decided to pay a visit to the Szostaz Lab website, which handily provides visitors with a list of publications by Szostak and various co-authors. Guess what? Szostak makes all of his publications publicly available as downloaable PDF documents, which he wouldn’t do if he wasn’t confident that their contents would withstand honest scrutiny (as opposed to duplicitous apologetic misrepresentation thereof).
From that body of literature, let’s take this paper as a randomly selected example, namely:
Prebiotically Plausible “Patching” Of RNA Backbone Cleavage Through A 3’-5’ Pyrophosphate Linkage by Tom H. Wright, Constantin Giurgiu, Wen Zhang, Aleksandr Radakovic, Derek K. O’Flaherty and Jack W. Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 141(45): 18104-18112 (25th October 2019) DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b08237 [Full paper downloadable as a PDF document here, full text available online via this link]
Note that all relevant illustrations and accompanying notes can be viewed both in the PDF and in the online text pointed to by my second link.
The paper opens with:
Let’s move on to the rest of the paper, shall we?
Oh look, a direct experimental test of the hypothesis, by determining of the chemical reactions ACTUALLY WORK
Looks like your apologetics is falling apart even more badly than it did before.
Moving on, we have:
Once again, direct experimental test and verification of a relevant hypothesis.
Oh dear, looks like your “sources” were blowing smoke.
I’ll skip the next two paragraphs (which can be read in full via the two pathways I’ve provided anyway), as they have no bearing on the point I’m making. On the other hand, this paragraph is relevant:
So already, the authors are building up to documentation of direct experimental test of the relevant hypotheses. Looks like your apologetics is about to have a nuclear depth charge detonated under it.
Let’s examine some of the results, shall we?
Oh look, direct experimental test and verification of the requisite hypotheses. Looks like your “sources” were blowing smoke yet again.
I’ll leave the rest of the paper for the sake of brevity, with of course the usual warning to the usual suspects not to quote mine said paper.
So, the authors demonstrated that phosphorus chemistry plays an interesting role in prebiotic RNA formation. There are more papers in this vein, along with a raft of relevant papers from the Sutherland lab that are cited in the References section, but expounding on that lot in full would take me about six months.
So, can we see an end to the lies and ex recto apologetic fabrications?
It appears, @Sherlock-Holmes, you missed my point entirely and instead chose to further chastise me. Your parental scolding is absurd, as is your braggadocio about a superior ability to curse and haughty threat to “school” me. You, sir, can fuck off. You need to cease and desist any attempt to instruct me about what language I use or how I use it.
Meanwhile, since our mythology fanboy set so much store by Lee Cronin, I decided to do a little fact checking on this individual.
Even his Wikipedia page contains two interesting revelations. One being that he’s working on a project called “inorganic life”, which seeks to produce systems analogous to living organisms without using carbon-based molecules. Could his enthusiasm for this project be a part of the reason for his remarks about prebiotic chemistry? Scientists are only human, after all, and rejection of a competing hypothesis has been fertile ground for the spawning of scientific cat fights in the past.
I also learn that he was suspended from the Royal Society of Chemistry for 3 months in 2022, following a successful investigation into allegations of breach of the Society’s code of conduct. More on this here.
From that article:
Sounds as though he has a couple of ego issues to address, which won’t be surprising to anyone aware of his status as a sort of wunderkind upon whom fulsome praise was lavished from an early age. Not that this takes away from him his scientific achievements, of course, but does point to the need for caution when buffing the aura of a bright young star.
It would be interesting to examine the RSC’s deliberations on this matter.
I shan’t even feign surprise that either through deliberate duplicity or the usual apologists anathema to fact checking their appeal to authority fallacies, this turned out to be a lie / wrong.
Kudos for checking, I am afraid that even I have about reached the limit of my patience with @Sherlock-Holmes mendacity, and shan’t be wasting much energy on his apologetics now, beyond mere repetition of the facts already offered.
I think you need to be more concise, these long winded posts are not conducive to interesting discourse. I don’t intend to formulate long posts that address the umpteen contentious points you make in yours.
If you insist on posting these huge diatribes then frankly I won’t be responding much to them.
