Replies

Going to take your points a little out of order.

VadeRetro: This is a very disingenuous performance.

unlearner: It is not apparent to me how.

I no longer believe you can't see this. Furthermore, I pity any lurker who is having the difficulty you claim for yourself. So here's where we back up a little bit.

unlearner: I assume it for logical and philosophical reasons, but I also want it tested. Testing will support it IF it is true.

What testing is that, pray tell, and how will it support your ridiculous blanket negative?

You cannot test the proposition that there is no way no how never that biochemicals can spontaneously (even over half a billion years) self-assemble to life. You could run tests for ten thousand years and never make a dent in the possibilities still out there untried.

I have several times explained this to you. Just a few posts ago you practically acknowledged the untestability by saying you were only going to assume the premise. If I am to believe you have a test for it, I want to see the test plan.

You're writing volumes of empty blather here while refusing to address the obvious. You are never going to test your proposition.

The abnormal psychology you guys exhibit is part of the fascination for me. It's part of what keeps me coming back here. Very few of you can admit an error above the typo level in argument with the Heathen Foe. You are not one of those few who can. Do you think no one can see?

"I no longer believe you can't see this. Furthermore, I pity any lurker who is having the difficulty you claim for yourself."

You keep saying it is obvious when it isn't. That is not a logical argument.

"What testing is that, pray tell, and how will it support your ridiculous blanket negative?"

I have told you already. You blame me for repeating myself, then ask me to restate what I have already said. Don't speed read the answer: Any attempt to assemble life in a laboratory can serve as a confirming test. Any attempt to observe spontaneous self organization of life in a laboratory or in the environment will serve as a falsifying example (not a confirming test as you ascribe).

"You cannot test the proposition that there is no way no how never that biochemicals can spontaneously (even over half a billion years) self-assemble to life."

You are mixing metaphors. My statement has little to do with what happened historically and everything to do with observable processes. It is not necessary for a naturally occurring environment to naturally occur. It can be created.

Both tests can utilize human intervention in creating the environment in which life will appear. The distinction between them is one requires self assembly and the other intelligent assembly. Scientists are free to use any naturally occurring evironmentals in any combination they desire. It does not need to be random and should not be.

Temperature, atmospheric pressure, ingredients of whatever might serve as a primordial soup - these are some of the controlled variables.

"You could run tests for ten thousand years and never make a dent in the possibilities still out there untried."

Now who is being disingenuous?

Are you claiming there is some form of matter that is not living but is also not lifeless? If life self assembles or ever has, it will happen in a moment of time whether the conditions took billions of years to become just right. Scientists do not have to allow billions of years to bring about this just right condition. They only need to figure out what the condition is and recreate it.

It seems your arguments are more geared toward saying my tests put abiogenesis at an unfair disadvantage. Perhaps. But that also reinforces my position that directed assembly is more likely than self assembly.

"Just a few posts ago you practically acknowledged the untestability by saying you were only going to assume the premise."

Yes I do assume the hypothesis in order to test it. This is how science works.

"A hypothesis is a statement whose truth is temporarily assumed, whose meaning is beyond all doubt." -- Albert Einstein, excerpted from a letter to Eduard Study, September 25, 1918 within Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, J.J. Stachel and Robert Schulmann, eds. Princeton University Press 1987

Abiogenesis is testable but not falsifiable. Your own rant about billions of years underscores my point.

"You're writing volumes of empty blather here while refusing to address the obvious. You are never going to test your proposition."

My hypothesis will be tested without regard to what I do. Scientists will attempt to create life by both means I have described. Neither method has borne fruition thus far. One or both will in due time.

On the other hand, it is you who are avoiding issues. Particularly, I have asked repeatedly how my hypothesis is fundamentally and logically different from the law of gravity. You have failed to address this. If it is as obvious as you claim, it should be easy for you to vocalize and pinpoint where the deviation in logic occurs. I can only conclude you cannot because the deviation has not occurred.

"Very few of you can admit an error above the typo level in argument with the Heathen Foe. You are not one of those few who can."

I have already demonstrated that I do admit my errors and provided a specific example - speciation. However, in this case I am right. Unless and until it is proved otherwise, I would be a liar to admit I am wrong.