Organic Materials Essential for Life on Earth are Found for the First time on the Surface of an Asteroid

[Clyde 154]

That isn't subjectivity. That is objectivity. You are confused

You are also confused, because this is how scientists talk. They don't speak with the tnes of absolute certainty used by religious nutters. They don't pretend to know things they don't or could not know.

Unlike you.

No.........philosophers use such language, not scientists, as there were no FACTS presented, just as stated, there were "suggestions" presented. Are there actually any "Adults" on this board? "Professing themselves to be wise, THEY BECAME FOOLS." --Romans 1:22-28

Subjective: Taking place within the mind. This entire article was taking place within the mind of the one attempting to paint a subjective picture of presenting facts when in reality they were presenting an "IDEA".

Are you actually stating that someone actually went to said, "Asteroid", took scientific measurements, quantified those results and observed that extrapolated information? Or did the article actually say, "these are the suggested results?"

The only Objective information provided was the fact that this asteriod is made up of the same elements that are common to every bit of matter in this universe..........and then the "philosophy" pretending to be science started to flow from the mind of this author.

Again...........Satan's only 2 weapons against a presentation of truth. 1. Deceit. You just attempted to argue that up was down (subjectivity is objective).........2 Deflection.........you just stated that Science does not work with Absolute certainties.

And you did a piss poor job of attempting to use both weapons.

You just contradicted your own argument. Applied Science. Real Science. (not theory...i.e.,ideas) always works with Absolutes.....that's why scientific findings via application of the scientific method are called FACTS or LAWS of Science.

Real science is used to confirm laws and facts through the verification of experiments conducted within the scientific method.

Again read Webster's Collegiate Dictionaries definition of Science: "Knowledge covering general TRUTHS or the operation of General Laws, especially as obtained through the scientific method." This article presented neither Truths nor Laws, only suggestions.


Don't take my word for it...........listen to the late Carl Sagan, who spent his entire life looking for E.T. only to come up with an empty chamber. Quote from Carl Sagan on his idea of science, "Science is a WAY of THINKING (i.e., a philosophy), an error correcting process by which we figure out what is truth and what is not". In other words something is considered truth via thinking until the evidence is presented that makes it UNTRUE. That's akin to having the mule push the plow. Nothing is a fact until its demonstrated to be a fact (truth) via the scientific method of applying experimentation that is observable, reproducible, tests alway ending with a constant result with every application.

 

[abu afak]

You lost me when your supposed scientific article begins by using those famous scientific terms like "COULD HAVE" and "SUGGESTS" Ever see how webster defines these terms? Subjective as hell.

What? There are just so many elements in the universe........just as all biological life on earth share DNA, the universe is no different. The problem being there has never been any evidence that Dead Matter has ever (wink,wink) evolved into a living organism. In fact the scientific method "falsifies" that idea with every attempt that has ever been made to reproduce that MAGIC BULLET that must exist if one is believe in evolution as taught by the dogma of all Darwinian cultists.

Again, and I bolded originally

""Looking into the sample, the team Found that organic material that came from the asteroid itself has Evolved over time through extreme conditions - incorporating water and organic matter from other sources. This IS similar to the process That Happened on Earth, and helps us better understand how the earliest forms of terrestrial biochemistry might simply be an extension of the chemistry taking place inside many asteroids"..."
[....]""

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No.........philosophers use such language, not scientists

100% wrong, and you are embarrassing yourself. You shouldn't even be posting in this section. You know fuck all about science.

Scientists see something that doesn't rule another idea out, and in fact lends support to it. As the evidence is not defnitive, and as scientists are not like you delusional religious dumbasses, they say "it could be that..."

Unlike you lying fools, they don't pretend to know more than they know.

In science, this is called "hypothesis". In your religious fraud circles this is called heresy.

 

[Clyde 154]

Again, and I bolded originally

""Looking into the sample, the team Found that organic material that came from the asteroid itself has Evolved over time through extreme conditions - incorporating water and organic matter from other sources. This IS similar to the process That Happened on Earth, and helps us better understand how the earliest forms of terrestrial biochemistry might simply be an extension of the chemistry taking place inside many asteroids"..."
[....]""

A false premise is a false premise and truth is truth regardless of how much you disagree. Simply provide the scientific experiment that proves that life evolved on earth from dead matter. Until then.......you are promoting nothing but dogmatic philosophy that exists only in one place "BETWEEN YOUR EARS".

Did you not comprehend the paragraph you provided as a fact? "...............MIGHT SIMPLY BE......."

Might: As defined by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Used to denote a possibility. Anything can be possible until its proven that its not. This article is based upon one person's opinionated "imagination". Science does not confirm truth and or facts via the use of "could have", "suggests", Might provide.....etc.., Science is the quest for general truths and generally accepted facts as verified through the scientific method of Observable, Reproducible, Testable, evidences that always produces consistency regardless of the number of times the experiment is preformed. Applied Science either verifies or falsifies.

FYI: Every experiment that attempts to produce life from dead has historically been falsified via the scientific method of experimentation. If not...............SHOW us this life that has been produced from non living matter in any historical experiment. On the other hand Applied Science has never falsified the Creation Model presented in the Holy Bible.....in fact Louis Pasteur confirmed that life can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species, just as the bible states, "......each after its own kind......." -- Genesis 1:24

I am sure you will disagree when you have been proven to be a "LIAR". I once knew a smart ass that once admitted they were wrong......but turns out they were not wrong.........they simply made a mistake.

 

[abu afak]

A false premise is a false premise and truth is truth regardless of much you disagree. Simply provide the scientific experiment that proves that life evolved on earth from dead matter. Until then.......you are promoting nothing but dogmatic philosophy.

???
I didn't claim any such thing.
No one has solved abiogenesis.
That's what we/science are looking for now, and finding some indication/evidence that complex long chain (and self-replicating) molecules CAN form naturally and are not necessarily 'divine' creation.
Reporting how that Research (and related finds) are going is not a "False Premise."
(unless you can prove goddidit and relieve us of the 'how?' burden)

You strawman-ning Little @sshole.
`

 

[Clyde 154]

???
I didn't claim any such thing.
No one has solved abiogenesis.
That's what we/science are looking for now, and finding some indication/evidence that complex long chain (and self-replicating) molecules CAN form naturally and are not necessarily 'divine' creation.
Reporting how that Research (and related finds) are going is not a "False Premise."
(unless you can prove goddidit and relieve us of the 'how?' burden)

You strawman-ning Little @sshole.
`

Exactly...........no one has (wink, wink) SOLVED abiogenesis because it does not exist in nature, regardless of the attempts made...;.;.the scientific method "falsifies" the idea. You cannot apply science where the science does not exist. As explained science has never falsified the creation model found in the Holy Scriptures. In fact Pasteur confirmed the science of "biogenesis".......finding through application of the scientific method that life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life within the same species, just as defined in Genesis 1:24.

Law of biogenesis - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

creationwiki.org

There has never been an example of life being created Naturally other than through the law of biogenesis. Just present the experiment that verifies ABIOGENESIS. It has never existed......it came from an Idea first presented by Darwin when he suggested that life MAY HAVE BEGUN, ".......in a warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia, and phosphoric salts, light, heat...electricity....etc. present, beginning with a chemical compound.....(sound familiar to the article that was presented?)......its almost verbatim..........and laughable DOGMA: Established OPINION.

The link provided demonstrates that the Article has its roots heavily ingrained in Darwinian Cultism.......with an almost verbatim opinionated conclusion that life somehow created itself from nothing more than POND SCUM. The only fact presented is the fact that the entire universe shares commonality with the known Periodic table of elements.

This is almost as laughable in its gullibility factor as was the idea presented by S. Hawking.......the universe created itself from nothing. Hawking hated God so much that he could not bring himself to admit that a self creating universe was an impossibility. He died still buried deep in his hatred.

 

[abu afak]

Exactly...........no one has (wink, wink) SOLVED abiogenesis because it does not exist in nature, regardless of the attempts made...;.;.the scientific method "falsifies" the idea. You cannot apply science where the science does not exist. As explained science has never falsified the creation model found in the Holy Scriptures. In fact Pasteur confirmed the science of "biogenesis".......finding through application of the scientific method that life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life within the same species, just as defined in Genesis 1:24.

Law of biogenesis - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

creationwiki.org

There has never been an example of life being created Naturally other than through the law of biogenesis. Just present the experiment that verifies ABIOGENESIS. It has never existed......it came from an Idea first presented by Darwin when he suggested that life MAY HAVE BEGUN, ".......in a warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia, and phosphoric salts, light, heat...electricity....etc. present, beginning with a chemical compound.....(sound familiar to the article that was presented?)......its almost verbatim..........and laughable DOGMA: Established OPINION.

The link provided demonstrates that the Article has its roots heavily ingrained in Darwinian Cultism.......with an almost verbatim opinionated conclusion that life somehow created itself from nothing more than POND SCUM. The only fact presented is the fact that the entire universe shares commonality with the known Periodic table of elements.

This is almost as laughable in its gullibility factor as was the idea presented by S. Hawking.......the universe created itself from nothing. Hawking hated God so much that he could not bring himself to admit that a self creating universe was an impossibility. He died still buried deep in his hatred.

Non-responsive.
Just because science doesn't know something YET doesn't mean it will never know.
YOU are assuming/saying "goddidit" with NO proof or Evidence.
You are Cultist god Freak who would also have believed in the Fire and Lightning gods before we did know the real/natural cause of those phenomenon.
Not knowing is NOT evidence.

We all would be glad/Delighted to stop any and all Scientific research on the topic if you would be so kind as to provide any Shred of evidence of a god existing (much less yours) Or that 'he' did it.
You arrogant and empty @sshole.
You ae profoundly mentally ill/brainwashed and not rational.

(And LOL 'creationwiki' is Kwistian Kweationist religious apologetics, not a scientific website.)
`