Article ~ Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis

Yes, that article sucks.

Okay, I give. I'll drop RationalWiki to 3.

Yes, that sounds more reasonable to me.

That's exactly what I'm saying here - do you think that you, Paul or steve were "probing" or "exploring" Valmar's position here? You were just mocking, obviously.

Excuse me?

This is what I said in reference to Bergman:

"Besides, if any of his points are valid, surely an uncontroversial proponent of them could be referenced instead."

How is that "mocking" Valmar? It's not even mocking Bergman. I don't think anyone would dispute that he isn't uncontroversial. You can hardly claim, around here, that being controversial is a presumptively negative characteristic!

And you can look all over PQ and find more than enough proponents willing to discuss a wide variety of issues with you and other skeptics. Like I said to begin with, there's been an enormous amount of patience with you and steve in terms of discussion without it devolving into outright mud slinging for a number of topics.

I don't disagree that there is some reasonable discussion. I just disagree that this represents the majority or bulk of the posts (we were talking about how many posts there were in this part of the forum compared to the ECP part of the forum). Excluding the Darwin Unhinged thread, the longer threads I've been involved in weren't long because proponents read my references and carefully considered what I said in order to understand a skeptical position.    

Point being that skeptics aren't generally treated poorly here - just the same as you're saying you'll discuss the topics in depth, so too will the vast majority of proponents here.

Excellent. I wait with bated breath.

Linda

Yes, that article sucks.

Okay, I give. I'll drop RationalWiki to 3. It's only fair to consider it as a whole. And there must be some reason why I almost never link to it.


~~ Paul

Dude! Were you really prepared to give it an "8"? 

It badly needs the disclaimer, "for entertainment purposes only".

Linda

"Besides, if any of his points are valid, surely an uncontroversial proponent of them could be referenced instead."

There are no uncontroversial proponents when it comes to the evolution debate. Anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is controversial. Even the so-called Third Way proponents are considered controversial.

That is the whole problem with this subject. A Darwinist will bristle at the "only a theory" charge because, to him or her Darwinism is the incontrovertible truth and that is how it is presented to the lay public. So it is difficult to research any alternative sources because most of them are promoted by religious organisations and dismissed on those grounds.

It is significant to me that the most vociferous defenders of Darwin and neo-darwinism are also often outspoken atheists. Thus evolution becomes an extension of the battle between scientistic atheism and the religiously motivated. That makes it almost impossible to find unbiased sources.

Anyone here, especially those that do not cotton to natural processes are responsible for species evolving familiar wwith Orgel's 2 rules of evolution?

Dude! Were you really prepared to give it an "8"? 

It badly needs the disclaimer, "for entertainment purposes only".

Linda

I must have temporarily lost my mind. I should have thought about whether I ever link to it, which I don't.

Perhaps I was thinking "Anything else is at least an 8 compared to 'Answers in Genesis.'"

~~ Paul

There are no uncontroversial proponents when it comes to the evolution debate. Anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is controversial. Even the so-called Third Way proponents are considered controversial.

Yeah, but there is a spectrum of controversy. At one end is the usual level of controversy that is always going on in science. At the other end is "Answers in Genesis." Or perhaps Casey Luskin. No, wait, Denyse O'Leary.

All the M-theorists are controversial. There are controversies about ionizing radiation. Cancer treatments.
The definition of "planet." And so on.

~~ Paul

Yeah, but there is a spectrum of controversy. At one end is the usual level of controversy that is always going on in science. At the other end is "Answers in Genesis." Or perhaps Casey Luskin. No, wait, Denyse O'Leary.

All the M-theorists are controversial. There are controversies about ionizing radiation. Cancer treatments.
The definition of "planet." And so on.

~~ Paul

It comes as no shock but those controversies do not count as worthy in the minds of many because they still hold to materialism - recall Skeptiko's tagline: "Science at the Tipping Point". Many are looking for that sure fire proof that will topple materialism / physicalismm off its pedestal and replace it with immaterialism.

There are no uncontroversial proponents when it comes to the evolution debate. Anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is controversial. Even the so-called Third Way proponents are considered controversial.

Are they? I don’t see how they could be all that controversial given that they are participating in the field. I realize they are presented by the ID folk as though they are. I suspect there’s a big difference between how ‘controversial’ they are regarded as in comparison to IDers and creationists, (as Paul mentioned as well).

Controversy is SOP in science, so there’s no need to pretend that scientists are expected to be in lock step on everything.

Linda

A little biased here, I like the panspermia mindset.

It is very parsimonious. We don't want to invoke a creator too heavily, especially if we think that creator is benevolent. 

To quote George Carlin, it sometimes looks like the work of a temp with a bad attitude.



With regards to abiogenesis, yeah, there isn't too much conclusive evidence one way or the other, and the chirality problems are interesting. This is probably one of those areas that is at the very fringe of what evolution can inform (Makes sense, since it would be in essence the origin of the first cells)

Perhaps some of the research on structured water could be applicable here?