Let's talk about the soul.
Options
Comments
-
In a hard science there must be a hard definition a soft science like economics can use unclear concepts that are open to interpretation. But sciences like physics and chemistry??? no that's not going to cut it if they actually want to prove something.
There is no official
Definition of hard or soft science so
What are you referring to?
The fact that definitions don't work the way
You want them to doesn't
Make your arguments better.absolutely none of those experiments actually prove abiogensis happened in the past or can happen now
Like I said
Before, scientists aren't trying to
Prove whether or not
Abiogenesis
Happened --- They're investigating
How it happened.What we have here is the creation of organic compounds in a controlled lab environment vs the random creation of these compounds by natural processes the latter is much much harder to prove
In the lab,
They arise naturally.
So..What we have here is the creation of these compounds by natural processes in a lab
A hard science is any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of hypotheses and experiments.
a soft science is any of the specialized fields or disciplines, as psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.
when you ask HOW something happened that presupposes that it actually happened but we have no proof that abiogenesis actually happened.
THE NATURAL WORLD IS NOT A LAB. Abiogenesis by "natural processes" LIKE WHAT YOU believe gave rise to life was not created in a lab. In any case none of those experiments created a self sustaining living cell sooooo in essence they all fail as a proof that abiogenesis gave rise to life. all they prove is that things like amino acids can be created in A lab. -
A hard science is any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of hypotheses and experiments.
a soft science is any of the specialized fields or disciplines, as psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.
Precise definitions vary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_sciencewhen you ask HOW something happened that presupposes that it actually happened.
Exactlywe have no proof that abiogenesis actually happened.
This was already explained to you.THE NATURAL WORLD IS NOT A LAB. Abiogenesis by "natural processes" LIKE WHAT YOU believe gave rise to life was not created in a lab. In any case none of those experiments created a self sustaining living cell sooooo in essence they all fail as a proof that abiogenesis gave rise to life. all they prove is that things like amino acids can be created in A lab
...by natural processes -
A hard science is any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of hypotheses and experiments.
a soft science is any of the specialized fields or disciplines, as psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.
Precise definitions vary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_sciencewhen you ask HOW something happened that presupposes that it actually happened.
Exactlywe have no proof that abiogenesis actually happened.
This was already explained to you.THE NATURAL WORLD IS NOT A LAB. Abiogenesis by "natural processes" LIKE WHAT YOU believe gave rise to life was not created in a lab. In any case none of those experiments created a self sustaining living cell sooooo in essence they all fail as a proof that abiogenesis gave rise to life. all they prove is that things like amino acids can be created in A lab
...by natural processes
YOU Explained nothing and presumptions of things that you fail to prove are meaningless it's nothing more than guess work
If you actually read that whole wiki you would understand that the only thing that varies is which science belongs to either category. The meaning behind each category is consistent
-
by the way something is not natural if human hands have anything to do with it since you like dictionaries so much here you go
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. -
by the way something is not natural if human hands have anything to do with it since you like dictionaries so much here you go
The conditions didn't arise naturally because the scientists set it up
But what I'm saying is that the organic compounds
Sprang from their inorganic progenitors naturally (because
That's what they naturally do). The scientists
May have set up the conditions to resemble early Earth,
But they did not create organic compounds. The organic compounds
Arose on their own.If you actually read that whole wiki you would understand that the only thing that varies is which science belongs to either category.
Actually, it's this:
features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.[2][5][6][7][8] A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are "theoretical" or "applied", with physics, and chemistry typically being the hardest, biology in an intermediate position, and the social sciences being the softest
Either way, there is no
Official definition. -
by the way something is not natural if human hands have anything to do with it since you like dictionaries so much here you go
The conditions didn't arise naturally because the scientists set it up
But what I'm saying is that the organic compounds
Sprang from their inorganic progenitors naturally (because
That's what they naturally do). The scientists
May have set up the conditions to resemble early Earth,
But they did not create organic compounds. The organic compounds
Arose on their own.If you actually read that whole wiki you would understand that the only thing that varies is which science belongs to either category.
Actually, it's this:
features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.[2][5][6][7][8] A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are "theoretical" or "applied", with physics, and chemistry typically being the hardest, biology in an intermediate position, and the social sciences being the softest
Either way, there is no
Official definition.
@ the bold because of human intervention we don't know that and even if we did that still does not prove living cells can be produced by the conditions the scientist created
your quote does not say that hard science has no definitive definition it actually details what a hard science is and states that the sciences can be place in an order based on their objectivity. The only thing that is in question in that wiki is which science belongs to what category which is why the very next sentence says:
"Some philosophers and sociologists of science have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness. "
what's in question is what science belongs where not the meaning of hard science, which is why the wiki says definitions vary but it does not say that there is no precise meaning it says there is more than one precise meaning -
because of human intervention we don't know that
Whether you observe ice melting under the Sun
Outside or you put an ice cube on
Your kitchen stove, we still know that solid ice
Turns into liquid water when it's heated. Human
Intervention does not change what water naturally
Does under certain conditions. Now apply that
To the Miller-Urey experiment.your quote does not say that hard science has no definitive definition
It does:
Precise definitions vary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_scienceit actually details what a hard science is and states that the sciences can be place in an order based on their objectivity.
but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include
^^^ often, not always, meaning
That particular definition isn't definitive.
It goes on to say:A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as
In other words, what you've read
Are two different ideas as to what hard and soft
Sciences are, but again, neither one is definitive.
Then it talks about
the opinions of philosophers and sociologists,
for example:hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs, and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords
All of this
Just goes to show that there is, at the end of the day,
No official definition --- like I've said.
I particularly like the criticisms of
The terms. -
because of human intervention we don't know that
Whether you observe ice melting under the Sun
Outside or you put an ice cube on
Your kitchen stove, we still know that solid ice
Turns into liquid water when it's heated. Human
Intervention does not change what water naturally
Does under certain conditions. Now apply that
To the Miller-Urey experiment.your quote does not say that hard science has no definitive definition
It does:
Precise definitions vary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_scienceit actually details what a hard science is and states that the sciences can be place in an order based on their objectivity.
but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include
^^^ often, not always, meaning
That particular definition isn't definitive.
It goes on to say:A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as
In other words, what you've read
Are two different ideas as to what hard and soft
Sciences are, but again, neither one is definitive.
Then it talks about
the opinions of philosophers and sociologists,
for example:hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs, and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords
All of this
Just goes to show that there is, at the end of the day,
No official definition --- like I've said.
I particularly like the criticisms of
The terms.
You are using a bad analogy the miller-urey experiment is several light years away from simply observing ice melting into liquid water and no the concept is not the same. they did not simply observe in that experiment
The wiki does not deny that hard science has a definitive definition all it says is that what consistutes a hard science is up for debate.
it says precise definitions vary not that they don't exist, what do they vary on??? what science should be considered hard and by what criteria that is all -
From Princeton University wetsite:
"The atmospheric model used by Miller-Urey never matched the atmosphere of early earth at any known point; at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientists thought Earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere. Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Miller-Urey_experiment.html
stop with the miller-urey nonsense -
they did not simply observe in that experiment
Besides replicate the environment of early Earth, what else did they do?it says is that what consistutes a hard [and soft] science is up for debate.
it says precise definitions vary not that they don't exist
Exactly -
they did not do that.
what constitutes a hard science meaning like i said earlier what science, what study is hard or not i.e how much objectivity is need in each study to qualify for each category -
From Princeton University wetsite:
"The atmospheric model used by Miller-Urey never matched the atmosphere of early earth at any known point; at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientists thought Earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere. Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Miller-Urey_experiment.html
stop with the miller-urey nonsensethey did not do that.There have been variants
And improvements to the original experiment,
and recent research suggests that
Early Earth's atmosphere was even more favorable
Than what was previously thought.
More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[26] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment -
From Princeton University wetsite:
"The atmospheric model used by Miller-Urey never matched the atmosphere of early earth at any known point; at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientists thought Earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere. Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Miller-Urey_experiment.html
stop with the miller-urey nonsenseThere have been variants
And improvements to the original experiment,
and recent research suggests that
Early Earth's atmosphere was even more favorable
Than what was previously thought.
More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[26] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
that quote is not very conclusive and still does not prove natural abiogenesis. The author only says that he THINKS THEY MAKE MILLER-UREY relevant again. give the whole source. -
The author only says that he THINKS THEY MAKE MILLER-UREY relevant again. give the whole source.
Yeah and his ideas are based on revised experimentation
And research, like I've already said.
Regardless of what he thinks about it,organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept
I've also told you that scientists don't have all
The answers and that abiogenesis is, ultimately,
A problem to be worked out. Still, that doesn't mean it didn't happen ---
Again, they're investigating the "hows", not the "ifs"prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions
