Let's talk about the soul.

[Bodhi]

if there is no official definition then there is no real definition.

There are no official definitions of lots of words;

Here's an example:

There is no official definition of recession, but there is general recognition that the term refers to a period of decline in economic activity.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/03/basics.htm

That doesn't mean that we don't

Understand what

The word refers to.

there is no proof that the environmental conditions of the experiment were present on early earth.

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.

 

[zzombie]

if there is no official definition then there is no real definition.

There are no official definitions of lots of words;

Here's an example:

There is no official definition of recession, but there is general recognition that the term refers to a period of decline in economic activity.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/03/basics.htm

That doesn't mean that we don't

Understand what

The word refers to.

there is no proof that the environmental conditions of the experiment were present on early earth.

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.

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.

absolutely none of those experiments actually prove abiogensis happened in the past or can happen now

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

 

[zzombie]

People have to understand that some scientist are actually just pulling shit out of there ass not all of them but some on them

 

[zzombie]

a dictionary is not the place to go if you want to understand the concept behind a word.

I'm pretty sure the bolded is what definitions are.

astrometical

Maybe you should

Consult a dictionary to get the concept

Behind this word before you use it

Again

wisdom is judgement anyway you want to slice it because if wisdom is the quality of having good judgement as you say then WHO decides what is GOOD ABOUT THE JUDGEMENT??? PEOPLE.

Not really. If you decide to drink bleach,

Does society at large get to hold a debate

As to whether your choice was wise or not?

No.

It wasn't wise based off the facts of reality.

So your decision would be inherently

Unwise. Like the definition says,

Wisdom is a quality, or attribute, of a thing.

well you are pretty much wrong a dictionary just gives the meaning of words with no depth analysis on the concept the word represents.

the bold is just opinion perhaps drinking bleach would be the wise option depending on the circumstances and the only way to decide if an action is wise or not is to filter it through a human brain in other words someone has to judge my action or reasoning to be wise or not

 

[Bodhi]

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

the bold is just opinion perhaps drinking bleach would be the wise option

But you wouldn't do it

Because I assume you know the consequences.

Those consequences are grounded in

Reality, not our opinions

 

[zzombie]

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.

 

[Bodhi]

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_science

when you ask HOW something happened that presupposes that it actually happened.

Exactly

we 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

 

[zzombie]

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_science

when you ask HOW something happened that presupposes that it actually happened.

Exactly

we 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

 

[zzombie]

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.

 

[Bodhi]

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.

 

[zzombie]

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

 

[Bodhi]

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_science

it 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.

 

[zzombie]

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_science

it 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

 

[zzombie]

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

 

[Bodhi]

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

 

[zzombie]

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

 

[Bodhi]

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 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

 

[zzombie]

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

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

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.

 

[Bodhi]

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