News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic

Started by Dredge, December 30, 2016, 05:23:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Asmodean

Yep. The above is why I bother at all - even half-heartedly. (Full-hearted responses are available on demand)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Dredge

Quote from: Recusant on January 18, 2017, 03:23:44 PM
Science is not a means of knowing anything with absolute certainty ... As I pointed out already in this thread, all knowledge gained via science is provisional, despite the fact that it has withstood multiple tests.
You ignored the information that I gave which shows that scientists have learned about the primordial atmosphere. Instead you chose to spout meaningless rhetoric. You've essentially admitted the failure of your position.
This is hilarious - in attempting to discredit my opinion, but you have instead managed to agree with me!

Let me explain:  You say that " science is not a means of knowing anything with absolute certainty" and that all scientific knowledge is "provisional".  In other words, what scientists have "learned about the primordial atmosphere" is not necessarily infallible; it could be wrong.  This is exactly the point I made - you have agreed with me!   Like I said, hilarious.
 
Furthermore, in a thousand years time, scientists may (will probably) hold different opinions on the composition of the primordial atmosphere than they do today - but they might be wrong too, since there is no way to verify their opinion (unless someone can invent a time-travel machine and go back billions of years and grab some samples).  
The fact is, scientists will never ever know with 100% certainty what the primordial atmosphere was like.  This being the case, abiogenesis research starts out with an educated guess (at best) about the original "chemical soup".  This amounts to a scientific pursuit built on sand; it's worthless.  Only delusion space-cadets need apply.

But there are some among us who just love their sandy pseudo-science, aren't there?  

Quote]I didn't say that computer models are infallible.
Here's you are agreeing with me again.  Computer models are not infallible, in which case, they are not reliable evidence.   In a courtroom, unreliable witnesses are worthless.

QuoteI showed that scientists have indeed produced testable hypotheses of abiogenesis, and have performed successful experiments based on those hypotheses. This clearly refuted your statement above. You then changed your argument to require that science must produce an artificial organism that can reproduce. That is a textbook example of moving the goalposts.
Yes, ok, point taken.  But I was leading up to the new goalposts anyway.  Am I not allowed to introduce a new point?
Besides that, I suspect that many of the results of abiogenesis experiments are controversial and that there is little consensus on the experiments among researchers.  But even if there were no controversy and there were strong consensus, scientists have not proven that naturalistic abiogenesis is possible until naturalistic abiogenesis is achieved in an experiment.  As I stated earlier, there is a world of difference between 1) claiming to know how to split an atom, and 2) actually splitting an atom.  Talk is cheap.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 09:40:52 AM
Are you seriously trying to engage us in a debate on the validity of speciation without at least the superficial knowledge of that?
All the claims of speciation I have investigated have turned out to be spurious.  What a tiresome charade.  For example, different strains of fruit flies emerged that don't inter-breed - but they're still the same species of fruit fly.  This is not speciation, just drowning Darwinists clutching at straws.
Some believe that Lenski's E. coli displayed speciation ... but no, they didn't; it was just more evolution phantasmagoria ... unsurprisingly.  

Many evolutionists are so desperate for evidence of their precious theory that they hallucinate and see things that aren't really there.  What a weird and sad phenomena - but fascinating, nevertheless.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Pasta Chick

I don't understand what you're driving at here. If you can't trust anything, including things backed with strong empirical evidence, why is the answer "because God"? I mean, if you can't even trust what's right in front of your face, why trust anything at all?

Dredge

Quote from: Gloucester on January 18, 2017, 07:08:38 AM
Dredge, could you please offer your definition of science to us?
Science "is the intelllectual and practical activity encompasssing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" - from my iPad dictionary.  

I especially like the part about "observation and experiment" ... as opposed to your garden-variety atheist, who much prefers untested theory - or even better, untestable theory.   Many atheists aren't fond of the reality of applied science, as it contributes nothing to their worldview.  They much prefer, and are psychologically addicted to, the nebulous world of theoretical science, where a vivid imagination can run riot. 
Theoretical science is to these atheists what the Bible is to Christians.  Both atheology and theolgy have no place in real science.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 19, 2017, 10:22:36 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2017, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:27:40 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 12, 2017, 01:48:25 AM
Yes, it seems that not only do they have a shallow understanding of science, they take it all for granted.
Aren't there creationists with very impressive qualifications in science; as in doctorates and professorships?  If so, in what way is their understanding of science shallow?

Like who?

Dredge, answer this please. I'm curious to know what type of scientist you see as an authority on the subject. And their credentials.
Prof. Michael Behe - Biochemistry

Prof. Kenneth Miller -  Biology

Prof. Vladimir Betina - Microbiology, Biochemistry and Bology

Prof. Carl Fliermans - Biology
  
Prof. Dwain Ford - Organic Chemistry

Prof. Robert Franks - Biology

Prof. Leonid Korochkin -  Molecular Biology

Prof. Harriet Kim - Biochemistry

Prof.  Kyoung-Tai Kim - Genetic Engineering

Prof. Lane Lester - Genetics, Biology

Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon - Immunology

I'm sorry if I'm slow in responding sometimes; I have to travel to a wi-fi hot spot to get online and my health is poor and consequently often feel too tired to play.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 19, 2017, 12:35:09 PMThe Pope is OK with Darwin
What!  An atheist is recommending the opinion of a Christian?  How unusual.

------------------------------------

What any Pope thinks about Darwinism is irrelevant to other Catholics.  The Church doesn't oblige the faithful to believe anything at all about the theory of evolution.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:21:02 AM
So, according to you, there is no diference between 1) claiming you can split an atom and 2) actually splitting an atom?   Are you serious?  You seem to have little aptitude for, not just science, but reality itself.
How does a person read what you just read from what Firebird said?
An example of THEORECTICAL science  =   a scientist claims to know how to split an atom.

An example of APPLIED science            =   a scientist actually splits an atom.

In the real world, ACTIONS (applied science) speak louder than WORDS (theorectical science).






Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Arturo

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 05:13:08 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:21:02 AM
So, according to you, there is no diference between 1) claiming you can split an atom and 2) actually splitting an atom?   Are you serious?  You seem to have little aptitude for, not just science, but reality itself.
How does a person read what you just read from what Firebird said?
An example of THEORECTICAL science  =   a scientist claims to know how to split an atom.

An example of APPLIED science            =   a scientist actually splits an atom.

In the real world, ACTIONS (applied science) speak louder than WORDS (theorectical science).

How do you think they know how to split the atom in applied science? Do you think they are magicians?

It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

Quote from: Apathy on January 21, 2017, 05:25:21 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 05:13:08 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:21:02 AM
So, according to you, there is no diference between 1) claiming you can split an atom and 2) actually splitting an atom?   Are you serious?  You seem to have little aptitude for, not just science, but reality itself.
How does a person read what you just read from what Firebird said?
An example of THEORECTICAL science  =   a scientist claims to know how to split an atom.

An example of APPLIED science            =   a scientist actually splits an atom.

In the real world, ACTIONS (applied science) speak louder than WORDS (theorectical science).

How do you think they know how to split the atom in applied science? Do you think they are magicians?


No, they did it by accident, they were just trying random stuff and it happened.

Now, how did they explain it? Did they just accept that where they had one element they now had two? Just shrug and try some other random action?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Asmodean

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:37:23 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 09:40:52 AM
Are you seriously trying to engage us in a debate on the validity of speciation without at least the superficial knowledge of that?
All the claims of speciation I have investigated have turned out to be spurious.  What a tiresome charade.  For example, different strains of fruit flies emerged that don't inter-breed - but they're still the same species of fruit fly.  This is not speciation, just drowning Darwinists clutching at straws.
No, it is in fact speciation. It comes in several different varieties, you see.

Your argument is not invalid, so I will come back to this. Walls of text take a little time to compose and properly reference.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:58:04 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 19, 2017, 12:35:09 PMThe Pope is OK with Darwin
What!  An atheist is recommending the opinion of a Christian?  How unusual.

------------------------------------

What any Pope thinks about Darwinism is irrelevant to other Catholics.  The Church doesn't oblige the faithful to believe anything at all about the theory of evolution.

It's not unusual for an atheist to share opinions with Christians, except in regard to the existence of god.
The Catholics used to torture and kill scientists for expounding views that threatened their beliefs.  It got a bit hard though as evidence piled up so they had to concede points or look ridiculous and encourage questioning of the basis of their faith.  Cowardice is what I call it, not like the brave creationist who doesn't care that other Christians and atheists alike are laughing at them.



Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Arturo

Quote from: Gloucester on January 21, 2017, 06:44:57 AM
Quote from: Apathy on January 21, 2017, 05:25:21 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 05:13:08 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:21:02 AM
So, according to you, there is no diference between 1) claiming you can split an atom and 2) actually splitting an atom?   Are you serious?  You seem to have little aptitude for, not just science, but reality itself.
How does a person read what you just read from what Firebird said?
An example of THEORECTICAL science  =   a scientist claims to know how to split an atom.

An example of APPLIED science            =   a scientist actually splits an atom.

In the real world, ACTIONS (applied science) speak louder than WORDS (theorectical science).

How do you think they know how to split the atom in applied science? Do you think they are magicians?


No, they did it by accident, they were just trying random stuff and it happened.

Now, how did they explain it? Did they just accept that where they had one element they now had two? Just shrug and try some other random action?

Right, I remembered that last night. But still theoretical science is making observations, analyzing them, and making predictions off that. Without this, you wouldn't have anything to go off of in applied science. In applied science you just make it happen, but you still need the work done for you. You don't just fuck around with shit because when you do, you don't know what's going to happen and you could hurt yourself.

You know I think I remember hearing something similar to that once...
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:50:02 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 19, 2017, 10:22:36 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2017, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:27:40 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 12, 2017, 01:48:25 AM
Yes, it seems that not only do they have a shallow understanding of science, they take it all for granted.
Aren't there creationists with very impressive qualifications in science; as in doctorates and professorships?  If so, in what way is their understanding of science shallow?

Like who?

Dredge, answer this please. I'm curious to know what type of scientist you see as an authority on the subject. And their credentials.
Prof. Michael Behe - Biochemistry

Prof. Kenneth Miller -  Biology

Prof. Vladimir Betina - Microbiology, Biochemistry and Bology

Prof. Carl Fliermans - Biology
 
Prof. Dwain Ford - Organic Chemistry

Prof. Robert Franks - Biology

Prof. Leonid Korochkin -  Molecular Biology

Prof. Harriet Kim - Biochemistry

Prof.  Kyoung-Tai Kim - Genetic Engineering

Prof. Lane Lester - Genetics, Biology

Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon - Immunology

I'm sorry if I'm slow in responding sometimes; I have to travel to a wi-fi hot spot to get online and my health is poor and consequently often feel too tired to play.

:lol: Kenneth Miller is actually a prominent anti-creationism advocate. He may be a theist but that doesn't mean he's stupid or ignorant on the subject of biology like many out there.

Besides Behe, who seriously...meh...I don't know any of those names. I'll look them up later. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 05:13:08 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:21:02 AM
So, according to you, there is no diference between 1) claiming you can split an atom and 2) actually splitting an atom?   Are you serious?  You seem to have little aptitude for, not just science, but reality itself.
How does a person read what you just read from what Firebird said?
An example of THEORECTICAL science  =   a scientist claims to know how to split an atom.

An example of APPLIED science            =   a scientist actually splits an atom.

In the real world, ACTIONS (applied science) speak louder than WORDS (theorectical science).

:picard facepalm:
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey