According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 12:37:40 AM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 06:00:49 AM
Quote from: Firebird on January 21, 2017, 04:17:13 PM
Funny, you cite creationist scientists like Behe, but as far as I know, they haven't proven any of their theories of irreducible complexity. Seems all theoretical, and pretty weak theories at that considering all of the evidence against them.
Have they demonstrated this creator yet in an "applied" fashion as you insist?
If theology were the same as science, it would be called science.
I could say that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a creator, but I won't ... because then I wil be asked to provide that evidence and I couldn't be bothered.
Oh, go on, don't be a spoil-sport, we are all eager to hear this evidence I am sure.

OMG he didn't just put "evidence" and "for the existence of a creator" right next to each other? :suspicious:

:picard facepalm:
Is it a fact that life arose from inanimate matter as a result of purely naturalistic means, that is to say, without the assistance of any god or deity or spiritual entity?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

#241
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 12:28:31 AM

How do you even know that early life arose only once on Earth? Why must there be one process?

The propensity for lifeforms could have been so high that life arose multiple times during Earth's primordial era. 
Yes, and there could be more than one Tooth Fairy.  There could be multiple Tooth Fairies. 



QuoteSo, back to basics. How do you define life, with all your advanced biology knowledge?
My definition of "life" would be in line with the definition found in your average dictionary. 

How does a machine with no intelligence reproduce itself?  I don't know, ask God.
Why would a machine with no intelligence reproduce itself?  I don't know, ask God.

--fixed quote (xSPx)
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 06:00:49 AM
Quote from: Firebird on January 21, 2017, 04:17:13 PM
Funny, you cite creationist scientists like Behe, but as far as I know, they haven't proven any of their theories of irreducible complexity. Seems all theoretical, and pretty weak theories at that considering all of the evidence against them.
Have they demonstrated this creator yet in an "applied" fashion as you insist?
If theology were the same as science, it would be called science.
I could say that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a creator, but I won't ... because then I wil be asked to provide that evidence and I couldn't be bothered.
Oh, go on, don't be a spoil-sport, we are all eager to hear this evidence I am sure.
I'm sure you've heard it all before ... expect for that mysterious voice that saved me from a fatal snake bite, maybe.  Oh, and then there was that vision I had that showed me the future.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Asmodean on January 23, 2017, 10:27:32 AM
Few, if any, respectable scientists believe that DNA formed by chance any more than they believe that evolution occurs by chance. Of course, it also depends on your use of the word "chance," as like in the ever-so-tired case of "theory," naïve people often use it differently from "the learned classes."
If not by chance, I am aware of only one alternative - design.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Asmodean

#244
There are others.

A sequence of mutually dependent events does not signify design in the sense of a system being acted upon by a deliberate or sentient agent.

A hydrogen fire in an oxygen/nitrogen environment will result in gaseous water rather than ammonia. That is not due to hydrogen molecules bumping into oxygen molecules by chance and avoiding nitrogen molecules by chance. The chemical reaction will go the same way in mostly nitrogen environments as it does in mostly oxygen environments.

There are holes in our knowledge of how exactly DNA became DNA, but there is no reason to suspect that the circumstances were at their core any different than those of hydrogen forming bonds with oxygen rather than nitrogen when heated. Chemical reactions, which are utterly mindless agents, although they lie at the core of sentience in humans - fascinating, but a story for another time - can turn a bunch of simple molecules into a  (bunch of) complex one(s) and back, and while the results may look intentionally designed from the top down, it's actually a bottom-up, or "self-designing" process. It's not random. It's not chance. If you insist on using the word "design," then it's designed in a way that canyons are "designed" by rivers, not in a way that aircraft are designed by engineers.

If it walks like a badly tortured metaphor and talks like a badly tortured metaphor, it is a badly tortured metaphor. If, on the other hand, it appears to walk like one and talk like one, then it appears to be one. Appears to be != is.
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

#245
Quote from: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:32:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 22, 2017, 05:28:07 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 03:40:44 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 21, 2017, 09:00:25 AM
The Catholics used to torture and kill scientists for expounding views that threatened their beliefs
Can you give me an example, please?

Giodorno Bruno.
Giodorno Bruno - the dissent Catholic priest who fell in with the Calvinists but was excommunicated by them; then fell in with the Lutherans and was excommunicated by them as well; went to England made himself decidely unwelcome at Oxford university.
Bruno was a defender of heliocentric astronomy, but he was not known as a scientist, rather, as a philosopher.  Pierre Bayle characterised him as the "knight-errant of philosophy".  Bruno wasn't condemned for his scientific views, but his theological errors ( best described as materialistic pantheism) against Catholic doctrine.
Bruno was put him to death by secular authorities, not the Catholic Church.

In short, contrary to your claim, Giodorno Bruno is not an example of a "scientist" who was put to death by the Catholic Church.  Was he even tortured by the Church?  If so, where is the evidence?

Ye good point, I have to admit I liked the idea of Bruno being tortured by the church 'cause of his science,  but now my oracle (wiki) is telling me something different to what I want to hear, very disappointing, I think it told me something different a few years back.

I'm not going sink into depression over this though, we've still got Galileo, I don't fault him for choosing to live but it was a bit selfish, his dying for the cause would have better supported my bias.

Anway there's the Hypatia movie and the evil Christians killed Rachel Weisz, I'll never forgive them for that.

Isaac Newton had to hide his alchemical research from the staid religious, yet he succeeded in turning base metals to gold, got appointed warden of the Royal Mint, Britain adopted the gold standard and dominated the world for a while.

Darwin, didn't want to cause trouble, kept his dangerous idea close until he was pressed to declare.

I'm still maintaining my bias, religion is stifling.


Quote from: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:32:42 AM
During the Inquisition, many people, such as Bruno, were tried and condemned by the Church.   But as already mentioned, he was not executed by the Church, but by the secular authorities.  It is possible that the Church didn't actually execute anyone at all during the Inquisition? 

That may be a petty distinction, I'm intellectually lazy so I won't say more than that.

Quote from: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:32:42 AMPerhaps it's the case that the rivers of lies told by Protestants and other enemies of Catholicism have become folklore.

Perhaps but I think they (Catholics) admit to, have apologised for some of it.





Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Biggus Dickus

I wish you all would stop talking about my ancestor Giodorno Bruno so callously.


Anyway I read the the following article this morning in the "Huffington Post", and it reminded me that we have evidence for such odd behavior right here in this thread, which is the disturbing trend among so many Americans to deny science (More like cherry-picking to suit their needs).

Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines


QuoteThe U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country's citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.

Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

"The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified," said Troy Campbell, a psychologist at the University of Oregon....


I also like this statement, thought I would leave it here.

He is everywhere, in the heavens and earth,
He makes the stars shine yet He cannot be seen.
He is noble, abundant, and fills the universe.
He can lift you into the sky and bring you gently down.
He can take many forms.
He can help heal, He can help kill.
He can help create, and He can help destroy.

Praise be unto He,
Helium

"Some people just need a high-five. In the face. With a chair."

Recusant

Dredge has at least implied that he's from Australia, and polls show that he's got his work cut out for him if he wants his country to catch up with the US in this regard. He's wasting his time here, which is probably a good thing for Australia.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Davin

He might be from Russia, I hear they have a bunch of pathetic paid trolls.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Firebird

"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Arturo

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

Dave

Quote from: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 04:07:31 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 18, 2017, 09:07:30 AMYou are suffering from from the Dunning-Krugar Effect
Well, you may be correct.  But then again, to be fair to Dredge, the evidence provided by billions upon billions of mosquitoes must be taken into consideration. 
Let me explain:  It has been the case that throughout all my life, mosquitoes have favoured my blood above the blood of all others. They seem to love it with a love that is beyond all understanding. I will be mercilessly attacked and bitten by these wretched little vampires, while all around me, no one else is. 

Evidently, there is something very special about my blood that is highly prized above the blood of  most, possibly all, other human beings.  How well the mosquitoes know this!  They know that I carry royal blood and genius blood.  I think it is their hope that by sucking my very special blood, their offspring will evolve to a higher plane of existence (this could be how evolution works, if it works at all).  The mosquitoes obviously recognise that I am a king without a kingdom and a genius without a geniusdom. 

I respect your opinion, Tank, as you are obviously a very intelligent person.  But honestly, is it wise to ignore the testimonies of every mosquito on the planet?

Further on mosquitoe bites.

Buy some stripey shirts Dredgers, seems biting insects don't like stripes - zebras suffer fewer bites than other, similar sized plain coloured animals!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:32:42 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 22, 2017, 05:28:07 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 03:40:44 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 21, 2017, 09:00:25 AM
The Catholics used to torture and kill scientists for expounding views that threatened their beliefs
Can you give me an example, please?

Giodorno Bruno.
Giodorno Bruno - the dissent Catholic priest who fell in with the Calvinists but was excommunicated by them; then fell in with the Lutherans and was excommunicated by them as well; went to England made himself decidely unwelcome at Oxford university.
Bruno was a defender of heliocentric astronomy, but he was not known as a scientist, rather, as a philosopher.  Pierre Bayle characterised him as the "knight-errant of philosophy".  Bruno wasn't condemned for his scientific views, but his theological errors ( best described as materialistic pantheism) against Catholic doctrine.
Bruno was put him to death by secular authorities, not the Catholic Church.

In short, contrary to your claim, Giodorno Bruno is not an example of a "scientist" who was put to death by the Catholic Church.  Was he even tortured by the Church?  If so, where is the evidence?

During the Inquisition, many people, such as Bruno, were tried and condemned by the Church.   But as already mentioned, he was not executed by the Church, but by the secular authorities.  It is possible that the Church didn't actually execute anyone at all during the Inquisition?  Perhaps it's the case that the rivers of lies told by Protestants and other enemies of Catholicism have become folklore.

So the Church tried people and then turned them over to secular authorities to be executed in such a gruesome way as is burning at the stake? Talk about getting involved but not wanting to get your hands dirty, what a cowardly way to act. It's to be expected.

Whether there is a lot of protestant propaganda surrounding events such as the inquisitions, the Catholic Church has never exactly been a beacon of tolerance for new ideas, which for the most part were found to be threatening to ancient Bronze Age dogma, stupid and unchanging. At least now the Church seems to be on the path to learning their lesson, with their acceptance of evolutionary theory. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:34:31 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 12:37:40 AM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 23, 2017, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 06:00:49 AM
Quote from: Firebird on January 21, 2017, 04:17:13 PM
Funny, you cite creationist scientists like Behe, but as far as I know, they haven't proven any of their theories of irreducible complexity. Seems all theoretical, and pretty weak theories at that considering all of the evidence against them.
Have they demonstrated this creator yet in an "applied" fashion as you insist?
If theology were the same as science, it would be called science.
I could say that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a creator, but I won't ... because then I wil be asked to provide that evidence and I couldn't be bothered.
Oh, go on, don't be a spoil-sport, we are all eager to hear this evidence I am sure.

OMG he didn't just put "evidence" and "for the existence of a creator" right next to each other? :suspicious:

:picard facepalm:
Is it a fact that life arose from inanimate matter as a result of purely naturalistic means, that is to say, without the assistance of any god or deity or spiritual entity?

You assume too much.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:39:12 AM
Yes, and there could be more than one Tooth Fairy.  There could be multiple Tooth Fairies.

How come I only got one coin per tooth then?

Quote
My definition of "life" would be in line with the definition found in your average dictionary. 

Ok, so this is from thefreedicitionary.com:

Life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." (Bold mine)

Ok, that is a conservative definition which excludes things such as viruses, as they do not reproduce on their own and do not have their own metabolism. Just as 'species' can be a fuzzy concept, there is hardly a consensus on the definition of 'life'.

If the definition I added above is how you would define 'life' then there is one problem. Definitions can be helpful but they can also hinder understanding.

For instance, having a metabolism. That would require a certain degree of complexity and compartmentalisation of processes. Which means that it would most likely be a cellular organism, with organelles. Such organisms, even the simpler bacterial cell, are already evolutionarily advanced. They are not the first self-replicating organic forms to have appeared on Earth. If you adopt the definition above, you are excluding the building blocks that lead to the first lifeforms.

QuoteHow does a machine with no intelligence reproduce itself?  I don't know, ask God.
Why would a machine with no intelligence reproduce itself?  I don't know, ask God.

God of the gaps...just not an attractive answer, but fairly typical for people like you. You can try and talk to this imaginary friend you think is your god but if you get an answer...then you've got issues. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey