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

Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 02:23:34 AM
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.
What do you mean?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 02:58:32 AM
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?
If there are multiple Tooth Fairies, they probably have a system which prevents one tooth receiving a coin from more than one Fairy. 
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Gloucester on January 26, 2017, 09:47:45 PM
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!
Thank you very much for your concern and your advice, kind soul.  Your stripey shirt / zebra theory makes a lot of scientific sense.  

By the way, do you think there might be an evolutionary link between mosquitos and zebras?  If one ignoes the size differential, these two creatures look remarkably similar ... and zebras are known to suck the blood of other creatures when grass is scarce.  Science is fascinating, n'est-ce pas?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Asmodean on January 26, 2017, 08:02:22 AM
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
Oh, I see what you're saying: If it's not random nor chance, it must be ... design.  I agree!

-------------------------------------
It something appears designed, is is more logical to conclude that it is designed, or to conclude that is not designed?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Firebird on January 26, 2017, 09:20:42 PM
Might be Ken Ham :)
Ken Ham is a young earth creationist.  I am an old earth creationist.  Therefore I cannot be Ken Ham.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Firebird

Quote from: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:08:22 AM
It's an ugly and shameful history, no doubt about it.  But whatever horrors were committed by Catholics in those times pale into insignificance when compared to the pain, suffering, destruction and death wrought by communists in the twentieth century.  There's no need for me to remind anyone that communism was inherently and militantly atheistic.
Hitler and Stalin had mustaches too, so clearly they must be a danger as well.
That's tired old bullshit that is repeated ad nauseum by ill-informed religious people. Really, Communism elbowed aside religion mostly so they could take its place as the opiate of the masses, not because they were "militant atheists". You really don't bother to read for yourself, do you, just repeating what others have told you. Do you have a single original thought in your head?
"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 09:13:18 AM
That makes perfect sense. Tooth Fairies are therefore real.
I tend to agree with this, and the evidence is compelling, but how would one go about proving that Tooth Fairies don't exist?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Firebird

Quote from: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:37:02 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 09:13:18 AM
That makes perfect sense. Tooth Fairies are therefore real.
I tend to agree with this, and the evidence is compelling, but how would one go about proving that Tooth Fairies don't exist?

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

Asmodean

Quote from: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:28:26 AM
Oh, I see what you're saying: If it's not random nor chance, it must be ... design.  I agree!
Yes, I used the word because you seem to like and understand it, but note the way in which I used it. It's design with no designer and no underlying plan. Natural design, you may call it, I suppose, as opposed to intelligent design.

Quote
It something appears designed, is is more logical to conclude that it is designed, or to conclude that is not designed?
It is not logical to conclude that something is what it appears to be based on that appearance. If anything, it's apophenic.

In the case of the Universe, life or human eye, for that matter, they sort-of only appear designed to those without the knowledge or understanding of their workings. A quartz crystal may appear designed to the same sort of person too;

"But how did nature know to give them those precise angles and pencil-points?" they may ask. Well... It didn't. The structure of those crystals is a result of an utterly mindless and non-deliberate, yet predictable and non-random process.

Yes, you can call it "design," but then you may need to do what I am currently doing - address and re-address a semantic argument, the next point of which is often "Yes, and design assumes a designER." -No. It does not. If you think it does, then you have not actually understood much of what I wrote and the games go on.
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.

Dave

Yup, take a diamond:


It isn't designed, it''s that shape because the atoms in its particular allotrope are stable forming that shape. If it was C60 it would form a Buckey ball, not an octohedron.

Why, because atoms only attach in certain ways at certain angles to each other. We can predict this and even make unnatural allotrope from that knowledge.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:08:22 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 02:22:34 AM
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.
It's an ugly and shameful history, no doubt about it.  But whatever horrors were committed by Catholics in those times pale into insignificance when compared to the pain, suffering, destruction and death wrought by communists in the twentieth century.  There's no need for me to remind anyone that communism was inherently and militantly atheistic.

Yeah, the communists raised their flags on which "for no god" was written as they wrought pain, suffering, destruction and death. Something that doesn't exist is something you fight for!

Just because an ideology is atheistic doesn't mean atheism was the driving force. You're forgetting that there were other factors involved, such as cult of personality. Not that cult of personality is incompatible with religion, such as the case of good ol' Hitler who was buddies with the Catholic Church.   

Quote
QuoteWhether 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.
New ideas are not always good ideas, nor truthful ideas.

Old ideas are not always good ideas, nor truthful ideas.

QuoteCatholics are not obliged to believe anything at all about evolution and many Catholics oppose it totally.   The day is coming when the Church will stop "sitting on the fence" and declare evolution to be incompatible with Scripture and therefore anathema to the faith. 

Does 'many' mean 'most'?
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:37:02 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 09:13:18 AM
That makes perfect sense. Tooth Fairies are therefore real.
I tend to agree with this, and the evidence is compelling, but how would one go about proving that Tooth Fairies don't exist?

You don't go about proving a negative. You would have to look under every noock and cranny in the universe to prove that Tooth Fairies didn't exist. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 02:23:34 AM
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.
What do you mean?

I misread your previous post. There are many hypothesis surrounding abiogenesis, it's a bit too early to talk about facts yet.

Plus, science is about measuring and describing naturalistic phenomena. Ever hear of non-overlapping magisteria?
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Bad Penny II

Quote from: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:28:26 AM-------------------------------------
It something appears designed, is is more logical to conclude that it is designed, or to conclude that is not designed?

Ask your need grasshopper.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

solidsquid

Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:24:51 AM
Quote from: solidsquid on January 26, 2017, 02:58:18 AM
post #209 - "Much of what is observed in science is not a "here and now" observation of a process. Plate tectonics is an example. We cannot actively sit and watch the continental plates move and shift – they move too slowly, centimeters per year. Our observations from many other aspects of the process are culled together to provide us with the information on this process. Such is the same for evolution."

post #238 - Plate tectonics is a theory, just like the other theories I mentioned.
Ok, so what I think you're saying is, evolution is like plate tectonics - it is a theory and not a fact.  But  I've heard some people say evolution is a fact.  Is Darwinism a theory or a fact?  Is the general theory of evolution a theory or a fact?

Herein lies the problem - "theory" has a specific definition within the context of the fields of science.  It is different from the colloquial use for the term which is equivalent to a "guess" or a "hunch".  When it is used to speak of a scientific theory it refers to an explanatory framework that has been built upon by numerous researchers that have provided to the shaping of it by testing different aspects of that construct.  Facts are much more simplistic such as humans need to extract oxygen from the air to survive.  It is a very narrow piece of information and has no explanatory power outside of what it states.  A theory, like I mentioned before, has facts as its building blocks but put together in a fashion that allows it to explain natural phenomena.

People play loose and fast with the word fact as much as they do theory.  Informally a fact is often though of a indisputable - it simply is. However, in science, nothing is absolutely indisputable or irrefutable as science makes use of probability.  Playing with immutable concepts does nothing to further methodological inquiry.  This is why so many people doubt many aspects of science because they are thinking in a very dichotomous (black/white) state of mind when in reality there are infinite shades of gray.  This is where the "x theory is a fact" comes into play when translating that information from the science field to a public, non-scientific audience.  In order to not let there be a misunderstanding about the field of biology's (and many others') stance on the veracity of evolutionary theory, many scientists with say it is fact.  That means, in a scientific frame that many of the facets of the theory have been tested, predictions validated, weaknesses identified and revised and so forth.

So essentially it is not that these theories are questionable or are pseudo-science as you mentioned but it is really a miscommunication of the language involved between two different groups.  To let you know how important it is, there are educational workshops (I have even attended a couple myself) for researchers that focus on explaining the goals, expectations, and results of projects to the general public for the very reasons I just mentioned above.

Nevertheless, the issue still remains when people ask the very questions you did, get a similar explanation as above, and then proceed to say something like, "...well, you didn't answer my question".  That simply lets me know they weren't paying attention or were actively ignoring the explanation.  Quite often simple questions require complicated answers and, by and large, people don't like complicated answers so they fall back onto simple heuristics as they are quickly accessible and light on the cognitive load.