News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave

Quote from: Apathy on January 21, 2017, 12:41:02 PM
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...


I should have added a wink!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dave

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 21, 2017, 02:50:01 PM
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:

He either hasn't the faintest idea of the nature of science or he is just pulling our, er, legs.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Gloucester on January 21, 2017, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 21, 2017, 02:50:01 PM
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:

He either hasn't the faintest idea of the nature of science or he is just pulling our, er, legs.

I think his ignorance is sincere, but willful.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Firebird

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).

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

Recusant

#199
Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:30:33 AM
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!

You asserted that "no one can possibly know" about the composition of the Earth's "primordial soup" billions of years ago. I showed that your assertion is based in ignorance--scientists have developed the means to learn about the primordial Earth.

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:30:33 AMLet 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!

By requiring absolute certainty from the discoveries of science you show that you don't understand how science works. The original point stands; you were incorrect when you asserted that no one can possibly know about the early Earth.

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:30:33 AMThe 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.

Between abject ignorance and 100% certainty there is a lot of territory that you're doing your best to ignore. Science works with empirical evidence, and its findings based on evidence have much more validity than "educated guesses." The discoveries that have been made about the early atmosphere of our planet are the result of examination of empirical evidence, and while there is always room for more to be learned, that knowledge cannot reasonably be dismissed just because it isn't infallible.

Many of the scientists who are working to learn about how life originally started here are involved in projects that don't depend on having a precise knowledge of the early atmosphere of Earth, nor even the "chemical soup" that you keep focussing on. Even after being given the opportunity in this thread, it's obvious that you haven't bothered to try to learn about abiogenesis research, preferring to savage your straw man version of it.

Your repeated use of derogatory terms is a transparent attempt to make yourself feel superior, and it doesn't help your argument. The fact that you employ such polemics rather than sound argument merely demonstrates how feeble your position actually is.

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:30:33 AM
QuoteI 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.

Scientific evidence is used in courtrooms every day, Dredge. Despite your attempt to hold science to an impossible standard of infallibility, the fact is that it produces very reliable results that all of us depend on in our lives. Computer modelling is a valid means of scientific experimentation as long as its limitations are taken into account.

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:30:33 AM
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?

New points are fine, Dredge, it's just that I'd prefer you introduce them in an honest manner. In fact, I'm pleased when you bring up new points, because once I've shown that your earlier arguments are failures, it's tedious to have to go over that same ground repeatedly.

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:30:33 AMBesides that, I suspect that many of the results of abiogenesis experiments are controversial and that there is little consensus on the experiments among researchers.
If you were willing to spend some time learning about this topic, you'd be able to offer more than your suspicions. 

Quote from: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:30:33 AMBut 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.

I don't know who you think you're kidding, Dredge. Even when such an experiment proves successful, I'm pretty sure that you'd be able to come up with reasons to dismiss it. Those reasons may be spurious and based on inaccurate understanding, but your posts in this thread show you don't let such things stand in your way.

"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


Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 21, 2017, 02:48:19 PM
: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.
Kenneth Miller is a Roman Catholic who opposes creationism (ie, the literal interpretation of Genesis which rejects evolution).  But Miller believes that the Christian God created the universe and everything in it,  so he is a creationist, which is why he qualifies to be on my list. 

Personally, Miller is the sort of deceived "Catholic" whose erroneous theistic-evolution views I detest.  The only reason I put him on my list was to see if I could get a "lol"-type response from anyone.  I did.

Michael Behe is not a Christian (as far as I know), but does believe in creation.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

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?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

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?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Pasta Chick on January 21, 2017, 04:40:51 AM
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?
Evolutionists are very fond of taking "evidence" and extrapolating it to reach an unreasonable conclusion.  For example, a species may split into different strains, therefore it's possible for an entirely new species to come into existence.  I say,  Maybe, but maybe not. 

Let me ask you this: Can the current world record for running the 100m sprint be broken?  If you say, "Yes, it can", why do you believe it can?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 03:37:35 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 21, 2017, 02:48:19 PM
: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.
Kenneth Miller is a Roman Catholic who opposes creationism (ie, the literal interpretation of Genesis which rejects evolution).  But Miller believes that the Christian God created the universe and everything in it,  so he is a creationist, which is why he qualifies to be on my list. 

Personally, Miller is the sort of deceived "Catholic" whose erroneous theistic-evolution views I detest.  The only reason I put him on my list was to see if I could get a "lol"-type response from anyone.  I did.

Michael Behe is not a Christian (as far as I know), but does believe in creation.

We are taking about biological evolution here, not cosmological evolution.  ::) You do know there is a difference, right?

Personally I don't care that you think he and other Christians like him are misguided, so I won't go there.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

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.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

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?

Mosquitos are seeking iron in order to develop their eggs. Or, you could look at the alternative: God is telling you to be more humble by sending hordes of mosquitos carrying viruses that specifically infect human cells (which he created, since they didnt evolve). :smilenod:

It's slightly ironic, because the Dunning-Kruger Effect also applies to sense of humour. You don't seem to be of aware of the fact that you're simply not funny. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Firebird

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

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?

Naw, you just smell like prime mosquitoe bait.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/why-mosquitoes-seem-bite-some-people-more/
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

solidsquid

Interestingly, I just came back from a conference where I attended a seminar which talked about anti-science attitudes and the underlying psychological framework for what was termed the "motivated rejection of science" – among the usual suspects such as climate change and genetically modified food was also evolutionary theory.  It was quite an interesting talk and wished I could have recorded it.

Anyhow, to the items being discussed at hand, I've mixed some new information with some cut and pastes from older posts I've made on the subject – yes, because I'm lazy at the moment.

First let's understand that science is theory driven.  A theory is not some half-assed guess someone made on their couch while smoking a doobie.  A theory is a framework of information that has explanatory power.  For instance, a well-known theory is the germ theory of disease – you get an infection, you can get sick which is a much better explanation that a misalignment of chakras or too much of some certain color bile.  The origins of the theory can be traced back to ancient Greece, however, the basis for the modern theory began with the invention of microscopy and direct observation of microorganisms in the 1600s.  Around that time, some smart folks deduced that these little buggers may cause illness.  However, it wasn't until the 1800s, that we know of, that actual experimentation was carried out to test this idea, some of the more famous being done by good ole Louis Pasteur. A bit later Robert Koch developed his postulates to determine if a microorganism is responsible for a particular disease.

In a nutshell, this theory started out as an idea, formulated upon what was known at the time.  Technological advances made inquiry into the idea much easier and available.  Some experiments were designed to test specific hypotheses related to the idea.  Over time with repeated experimental confirmation, we have a theory being built.  That is not to say that theories are static in nature, they are not.  They change as the more evidence comes to light – quite often the general theory does not change but specific details within it most often do.  That is also not to say that some theories are fairly robust and change very little, some are pretty much solid like Newton's laws of motion which, obviously, has a large number of applications.  So too with the germ theory especially in public health and medicine as well as sanitation.

The construction of a scientific theory takes much more than simply coming up with an idea. Theories are built over time through methodological inquiry.  As the mathematician Poincare (1905) stated in his La Science et l'hypothèse (Science and Hypothesis), "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house".  Poincare's point was the importance of a theoretical framework which can organize the facts in a useful way.

Science philosopher Patrick Suppes (1967) states that theories are of two parts: one part "logical calculus" and a second part called the "co-ordinating definitions".  He notes that theories are dependent upon constituent parts - statistical and experimental methodology being amongst these parts.  He also notes in his conclusion that, "testing the fundamental theory is an essential ingredient of any sophisticated scientific discipline" (p. 64).

What did Suppes mean by "logical calculus"?  The logical calculus consists of the base axioms (as Suppes referred to them) or rather the facts with which the theoretical framework is constructed – or as in Poincare's example, the stones with which the house is built.  Therefore the coordinating definitions are the "empirical interpretations" as Suppes calls them which would be the product of the experimental and statistical methodologies.

Along that same line, there also seems to be some confusion over what is "observed" in science. Science is a process of inquiry that it not restricted to simple direct observation in the immediate moment.  The very term "observation" is often equivocated as it has a specific meaning within a scientific context.  To observe in science does not necessarily mean that one must physically "see" something with their eyes, this is one means of "direct observation".  Processes and instruments have been developed to extend our ability to observe far beyond our own sensory capabilities.  We can observe trends in populations by examining various forms of data.  We can create reconstructions based upon collected data and even make predictions.  To say that science is only limited to the "here and now" and anything outside of this is pure "assumption" is incorrect.

The laymanistic concept of observation is to watch – to "see" something occur as an active observer with one's own eyes. Such is based on a version of scientific methodology in simplified terms everyone is introduced to as a child and continually given throughout much of their public education. However, it is not that simplistic.

Observation itself in the context of science is not limited to seeing the "here and now". Were it to be limited by this, our knowledge itself would be severely limited.

Observation can be divided into two major categories – direct and indirect. Direct observation would encompass the "here and now" idea. An example, as mentioned previously, would be a primatologist such as Jane Goodall observing her chimps in their day to day activities. Another would be a chemist observing the reaction directly.

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. We have indirect observation of a larger process.

References:

Poincare, H. (1905). Science and Hypothesis. New York, NY: Walter Scott Publishing.

Suppes, P. (1967). What is a scientific theory?  In S. Morgensbesser (Ed.), Philosophy of
Science Today
(pp. 55-67). New York, NY: Basic Books.