News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic

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

Previous topic - Next topic

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:46:59 AM
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.

:picard facepalm:

I've facepalmed so often due to this thread that I've got the mark on my forehead now.

Dredge, your world is so limited if you think that.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Father Bruno on January 26, 2017, 07:36:43 PM
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

:lol: That's great.  8)
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Dredge

Quote from: Apathy on January 25, 2017, 10:41:07 AM


You sure you what you're talking about? Even though you stopped talking to me, you misquoted me for someone else just so you could get my attention. It seems you have a fascination with me. I don't think we are at that level in our relationship right now. So kindly, stop stalking my Facebook and sending me crude messages every 5 minutes. It's annoying and makes me like you less.
I've stopped talking to you?  I misquoted you?  I'm stalking you on Facebook?!?!   Huh?  Mi non capisco!  I've never been on Facebook in my life.  Isn't it some kinda chit-chat network for lonely hearts?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Recusant on January 23, 2017, 03:28:12 PM
When you've spent some time learning about science and abiogenesis research you might have a valid criticism to make.
I love applied science but I'm not interested in "learning" about delusional pseudo-science, any more than I am interested in Star Wars movies.   Furthermore, abiogenesis research is utterly useless, so I'm not missing out on anything by ignoring such pretentious, futile nonsense.  Being ignorant of abiogenesis research is no better or worse than being ignorant of flying horse research.

QuoteYou're lying again. Crick didn't "conclude" that aliens seeded the Earth ... Crick's thoughts on that question had nothing to do with a supernatural origin
Lying? ... again?  I didn't know that!  But thank you for the information.
-----------------------------
I don't believe were talking about supernatutural orign, but intelligent design.
QuoteCrick was not offering the idea as a solid scientific explanation of the origin of life. He was speculating on possibilities.
It could be argued that Crick seriously considered the possibility of alien seeding only because he realized that abiogenesis was too scientifically problematic to explain.
Dawkins also seriously entertains thoughts about aliens seeding the earth.  As did Sagan.   Nonsense begets more nonsense, even in otherwise formidable minds, sadly.

  "Nothing illustrates clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia" - Michael Denton

QuoteI challenge you to find a quote in which Crick actually says that DNA is too complex to have arisen naturally. I've read plenty of dishonest sources that take things he said and distort them to arrive at that interpretation, but none of their quotes from him actually say that.
You win.  It seems that I have confused Francis Crick with Antony Flew, the atheist philosopher who  "turned".   In 2004, Flew declared that he "now accepted the existence of a God ... almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.  What I think the DNA material has done is it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.  It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together.  The meeting of these two parts at the same time is simply minute.  It's all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence" and "In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of 
reason and not of faith."
-----------------------------------------

Incidentally, there are no "authorities" on abiogenesis because human beings are hopelessly out of their depth and clueless regarding this mystery ... like little children trying to figure out the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor; a wild goose chase.   No one will ever be able to make life arose from inanimate matter, because no one will ever figure out how it happened.

 The bottom line is, anyone who takes abiogenesis research seriously has very low standards of scientific rigour and is motivated by reasons other than science.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

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?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dave

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?

It's a franchise, they don't deliver outside their designated area.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dave

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 02:58:32 AM
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'.
But them there "life free" viruses still share the same DNA components we do - they can deconstruct our DNA and use the bits to build copies of themseves. Thus viruses are still related to us from as long ago as DNA developed.

Prions, self-replicating proteins that are infectious and cause diseases that include Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, are even simpler, even more "primitive", even closer to random chemistry coming up with something unusual. Or did your god "design" these as well?

He was a rotten bastard if he did!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Arturo

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?

It's a fact because it's repeatedly observed and confirmed. It's also a theory because it explains other observations in nature.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Gloucester on January 27, 2017, 08:39:46 AM
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?

It's a franchise, they don't deliver outside their designated area.

That makes perfect sense. Tooth Fairies are therefore real.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

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?

Evolution is a just as much a theory as germ theory is, or gravity.

You see how inadequate your understanding of science is? Darwinism is so last century, a LOT has been discovered since then which doesn't negate it but complements it. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Asmodean

Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:24:51 AM
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?

Wrong dichotomy. Theory of A and A-the-fact are not at all mutually exclusive. The former does not become the latter "when we are all sure-like."

Gravity is a pretty well-verified "thing." Not as well-verified as evolution, but still to a very much acceptable degree, making it a fact. It is explained by Gravitational theory. It is explained even better by the theory of General Relativity, although that one does not have the word "gravity" in its name.

By much the same semantic processes, the word "evolution" may refer to a "thing," which in this case is the process of evolution or its results. This is evolution the fact. Or the word may refer to the understanding of that process and its results, its predictions, etc - evolution the theory.

Scientific facts are comparatively weak when stacked against scientific theories. That is part of the reason why you hear a lot more about the theory of evolution than the fact of evolution. Let me explain what I mean by "weak" by the way; facts in science are "just" occurrences of something, which have been observed and verified. Thus, the word "fact" in this sense carries no explanatory or predictive power.

Thus, and to answer your question in simple terms, no, the theory of evolution is not a fact. The fact of evolution is a fact.
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.

Recusant

#266
Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:08:51 AM
Quote from: Recusant on January 23, 2017, 03:28:12 PM
When you've spent some time learning about science and abiogenesis research you might have a valid criticism to make.
I love applied science but I'm not interested in "learning" about delusional pseudo-science, any more than I am interested in Star Wars movies.   Furthermore, abiogenesis research is utterly useless, so I'm not missing out on anything by ignoring such pretentious, futile nonsense.  Being ignorant of abiogenesis research is no better or worse than being ignorant of flying horse research.

That's OK, Dredge. I've accepted the fact that you're firmly entrenched in your willful ignorance and that your position in regard to this topic has no basis in reality. You never had a sound argument to make, and as long as you refuse to learn, you never will.

Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:08:51 AM
Quote from: Recusant on January 23, 2017, 03:28:12 PMYou're lying again. Crick didn't "conclude" that aliens seeded the Earth ... Crick's thoughts on that question had nothing to do with a supernatural origin [. . .]

Lying? ... again?  I didn't know that!  But thank you for the information.
-----------------------------
I don't believe were talking about supernatutural orign, but intelligent design.

You were lying about Crick, and by selective quotation, you're now lying about what I said. Crick was smart enough to realize that even if we were to believe that aliens had seeded life on Earth, the question of the origin of life still remains. He speculated that there might be planets in the Universe that are super-hospitable to life, such that life would inevitably arise on them. All he was doing was moving abiogenesis elsewhere. Crick's speculations do not actually support Intelligent Design of any sort, natural or supernatural.

Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:08:51 AM
Quote from: Recusant on January 23, 2017, 03:28:12 PMCrick was not offering the idea as a solid scientific explanation of the origin of life. He was speculating on possibilities.
It could be argued that Crick seriously considered the possibility of alien seeding only because he realized that abiogenesis was too scientifically problematic to explain.
Dawkins also seriously entertains thoughts about aliens seeding the earth.  As did Sagan.   Nonsense begets more nonsense, even in otherwise formidable minds, sadly.

It could be so argued, but that argument would be dishonest.

You assert that Dawkins and Sagan "seriously" entertained thoughts about "aliens seeding the earth," but you've provided no evidence to support that assertion. Given your track record of deceit here, unsupported assertions coming from you can be dismissed out of hand. For one thing, panspermia ≠ aliens seeding the Earth. When somebody speculates about panspermia, they may be talking about a purely natural process that has nothing to do with intelligence of any kind. For another, even if Dawkins and Sagan gave serious thought to the idea of panspermia, that doesn't mean they found it plausible.

Your flailing attempts at argument in this thread are boring, Dredge, but there is some amusement in showing how undeviating you are in resorting to lies, including the above mendacity about Dawkins and Sagan.

Dawkins' actual position on panspermia:

QuoteI've always expressed my strong scepticism of panspermia. It's only slightly more plausible than divine creation.

Sagan actually wrote a review of Crick's book on "directed panspermia."

QuoteFor myself, the idea that life arises on many worlds through the interaction of matter and energy - that is, by the consequences of the laws of physics and chemistry - seems a sufficiently ennobling prospect to satisfy anyone's predilections for the holy, and embraces that awe for the intricacy and subtlety of the cosmos which Einstein described as the deepest of religious feelings.

[. . .]

Only a real failure in our ability to explain the origin of life through prebiological organic chemistry on the primitive Earth would point us toward Directed Panspermia. Nothing like such a failure exists today; indeed, my reading of the evidence makes the prospect of understanding the origin of life by indigenous processes quite hopeful.

[. . .]

Darwin got the hereditary mechanism wrong (although his contemporary Gregor Mendel was on the correct track) but, in my opinion, the origin of life right; while for Mr. Crick, I believe it is just the other way around. Darwin wrote: ''But if (and oh what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.''

Carl Sagan was not a proponent of panspermia of any kind, natural or directed by aliens.

Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:08:51 AM"Nothing illustrates clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia" - Michael Denton

That's a nice vague quote. What "world authorities" is he talking about? In which fields of investigation are they authorities? I expect you have no idea, because you likely found that quote in Creationist literature or on a Creationist site and thought it sounded good. I honestly don't know either, and since I'm well aware that Denton's criticisms of the theory of evolution are characterized by a dishonest approach to the topic, I'm not going to waste time trying to find out. There's no reason to believe that his statement about "world authorities" and abiogenesis would be accurate.

Dishonesty is endemic among Creationists and their fellow travellers; it's clear that they don't have any solid arguments for their position and since they desperately need to cling to their beliefs, they're willing to lie in their dismally futile efforts to justify those beliefs.

QuoteAbuses typical of creation science literature abound [in Denton's book]: evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn.

Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:08:51 AM
Quote from: Recusant on January 23, 2017, 03:28:12 PMI challenge you to find a quote in which Crick actually says that DNA is too complex to have arisen naturally. I've read plenty of dishonest sources that take things he said and distort them to arrive at that interpretation, but none of their quotes from him actually say that.
You win.  It seems that I have confused Francis Crick with Antony Flew, the atheist philosopher who  "turned".   In 2004, Flew declared that he "now accepted the existence of a God ... almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.  What I think the DNA material has done is it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.  It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together.  The meeting of these two parts at the same time is simply minute.  It's all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence" and "In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith."

Less than a year later, Flew retracted that statement:

QuoteI now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:08:51 AMIncidentally, there are no "authorities" on abiogenesis because human beings are hopelessly out of their depth and clueless regarding this mystery

Somebody is "out of their depth and clueless," Dredge, but it is not the scientists who are investigating hypotheses of abiogenesis.

Quote from: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:08:51 AM... like little children trying to figure out the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor; a wild goose chase.   No one will ever be able to make life arose from inanimate matter, because no one will ever figure out how it happened.

The bottom line is, anyone who takes abiogenesis research seriously has very low standards of scientific rigour and is motivated by reasons other than science.

Since you refuse to learn about this topic, your assertions regarding it are baseless and therefore completely worthless.

"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


Icarus

I will not stick my oar into this mini maelstrom, the HAFers who are playing the game are doing as well as can be expected with a stubborn troll.

Coincidentally I have been reading Voyage of the Beagle for the third time. The first time was maybe 70 years ago.  Old Charlie D was a hell of an adventurous dude, pretty clever too. He tromped around Brazil, Argentina, and Patagonia at great length.....and risk.  His Galapagos biologic and geologic observations were only a part  of his scholarly writings. Dredge ought to read that book.

Dredge

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.

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.
--------------------------------
Catholics 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.  
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 03:06:22 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:46:59 AM
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.

:picard facepalm:

I've facepalmed so often due to this thread that I've got the mark on my forehead now.

Dredge, your world is so limited if you think that.
What other alternative to chance is there besides design?  Enlighten me.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.