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

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:10:04 AM
Quote from: Davin on January 12, 2017, 02:11:57 PM
You don't understand science, so judgments from you about science are worthless.
I understand enough about science to know that it can be abused to promote unscientific nonsense - which is why I only have faith in applied science.  Theoretical science is useless, so what am I missing out on by rejecting it?   Nothing, except an opportunity to indulge in potential fantasy. 
  For example, the much-celebrated "fact" that one species evolved from another species has no practical use whatsoever.  Perfect uselessness is exactly what one would expect from a theory that is false.

No, it's quite clear that you don't understand what science is or how it works.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Recusant

Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:01:54 AMScientists can speculate and theorise until the cows come home, but the fact remains that no one can know with certainty what was happening BILLIONS of years ago.

Science is not a means of knowing anything with absolute certainty. However, it is an effective means of exploring the universe and how it operates, and has produced a huge amount of practical information. 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.

Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:01:54 AMComputer models - the ultimate exercise in "paper" science.  Apparently they're infallible.  Are you telling me that no computer model has ever turned out to be wrong?

I didn't say that computer models are infallible. If you had a cogent and apposite response, I think you'd make it instead of resorting to blatant dishonesty as you have here.

Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:01:54 AMNot moving the goalposts at all.  Abiogenesis research is just a pie-in-the-sky talkfest unless scientists can actually come up with the only result that is worth anything - ie, abiogenesis itself; you know, a living, reproducing organism.  I wish them luck.

Your original statement:

Quote from: Dredge on January 08, 2017, 10:31:44 PMAbiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

I 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, Dredge.

None of your arguments in this thread from the OP on have been sound. You've engaged in dishonesty throughout, especially when it's been demonstrated that your assertions are incorrect. If your position was valid, you wouldn't have to resort to this type of tactic. In your time here you've consistently displayed a lack of intellectual integrity and have done nothing but exhibited the erroneous nature of your assertions. If your goal was to give the anti-abiogenesis position a bad name, you've done a fine job.
"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


xSilverPhinx

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


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:10:04 AM

  For example, the much-celebrated "fact" that one species evolved from another species has no practical use whatsoever.  Perfect uselessness is exactly what one would expect from a theory that is false.

Um...I don't mean to bust your creationist bubble, but speciation events have been observed.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 03:23:29 AM
Quote from: Firebird on January 15, 2017, 05:41:37 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 15, 2017, 04:20:18 AM

Once on land, the foal goes about finding its mother (using a combination of smell and horse-horse radar) and the rest is history. 
My apitude for science should be manifestly obvious to you by now.  Science is my calling.

OK, now I know you're trolling. At least I hope so, the alternative is too scary.
History is littered with great minds and great thoughts that went unappreciated and even laughed at and scorned.  My horse larvae theory is no more incredible that whale evolution.  I fully expect that one day my theory will be accepted as fact.

Since you are wholly ignorant on what science is and how it works, I'll help you out.
Look up falsifiability. Think about your ridiculous horse larvae theory again.

Can't say I have really high hopes for you, though.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Dave

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?

And please only list those who have a qualification relevant to having a learned opinion on the dichotomy between creationism/ID and evolution. Mathematicians etc are not academically qualified to comment, except in church of course - anything goes there so long as it agrees with faith.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Bad Penny II

#156
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2017, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:10:04 AM

  For example, the much-celebrated "fact" that one species evolved from another species has no practical use whatsoever.  Perfect uselessness is exactly what one would expect from a theory that is false.

Um...I don't mean to bust your creationist bubble, but speciation events have been observed.

Oh come on, you may call it irony but I call it disingenuousnousness.
You know you want to squish, we all know you want to squish.
You wont get over your compulsion until you're are open about it.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Dredge

Quote from: Apathy on January 18, 2017, 03:49:35 AMYou are not brilliant at science, your definition of science are the tenants for Christianity. And you cling to those tenants.
The word you need here is not "tenant", but "tenet".  A "tenant" is someone who occupies a residence, usually a rent-payer.  Look "tenet" up and learn.   See, I've taught you something already.

QuoteSo you can't be brilliant at science. If you were brilliant at anything, it would be Christianity but you can't properly identify what you value as Christianity, so you can't be brilliant with that either can you?
Many Christians are brilliant at science.  If they aren't brilliant at believing that a new species can evolve from an existing species, it is of no consequence, as speciation has no use in applied science.  Speciation is just a fruitless idea that atheists talk about around the water-cooler; it contributes nothing to real-word science.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Firebird on January 18, 2017, 04:39:56 AMAhh yes, the bullshit "distinction"  between applied vs theoretical, or as creationists call it, "historical" science. If you actually knew anything about science, you would know that no real scientist sees any distinction between the validity of the two. Even Ken Hamm admitted only the Answers in Genesis "scientists" thought there was a difference.
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.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Magdalena on January 18, 2017, 05:00:31 AM
I am pro-aging.
I am pro death.
I am pro ugliness.
You sound like a very happy and well-adjusted individual!
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Apathy on January 18, 2017, 06:07:46 AM
"Theoretical science is useless" Because theories are in no way better than the your speculation about starfish. But you'll use that in a post as a talking point instead of real, hard evidence backed science.
Your're right - theorectical science is as useless as my starfish story.  Now you're starting to think clearly! 
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Asmodean on January 18, 2017, 06:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:01:54 AM
fact remains that no one can know with certainty what was happening BILLIONS of years ago.
It's not a fact, it's a falsehood. We can, we do and we learn more every day.
We THINK we can, we THINK we do and we THINK we learn more every day, but we are DREAMERS and we DELUDE ourselves.  Show me dead matter turning into self-replicating life or go away and stop boring me to death with endless talk and theories.  Abiogenesis research is destined to forver be all talk and no action, ie, one big Y-A-W-N.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2017, 03:32:54 PMUm...I don't mean to bust your creationist bubble, but speciation events have been observed.
Such as?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Asmodean

#163
Damn and blast this connection... OK...

Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:42:46 AM
We THINK we can, we THINK we do and we THINK we learn more every day, but we are DREAMERS and we DELUDE ourselves.
No, "we" can, we do and we do. No. "we" are not.

QuoteShow me dead matter turning into self-replicating life
Life is heaps of "dead matter" arranged in a way that allows it to interact... Ah, why do I bother?

Not how it works. Read a book. Not that book.

Quoteor go away and stop boring me to death with endless talk and theories
No.

QuoteAbiogenesis research is destined to forver be all talk and no action, ie, one big Y-A-W-N.
No.

By the way, it will take a far better troll than you to successfully troll The Great Asmo. Now, back to science.

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?

That said, no, there is no difference in the validity of the experiment and the theory in the above example.

I'll try to popularize a little for you, just because I'm annoying and because other annoying people are as fascinated by it, if not more, as I am;

A theory predicts that there exists a heavy boson, which is unstable and, if created, decays into one of several particle pairs. Which particle pair you are likely to get, is a question of probability. It's a valid theory.

An experiment shows particle pairs being created as a result of something else decaying, something created in a high energy particle collision, but something with such a short life span that you cannot observe it directly. The particle pairs in question are different from attempt to attempt, but you are more likely to get one type than the other. It's a valid experiment.

What do both show? They show that there exists a certain subatomic particle. It is heavy and unstable, and it decays in a certain way. Further, and not covered by my basic example, they both show it to be of a certain mass or rather, within a certain mass range, which has further implications and is genuinely fascinating.

That particle is the Higgs boson, by the way, in case you wonder. If you are interested, I highly recommend some research into that, although to actually understand pretty much anything at all, you have to be at least somewhat fluent in mathematics.

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.

Arturo

#164
Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:12:12 AM
Quote from: Apathy on January 18, 2017, 03:49:35 AMYou are not brilliant at science, your definition of science are the tenants for Christianity. And you cling to those tenants.
The word you need here is not "tenant", but "tenet".  A "tenant" is someone who occupies a residence, usually a rent-payer.  Look "tenet" up and learn.   See, I've taught you something already.
What matters is the meaning of the word, not the way it's spelled as this is not a conversation about English. You are starting to go all over the place instead of confronting the actual point. However, you clearly understood what I communicated to you and did not retort. I will assume most actions will not bring you back to the point I brought forth to you and you will take it as a loss. Ok.
Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:12:12 AM
Quote from: Apathy on January 18, 2017, 03:49:35 AMSo you can't be brilliant at science. If you were brilliant at anything, it would be Christianity but you can't properly identify what you value as Christianity, so you can't be brilliant with that either can you?
Many Christians are brilliant at science.  If they aren't brilliant at believing that a new species can evolve from an existing species, it is of no consequence, as speciation has no use in applied science.  Speciation is just a fruitless idea that atheists talk about around the water-cooler; it contributes nothing to real-word science.
You're still assuming things. If you took one look around this forum you can tell we have no water coolers and we don't (hardly if ever) about speciation.
Quote from: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:30:41 AM
Quote from: Apathy on January 18, 2017, 06:07:46 AM
"Theoretical science is useless" Because theories are in no way better than the your speculation about starfish. But you'll use that in a post as a talking point instead of real, hard evidence backed science.
Your're right - theorectical science is as useless as my starfish story.  Now you're starting to think clearly! 
Now you're misrepresenting the point of my sarcasm. Whether intentional or not, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that now you are showing that you're making things up in your head to add meaning where it doesn't belong. So now that we've confronted your cognitive bias, what do we do about it? Maybe it's because of your LSD that you start to add such deluded meaning to mundane interactions. I would think as much. Probably why you've gone on this long as well. You don't tire because your mind is constantly stimulated. Prepare for the crash, it will hurt more every time it happens.


[Fixed quote tag. - R]
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱