News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

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: solidsquid on January 22, 2017, 02:35:55 PM
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. 

Very interesting!

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


Dave

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

Quote from: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 03:37:35 AMMichael Behe is not a Christian (as far as I know), but does believe in creation.

Michael Behe is a lifelong Roman Catholic, Dredge. I challenge you to cite even one example of a Creationist or supporter of "Intelligent Design" who is not a theist.
"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


Recusant

Thank you for the link to that paper, solidsquid, as well as your excellent post on how science operates.  :bravo:

I said previously, there will be many here who appreciate your effort, even if it is unlikely to have an effect on willfully ignorant people like the OP.
"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


No one

You see, "thought', is the operative word in your pictogram there silver. I mean after all.we are dealing with a creature whose collective reasoning ability is surpassed by a mentally challenged starfish.

Recusant

Quote from: solidsquid on January 22, 2017, 02:35:55 PM
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.

Now that I've read the paper, I'll say that I was a bit surprised by what they had to say about people's response to genetically modified food.

QuoteWe would also expect there to be no polarization along partisan lines for scientific findings that do not challenge anyone's worldview—and this is exactly what Kahan (2015) reported for risk attitudes toward a number of issues, among them artificial food coloring and sweeteners, cell phone radiation, genetically modified food, and exposure to high-voltage power lines.

It's seemed to me that the anti-GMO sentiment was mostly a phenomenon of the left. Apparently I was wrong--I'll have to try to see what the paper they cite has to say.
"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: Apathy on January 21, 2017, 05:25:21 AM
How does a person read what you just read from what Firebird said?
Er, you seemed to have missed the point.  The fact that they split the atom verifies the theory.  If they hadn't split the atom, the theory that you could split the atom would be unverified - there would be no way of knowing if it was a true theory or a false theory - in which case it would be just one more useless idea floating around in a world of other useless ideas.  Capisce?  It's not rocket surgery.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Recusant on January 21, 2017, 04:43:06 PM
You ignored the information that I gave which shows that scientists have learned about the primordial atmosphere.
It doesn't matter what scientists have "learned" about the primodial atmosphere - there is no way of knowing that is correct.  In a thousand years' time, it's possible that what was considered "learned" in 2017 will be considered primitively ignorant and obsolete.

Any research into abiogenesis must have a starting point, and that starting point is knowing the exact chemical ingredients that the alleged process began with.  This is fundamental. 

QuoteScientific evidence is used in courtrooms every day ... 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.
Imagine if a lawyer were stupid and deluded enough to attempt to use the compostion of the primodial atmosphere as evidence in some (hypothetical) courtcase - he'd be laughed out of the buliding! 

QuoteI showed that scientists have indeed produced testable hypotheses of abiogenesis, and have performed successful experiments based on those hypotheses.
Show me reproductive life arising from inanimate matter or don't bother me with worthless, space cadet theorising.

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.
Quote from: Recusant on January 21, 2017, 04:43:06 PMIf you were willing to spend some time learning about this topic, you'd be able to offer more than your suspicions. 
I will do more research on this matter and I will be very, very surprised if I find that this field of research is not swimming in never-ending controversy.  The ambiguous and untestable nature of the subject matter virtually guarantees it.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

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.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

#219
Quote from: Recusant on January 22, 2017, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 03:37:35 AMMichael Behe is not a Christian (as far as I know), but does believe in creation.

Michael Behe is a lifelong Roman Catholic, Dredge. I challenge you to cite even one example of a Creationist or supporter of "Intelligent Design" who is not a theist.
Well, thank you very much for that (I couldn't find any info on his spiritual beliefs,  which is why I said "as far as I know"). This is great news - here is a real Catholic whom I can respect!  Now I'm an even bigger fan of Mr. Behe.  I must write to him!

I would certainly agree that it would be very unusual to find creationists or ID-ers who aren't theists.  But what about the atheist, Francis Crick?  He believed that DNA was too complex to have formed by chance and concluded that aliens must have made it - this is belief in Intelligent Design, is it not?
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Arturo

Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 05:18:55 AM
Quote from: Apathy on January 21, 2017, 05:25:21 AM
How does a person read what you just read from what Firebird said?
Er, you seemed to have missed the point.  The fact that they split the atom verifies the theory.  If they hadn't split the atom, the theory that you could split the atom would be unverified - there would be no way of knowing if it was a true theory or a false theory - in which case it would be just one more useless idea floating around in a world of other useless ideas.  Capisce?  It's not rocket surgery.

Lol what are you even talking about
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Asmodean

Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 06:15:59 AM
I would certainly agree that it would be very unusual to find creationists or ID-ers who aren't theists.  But what about the atheist, Francis Crick?  He believed that DNA was too complex to have formed by chance and concluded that aliens must have made it - this is belief in Intelligent Design, is it not?
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."

The outcome of flipping a coin made from pure mathematics is chance occurrence. In the physical world, few things are. Many come as close as makes no difference for us humans, but operating on a supermolecular to stellar scale we have evolved to sort-of understand, it usually is not quite so simple as "chance did it."

We don't know all the details, true, but to the best of our knowledge, DNA is a product of chance as much as* carbon is, or a dolphin, or a quartz crystal.

*Yes, if you go into detail, there are elements of probability involved, but on the scale presented above, it is largely irrelevant.

"Aliens!" is as weak an explanation as gods. More plausible, yes, but very weak. This is, by the way, a nice illustration of why most serious people put very little stock in arguments from authority. Authority may very well be wrong. Darwin was wrong about genetics, Einstein was wrong about the expansion of the Universe, I am probably wrong about a whole mess of things. How do I deal with this uncertainty? Easily enough; I change my mind in accordance with evidence. When it comes to explaining reality, my standard of evidence is scientific.

Also, still working on the speciation post. The first attempt resulted in too much of an ungainly behemoth, but I think I'm closing in on popularizing speciation.
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.

Firebird

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.
Ahh, so you're engaging in special pleading. Where are those goalposts now? Moved so far I can't even see them anymore.
"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 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.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

#224
Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 05:47:33 AM
It doesn't matter what scientists have "learned" about the primodial atmosphere - there is no way of knowing that is correct.  In a thousand years' time, it's possible that what was considered "learned" in 2017 will be considered primitively ignorant and obsolete.

You can dismiss knowledge gained by examining empirical evidence all you want, Dredge. Doing so is just another example of the willful ignorance you've been parading through this thread as if it were something to be proud of.

Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 05:47:33 AMAny research into abiogenesis must have a starting point, and that starting point is knowing the exact chemical ingredients that the alleged process began with.  This is fundamental.

When you've spent some time learning about science and abiogenesis research you might have a valid criticism to make. Your habit of pontificating about things you refuse to acknowledge and don't understand is mildly amusing, but it's wearing thin.

Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 05:47:33 AM
QuoteScientific evidence is used in courtrooms every day ... 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.
Imagine if a lawyer were stupid and deluded enough to attempt to use the compostion of the primodial atmosphere as evidence in some (hypothetical) courtcase - he'd be laughed out of the buliding!

Your response doesn't address what I said, Dredge. Your speculation about courtrooms is barely worth the pixels it's made of.

Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 05:47:33 AM
QuoteI showed that scientists have indeed produced testable hypotheses of abiogenesis, and have performed successful experiments based on those hypotheses.
Show me reproductive life arising from inanimate matter or don't bother me with worthless, space cadet theorising.

Thank you for declaring that you're not interested in learning about this field. While that is certainly convenient for your approach of arguing from ignorance, it also makes it obvious that you don't have anything interesting to say.

Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 05:47:33 AMI will do more research on this matter and I will be very, very surprised if I find that this field of research is not swimming in never-ending controversy.  The ambiguous and untestable nature of the subject matter virtually guarantees it.

I don't think you'll actually try to learn what scientists in the field are doing, Dredge. At the most, I think you'll go to notoriously dishonest sources like "Answers in Genesis" and come back to regurgitate their lies. Go ahead and surprise me.

Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 06:15:59 AMWell, thank you very much for that (I couldn't find any info on his spiritual beliefs,  which is why I said "as far as I know"). This is great news - here is a real Catholic whom I can respect!  Now I'm an even bigger fan of Mr. Behe.  I must write to him!

It's very easy to learn what Behe's religion is, Dredge. I don't believe that you ever bothered to try to find this information, instead you were bullshitting. If you take one thing away from your experience on this site, maybe it will be that bullshitting doesn't really work. Given the propensity for dishonesty you've displayed here, I doubt you'll learn even that.

Quote from: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 06:15:59 AMBut what about the atheist, Francis Crick?  He believed that DNA was too complex to have formed by chance and concluded that aliens must have made it - this is belief in Intelligent Design, is it not?
You're lying again. Crick didn't "conclude" that aliens seeded the Earth, he offered that idea speculatively; he considered it "not totally improbable." He also basically admitted that the idea was nothing more than science fiction. "Aliens did it" only begs the question: whence the aliens? Crick's thoughts on that question had nothing to do with a supernatural origin--he speculated that other planets could be more hospitable to the natural occurrence of life.

Do you notice a recurring theme here? Crick was not offering the idea as a solid scientific explanation of the origin of life. He was speculating on possibilities.

I 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. In any case, Crick's field was not abiogenesis, so citing him as an authority on the subject is rather pointless.
"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